Do we need to know about cyberscams in neurorehabilitation? A cross-sectional scoping survey of Australasian clinicians and service providers
Gould, Kate Rachel ; Carolan, Matthew ; Ponsford, Jennie Louise (2022) — Brain Impairment
Country:
Australia
Synopsis (AI-Generated)
Cybercrime affecting people with acquired brain injury (ABI) is examined through the lens of neurorehabilitation in this cross-sectional scoping survey. The study aims to determine whether clinicians working with adults who have ABI encounter cyberscams, identify contributing risk factors and impacts, and evaluate views on prevention and treatment approaches. Conducted across Australia and New Zealand, the online survey gathered responses from 101 clinicians and service providers working in multidisciplinary contexts, with ethics approval and digital consent obtained. Findings indicate that just over half of the respondents reported one or more clients affected by cyberscams, with romance scams being most common. Participants noted that cognitive impairments and loneliness were associated with increased vulnerability to such scams. Cyberscams also influenced how treatment was delivered and posed emotional challenges for clinicians themselves. Across the surveyed group, no intervention emerged as highly effective in addressing the combined financial and psychological harms of cyberscam victimization. The researchers conclude that cyberscams constitute a clinical issue pertinent to neurorehabilitation providers, and call for prevalence studies to gauge scope and impact. They emphasize the current gap in effective interventions and underscore the need to develop evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies to help people with ABI participate in online life more safely. This study highlights an area in need of systematic investigation and practical guidance for clinicians supporting individuals at risk of cyberscams.
Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)
The paper identifies no available clinical guidance for cyberscam recovery after ABI, no known interventions addressing combined financial and psychological trauma, and no highly effective strategies identified by clinicians. It remains unclear whether clinicians recognise scams and use effective prevention/treatment approaches. Evidence is needed on scam frequency, whether ABI clients have a distinct scam profile, mechanisms of romance-scam vulnerability, and effectiveness of tailored resources and interventions.
Methods (AI-Generated)
Exploratory cross-sectional scoping survey of a convenience sample of 101 clinicians and community ABI workers in Australia and New Zealand (May–August 2019). A researcher-developed, piloted online Qualtrics survey gathered clinician demographics, self-rated cyberscam capacity, and reports on affected ABI clients, perceived vulnerabilities, impacts, and prevention/treatment effectiveness. Analyses were primarily descriptive; t-tests compared prevention and treatment ratings between clinicians with versus without cyberscam-case experience.
Limitations (AI-Generated)
Clinician/service-provider reports limited direct inference about ABI clients’ experiences and produced secondary, subjective cognitive-impairment ratings. The convenience/snowball sample had possible recruitment bias, including high Victoria and Tasmania responses; the response rate was unknown and prevalence could not be estimated. Other limitations were modest sample size, 50% incomplete surveys, no construct or criterion validity analyses, and possible overlap in cases reported by different clinicians.
Future Work (AI-Generated)
Conduct prevalence studies using first-person, representative data and validated self-report/objective measures of cyberscam vulnerability. Verify proposed mechanisms of romance-scam vulnerability in ABI, including loneliness, relationship desire, attention and cognitive fatigue. Develop and evaluate tailored prevention, treatment and psychological-recovery interventions, including adapted digital-citizenship resources. Qualitative research should investigate why clinicians rated available approaches poorly and examine experiences of people with ABI and close others.
AI-Generated Content Notice
The synopsis and research notes on this page were generated with AI from available publication information and, when available, the uploaded paper text. They may contain errors, omissions, or interpretation issues. Readers should follow the DOI or source link, review the original publication, and make their own judgment about the content.
Found a possible error? Request a correction.