Skip to main content

Practitioner perspectives on what works in preventing fraud against older adults

Button, Mark ; Karagiannopoulos, Vasileios ; Shepherd, David ; Kirby, Annie ; Lee, Julak ; Suh, Joon Bae ; Jung, Jeyong ; Koh, Chol Soo (2026) — Journal of Economic Criminology

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconc.2026.100213 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Global
Tags:   Bank Staff, Banking Fraud, Banking Security, Crime Policy, Digital Defences, Education, Expert Perceptions, Experts Perceptions, Older Adults, Prevention, Public Policy, Public Private Partnerships, Technology Tools, Third Party Intervention, Third Party Interventions
Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
The study combines a literature review, 17 interviews with professionals in policing, government, NGOs, and prevention firms, and a survey of 334 practitioners. Findings are organized into a four-part taxonomy of prevention-digital technology, education, third-party control, and partnerships-and rated by experts on a 1-5 effectiveness scale, collapsed into effective vs ineffective/neutral. About 90% of respondents considered local and national fraud-prevention partnerships important, but about two-thirds were unaware of such partnerships.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Explicit gaps identified include a lack of high‑quality evidence on what works to prevent fraud against older adults; existing guidance relies on expert perceptions rather than causal evaluation. The study notes limited generalisability due to a predominantly UK-based, non‑random sample. There is insufficient robust field testing across scam types, populations, and settings, and little evidence on long‑term effectiveness of prevention tools. The authors call for targeted funding and rigorous testing to determine causal impacts, broader cross‑national testing, and better alignment of evaluation methods with real‑world prevention outcomes.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study combines a literature review, 17 interviews with professionals in policing, government, NGOs, and prevention firms, and a survey of 334 practitioners. Findings are organized into a four‑part taxonomy of prevention—digital technology, education, third‑party control, and partnerships—and rated by experts on a 1–5 effectiveness scale, collapsed into effective vs ineffective/neutral. Analysis compares UK and overseas responses and highlights top‑rated methods such as bank staff interventions, targeted age‑specific alerts, and tailored educational approaches, with ethical approval obtained and data collection conducted 2022–2024.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Limitations include limited generalisability due to a non‑random, primarily UK‑based expert sample; reliance on expert perceptions rather than causal, real‑world evaluation; potential response biases and unequal representation across regions and agency types; cross‑sectional design and potential shifts in scam landscapes; taxonomy constraints that may overlook certain prevention modalities; and potential ethical/perspective biases in respondents' views. These factors mean findings should guide rather than dictate policy, and underscore need for more rigorous, diverse testing.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future research should secure funding for robust evaluations of fraud prevention for older adults, prioritising high-quality methodologies (e.g., field tests, quasi-experimental designs, or randomised trials) and testing interventions across diverse jurisdictions and scam types. The agenda should standardise outcome measures, compare digital technologies with targeted education, and assess the scalability and ethics of third‑party controls and partnerships. Researchers should collaborate with banks, health and social care providers, and local authorities to build longitudinal evidence on effectiveness and cost‑benefit to inform policy and practice.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.