Cited by 16Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesElder Abuse and NeglectTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Do we need to know about cyberscams in neurorehabilitation? A cross-sectional scoping survey of Australasian clinicians and service providers

Open access
Gould, Kate Rachel, Carolan, Matthew, Ponsford, Jennie Louise·2023·Brain Impairment

Abstract

Cyberscams, such as romance scams, are prevalent and costly online hazards in the general community. People with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) may be particularly vulnerable and have greater difficulty recovering from the resultant emotional and financial hardships. In order to build capacity in the neurorehabilitation sector, it is necessary to determine whether clinicians currently encounter this issue and what prevention and intervention approaches have been found effective. This scoping study aimed to explore clinicians’ exposure to and experiences with cyberscams in their adult clients with ABI. Method: Participants were clinicians recruited from multidisciplinary networks across Australia and New Zealand. Eligible participants (n = 101) completed an online customised survey. Results: More than half (53.46%) the participants had one or more clients affected by cyberscams, predominantly romance scams. Cognitive impairments and loneliness were reportedly associated with increased vulnerability. Cyberscams impacted treatment provision and were emotionally challenging for participants. No highly effective interventions were identified. Conclusions: These findings indicate that cyberscams are a clinical issue relevant to neurorehabilitation providers, with prevalence studies now required. The lack of effective interventions identified underscores the need for the development of evidence-based prevention and treatment approaches to ultimately help people with ABI safely participate in online life.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/brimp.2022.13

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gould, K. R., Carolan, M., & Ponsford, J. L.
Affiliations
Epworth Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Gould, Kate Rachel
Venue
Brain Impairment
Published
2022-05-05
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
229-244
ISSN
  • 1443-9646 (ISSN-L)
  • 1839-5252
OpenAlex
W4228999586
Cited by
16
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain Impairment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
romance scams, acquired brain injury, neurorehabilitation, clinician experience, cognitive impairment, loneliness, scam prevention, online participation
MeSH terms
Neurological Rehabilitation, Adult, Brain Injuries, Cross-Sectional Studies, Emotions, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review