Cited by 237Elder Abuse and NeglectCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesTechnology Use by Older Adults

Prevalence of financial fraud and scams among older adults in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Burnes, David, Henderson, Charles R., Sheppard, Christine, Zhao, Rebecca, Pillemer, Karl, Lachs, Mark S.·2017·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The financial exploitation of older adults was recently recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a serious public health problem. Knowledge of the prevalence of elder financial exploitation is mostly limited to the category of financial abuse, which occurs in relationships involving an expectation of trust. Little is known about the other major category of elder financial exploitation-elder financial fraud and scams, which is perpetrated by strangers. A valid estimate of elder financial fraud-scam prevalence is necessary as a foundation for research and prevention efforts. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of elder financial fraud-scam victimization in the United States based on a systematic review and meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: Multiple investigators independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed relevant full-text records from PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Social Work Abstracts, and AgeLine databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: To maximize the validity and generalizability of prevalence estimation, we restricted eligibility to general population-based studies (English speaking, 1990 onward) using state- or national-level probability sampling and collecting data directly from older adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on elder financial fraud-scam prevalence and study-level characteristics was extracted independently by 2 investigators. Meta-analysis of elder financial fraud-scam prevalence used generalized mixed models with individual studies as levels of a random classification factor. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies involving a total of 41 711 individuals in the meta-analysis. Overall pooled elder financial fraud-scam prevalence (up to 5-year period) across studies was 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.0%, 7.8%), with a 1-year period prevalence of 5.4% (95% CI = 3.2%, 7.6%). Studies using a series of questions describing specific fraud-scam events to measure victimization found a significantly higher prevalence (7.1%; 95% CI = 4.8%, 9.4%) than studies using a single, general-question self-report assessment approach (3.6%; 95% CI = 1.8%, 5.4%). AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: Elder financial fraud and scams is a common problem, affecting approximately 1 of every 18 cognitively intact, community-dwelling older adults each year; it requires further attention from researchers, clinicians, and policymakers. Elder financial fraud-scam prevalence findings in this study likely underestimate the true population prevalence. We provide methodological recommendations to limit older adult participation and reporting bias in future population-based research. Public Health Implications. Elder financial exploitation victimization is associated with mortality, hospitalization, and poor physical and mental health. Health care professionals working with older adults likely routinely encounter patients who are fraud-scam victims. Validation of instruments to screen for elder financial fraud and scams in clinical settings is an important area of future research. Without effective primary prevention strategies, the absolute scope of this problem will escalate with the growing population of older adults.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.2017.303821

Cites

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Population-level evidence indicates that fraud is highly prevalent, particularly among older adults, and increasingly represents a public health concern beyond criminal or economic domains.

    “Population-level evidence indicates that fraud is highly prevalent, particularly among older adults, and increasingly represents a public health concern beyond criminal or economic domains”

    From Mental health and psychosocial sequelae of fraud victimization: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as Burnes et al., 2017

    The Abstract reports that financial fraud and scams affect about 1 in 18 community-dwelling older adults annually, and the Discussion’s Public Health Implications section describes associated health consequences and a projected rise in cases. The paper does not establish that fraud is more prevalent among older adults than other age groups; it explicitly says that comparison is unclear. Its prevalence estimate also concerns financial fraud and scams among older adults, not fraud generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 237

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Hall JE, Karch DL, Crosby AE. Elder Abuse Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Core Data Elements for Use in Elder Abuse Surveillance, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.2015 White House Conference On Aging: Final Report. Washington, DC: White House Conference on Aging; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. [16]Deevy M, Lucich S, Beals M. Scams, schemes, & swindles: a review of consumer financial fraud research. 2013. Available at: http://www.ncpc.org/resources/files/pdf/fraud/Scams-Schemes-Swindles.pdf. Accessed May 2016.

Authors
Burnes, D., Henderson, C. R., Sheppard, C., Zhao, R., Pillemer, K., & Lachs, M. S.
Affiliations
University of Waterloo (CA)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2017-08
Volume
107
Issue
8
Pages
e13-e21
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2722297332
Cited by
237
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  • National Institute on Aging (K24AG022399)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
scams, elder financial abuse, prevalence, older adults, fraud victimization, self-report measures, reporting bias, public health problem, United States, community-dwelling older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Fraud, Humans, Deception, United States, Crime Victims

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