Prevalence of Financial Fraud and Scams Among Older Adults in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it