Exploring the Factors Preventing Older Adults From Reporting Cybercrime and Seeking Help: A Qualitative, Semistructured Interview Study

Data Availability Statement: Research data are not shared.Supporting Information is available online at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/1314265#support-information-section - Appendices 1-3 are topic guides used by the authors to guide and structure participant interviews. There is a tailored topic guide for each participant category. Appendix 1 is the topic guide for interviews with older adults who have been victims of cybercrime. Appendix 2 is the topic guide for interviews with professional stakeholders. Appendix 3 is the topic guide for interviewing friends and family..Background: Older adults under-report cybercrime, despite being more likely than younger people to experience repeat victimisation, financial loss and more severe emotional consequences. Considering vulnerabilities more common in old age, we sought to identify, and consider ways to address, barriers that older people experience when reporting cybercrime to statutory agencies with a role in reporting. Methods: From community groups, police and victim support, and health and social care organisations, we purposively invited people aged 60+ who had experienced cybercrime (n = 16), their supporting family members (n = 2) and professional stakeholders (n = 15) to participate in semistructured in-person or virtual interviews and conducted a reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Across 33 interviews, we identified four themes: (1) Shame and fear of repercussion; (2) Reporting unhelpful to emotional and financial recovery; (3) Lack of knowledge of scams and sources of support; and (4) Social support makes a difference. Conclusions: Digital ageism, evidenced by structural barriers, stigma and disempowerment experienced by older adults deciding whether to report cybercrime, warrants attention from the FJN and authorities. Independent “advocates” such as health, social care and third sector professionals can support older victims of cybercrime to navigate such reporting challenges.Dawes Centre for Future Crime at.University College Londo

Protocol for secondary data analysis of 4 UK cohorts examining youth adversity and mental health in the context of intersectionality.

BACKGROUND: Youth adversity (e.g., abuse and bullying victimisation) is robust risk factor for later mental health problems (e.g., depression and anxiety). Research shows the prevalence of youth adversity and rates of mental health problems vary by individual characteristics, identity or social groups (e.g., gender and ethnicity). However, little is known about whether the impact of youth adversity on mental health problems differ across the intersections of these characteristics (e.g., white females). This paper reports on a component of the ATTUNE research programme (work package 2) which aims to investigate the impact and mechanisms of youth adversity on depressive and anxiety symptoms in young people by intersectionality profiles. METHODS: The data are from 4 UK adolescent cohorts: HeadStart Cornwall, Oxwell, REACH, and DASH. These cohorts were assembled for adolescents living in distinct geographical locations representing coastal, suburban and urban places in the UK. Youth adversity was assessed using a series of self-report questionnaires and official records. Validated self-report instruments measured depressive and anxiety symptoms. A range of different variables were classified as possible social and cognitive mechanisms. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: Structural equation modelling (e.g., multiple group models, latent growth models) and multilevel modelling will be used, with adaptation of methods to suit the specific available data, in accord with statistical and epidemiological conventions. DISCUSSION: The results from this research programme will broaden our understanding of the association between youth adversity and mental health, including new information about intersectionality and related mechanisms in young people in the UK. The findings will inform future research, clinical guidance, and policy to protect and promote the mental health of those most vulnerable to the negative consequences of youth adversity

Recommended adult immunization schedule, United States, 2020

In October 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Ages 19 Years or Older, United States, 2020. The 2020 adult immunization schedule, available at www.cdc.gov/vaccines /schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html, summarizes ACIP recommendations in 2 tables and accompanying notes (Figure). The full ACIP recommendations for each vaccine are available at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html. The 2020 schedule has also been approved by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and by the American College of Physicians (www .acponline.org), American Academy of Family Physicians (www.aafp.org), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (www.acog.org), and American College of Nurse-Midwives (www.midwife.org)

Aseptic technique and the implementation of national policy: Contextual factors for consideration

<b>Highlights</b>\ud \ud - Contextual factors may influence infection control policy implementation.\ud \ud - Participants frequently described issues of resourcing in policy implementation. \ud \ud - Consideration of sustainability important in translation of implementation results

Clinician perspectives of policy implementation: A qualitative study of the implementation of a national infection prevention policy in Australian hospitals

© 2018 Background: Clinicians play an essential role in the implementation of infection prevention policy. Despite this, little is known about how infection control policy is implemented at an organizational level or what factors influence this process. In this study, we explore these factors and the policy implementation process in the context of the introduction of a national large-scale, government-directed infection prevention policy in Australia. Methods: Focus groups with infection control professionals were held in 3 states to investigate the perspectives of infection control professionals involved in the implementation of aseptic technique policy requirements in Australian hospitals. Data were analyzed using an interpretive description approach, with themes mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Common contextual factors were identified across all levels of the healthcare system that influenced implementation of the infection control policy, including external factors associated with the policy itself and the regulatory nature of government-directed policy. Conclusions: This study suggests that there may be particular constructs and contextual factors that are specific to policy implementation in the hospital setting. A better understanding of these factors and their influence on policy implementation would present an opportunity for improved implementation planning, resource allocation, and more effective policy development