Financial elder abuse is gaining increasing attention from researchers and policy makers. Such abuse can include theft of money as well as misuse of assets such as property. This research applied judgement analysis methodology to explore professional decision making in the context of such abuse and to identify the nature of the cues used to detect and prevent abuse. Participants included social care, health and banking professionals, who were established as key decision makers. In Phase I, semi-structured interviews (n = 63) were conducted. The critical incident technique was used to identify cue use and decisions taken in the most recent case experienced. Key cues for both social care and health professionals included the nature of the 'financial problem suspected', the older persons 'mental capacity' and the 'identifier of the abuse', this being whether the abuse was directly observed or instead reported by a third party. A separate cue used by health professionals was the individual's 'physical capacity'. Banking professionals did not use physical or mental capacity as cues, but independently considered 'who was in charge of the money'. Decisions made by social care professionals included determining whether safeguarding procedures should be implemented. In Phase II, a factorial survey approach was applied whereby social care, health and banking professionals (n=223) were presented with case scenarios incorporating the cues from Phase I in addition to cues from literature review. Multiple regression analysis and incremental F-tests identified the cues that explained a significant amount of the variance in judgements of certainty of abuse and likelihood of taking action. For example, for social care and health professionals this included the older person's mental capacity, and the nature of the financial problem suspected. The findings could be used to develop a training tool to enable other professionals to improve their strategies for detection and prevention of financial elder abuse.

Whether it is in private or professional lives, people are called to make decisions and they tend to seek expert advice. The old adage indicates that more heads are better than one. Receiving more information is often helpful to decisions. However, getting multiple conflicting expert advice might put decision makers in difficult situations. Little is known about their feelings, thinking, and behaviors under such conditions. This research aims to fill the gap and understand the abovementioned consequences of taking multiple conflicting expert advice when making professional (i.e., business or personnel-related) decisions. Using an interview-based qualitative approach, this research sheds light on contextual characteristics where conflicting expert advice may be more beneficial (or harmful), which contributes practical recommendations to improve professional decisions. In sum, this research seeks to verify whether the common wisdom of “more is better” holds up to empirical scrutiny, and suggests that it is “no pain, no gain”.

In cases where children and youths are in need of support from various activities in order to have their needs met, authorities shall collaborate towards the common goal: the child’s best interests. The concept lacks an unambiguous definition and professionals should make decisions adjusted to the child’s individual needs. Within the Mobile team, which is an interprofessional form of collaboration between the school and social services, the different professional groups could be characterized by different perspectives. This may lead to different interpretations which can pose a challenge to agree on a joint decision for the child’s best interests. The study is based on a qualitative approach through semi-structured interviews with six professionals within a mobile team. The theories used to analyze the empirical material is collaboration theory and theory about discretion in decision making. Several noteworthy results were find. The mobile team work early and preventive both generally and with more concrete interventions for the child’s best interests. The work within collaboration can be divided into resourse-, information- and knowledge exchange which creates the opportunity to get at better overall picture of the child. Further, to work for the child’s best interests the mobile team focuses on school, spare time and family, as different areas that are important for the child. Their approach is also characterized by understanding and supporting individual needs. Finally, there are factors that need to be considered to fulfil a successful collaboration. For example, the professionals must be aware of each other’s duties, roles, activities and regulatory systems.