Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Patients’ perception of the information security management in health centers: the role of organizational and human factors

Authors: Hamid Reza Peikari, Ramayah T., Mahmood Hussain Shah, May Chiun Lo

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Researchers paid little attention to understanding the association of organizational and human factors with patients’ perceived security in the context of health organizations. This study aims to address numerous gaps in this context. Patients’ perceptions about employees’ training on security issues, monitoring on security issues, ethics, physical & technical protection and trust in hospitals were identified as organizational and human factors.

Methods

After the development of 12 hypotheses, a quantitative, cross-sectional, self-administered survey method was applied to collect data in 9 hospitals in Iran. After the collection of 382 usable questionnaires, the partial least square structural modeling was applied to examine the hypotheses and it was found that 11 hypotheses were empirically supported.

Results

The results suggest that patients’ trust in hospitals can significantly predict their perceived security but no significant associations were found between patients’ physical protection mechanisms in the hospital and their perceived information security in a hospital. We also found that patients’ perceptions about the physical protection mechanism of a hospital can significantly predict their trust in hospitals which is a novel finding by this research.

Conclusions

The findings imply that hospitals should formulate policies to improve patients’ perception about such factors, which ultimately lead to their perceived security.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Fernández-Alemán JL, Sánchez-Henarejos A, Toval A, Sánchez-García AB, Hernández-Hernández I, Fernandez-Luque L. Analysis of health professional security behaviors in a real clinical setting: an empirical study. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84(6):454–67.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Fernández-Alemán JL, Señor IC, Lozoya PÁO, Toval A. Security and privacy in electronic health records: a systematic literature review. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46(3):541–62.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Chellappa RK, Pavlou PA. Perceived information security, financial liability and consumer trust in electronic commerce transactions. Logist Inf Manag. 2002;15(5/6):358–68.CrossRef
4.
Hartono E, Holsapple CW, Kim KY, Na KS, Simpson JT. Measuring perceived security in B2C electronic commerce website usage: a respecification and validation. Decis Support Syst. 2014;62:11–21.CrossRef
5.
Kim C, Tao W, Shin N, Kim KS. An empirical study of customers’ perceptions of security and trust in e-payment systems. Electron Commer Res Appl. 2010;9(1):84–95.CrossRef
6.
Peikari HR. Does nationality matter in the B2C environment? Results from a two nation study. In: Tenreiro de Magalhães S, Jahankhani H, Hessami AG, editors. Global security, safety, and sustainability. ICGS3 2010. Communications in computer and information science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. p. 149–59.
7.
Salisbury WD, Pearson RA, Pearson AW, Miller DW. Perceived security and world wide web purchase intention. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2001;101(4):165–77.CrossRef
8.
Shah MH, Peikari HR, Yasin NM. The determinants of individuals’ perceived e-security: evidence from Malaysia. Int J Inf Manag. 2014;34(1):48–57.CrossRef
9.
Appari A, Johnson ME. Information security and privacy in healthcare: current state of research. Int J Internet Enterprise Manage. 2010;6(4):279–314.CrossRef
10.
Box D, Pottas D. A model for information security compliant behaviour in the healthcare context. Procedia Technol. 2014;16:1462–70.CrossRef
11.
D'Arcy J, Hovav A, Galletta D. User awareness of security countermeasures and its impact on information systems misuse: a deterrence approach. Inf Syst Res. 2009;20(1):79–98.CrossRef
12.
D'Arcy J, Herath T. A review and analysis of deterrence theory in the IS security literature: making sense of the disparate findings. Eur J Inf Syst. 2011;20(6):643–58.CrossRef
13.
Mohjel Eghdam A, Khameneh S, Hasankhni H, Moghadam S, Zamanzadeh V. Nurses’ performance on Iranian nursing code of ethics from Patients' perspective. Iran J Nurs. 2013;26(84):1–11 (In Persian).
14.
Colwill C. Human factors in information security: the insider threat–who can you trust these days? Inf Secur Tech Rep. 2009;14(4):186–96.CrossRef
15.
Farzandipour M, Sadoughi F, Ahmadi M, Karimi I. Security requirements and solutions in electronic health records: lessons learned from a comparative study. J Med Syst. 2010;34(4):629–42.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Veiga AD, Martins N. Improving the information security culture through monitoring and implementation actions illustrated through a case study. Comput Secur. 2015;49:162–76.CrossRef
17.
Zafar H. Human resource information systems: information security concerns for organizations. Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2013;23(1):105–13.CrossRef
18.
Ruighaver AB, Maynard SB, Warren M. Ethical decision making: improving the quality of acceptable use policies. Comput Secur. 2010;29(7):731–6.CrossRef
19.
Vellani K. Strategic security management: a risk assessment guide for decision makers. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2006.
20.
Zakariya NI, Kahn MTE. Safety, security and safeguard. Ann Nucl Energy. 2015;75:292–302.CrossRef
21.
Kluge EHW. Secure e-health: managing risks to patient health data. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(5):402–6.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Lusignan SD, Chan T, Theadom A, Dhoul N. The roles of policy and professionalism in the protection of processed clinical data: a literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(4):261–8.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Taherdoost H, Sahibuddin S, Namayandeh M, Jalaliyoon N. Propose an educational plan for computer ethics and information security. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2011;28:815–9.CrossRef
24.
25.
Hsieh PJ. Healthcare professionals’ use of health clouds: integrating technology acceptance and status quo bias perspectives. Int J Med Inform. 2015b;84(7):512–23.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Peikari HR, Yasina NM, Shah MH. Determinants of online trust: a system oriented view. Am J Sci Res. 2013;87:25–45.
27.
Hu X, Wu G, Wu Y, Zhang H. The effects of web assurance seals on consumers’ initial trust in an online vendor: a functional perspective. Decis Support Syst. 2010;48:407–18.CrossRef
28.
Baker J, Parasuraman A, Grewal D, Voss GB. The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. J Mark. 2002;66(2):120–41.CrossRef
29.
Chang HH, Chen SW. The impact of online store environment cues on purchase intention: trust and perceived risk as a mediator. Online Inf Rev. 2008;32(6):818–41.CrossRef
30.
Chang HH, Chen SW. Consumer perception of interface quality, security, and loyalty in electronic commerce. Inf Manag. 2009;46(7):411–7.CrossRef
31.
Connolly R, Bannister B. E-commerce trust beliefs: the influence of national culture. Proceedings of European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS 2007). 2007. doi:10.1.1.98.3780..
32.
Gefen D, Straub DW. Consumer trust in B2C e-commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-products and e-services. Omega. 2004;32(6):407–24.CrossRef
33.
Flavián C, Guinalíu M, Gurrea R. The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Inf Manag. 2006;43(1):1–14.CrossRef
34.
Johnson DS. Achieving customer value from electronic channels through identity commitment, calculative commitment, and trust in technology. J Interact Mark. 2007;21(4):2–22.CrossRef
35.
McCole P, Ramsey E, Williams J. Trust considerations on attitudes towards online purchasing: the moderating effect of privacy and security concerns. J Bus Res. 2010;63(9):1018–24.CrossRef
36.
Roca CJ, García JJ, Vega JJDL. The importance of perceived trust, security and privacy in online trading systems. Inf Manage Comput Secur. 2009;17(2):96–113.CrossRef
37.
McKnight DH, Chervany NL. What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology. Int J Electron Commer. 2001;6(2):35–59.CrossRef
38.
Corbitt BJ, Thanasankit T, Yi H. Trust and e-commerce: a study of consumer perceptions. Electron Commer Res Appl. 2003;2(3):203–15.CrossRef
39.
Workman M, Gathegi J. Punishment and ethics deterrents: a study of insider security contravention. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58(2):212–22.CrossRef
40.
Kim G, Shin B, Lee HG. Understanding dynamics between initial trust and usage intentions of mobile banking. Inf Syst J. 2009;19(3):283–311.CrossRef
41.
Bélanger F, Carter L. Trust and risk in e-government adoption. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2008;17(2):165–76.CrossRef
42.
Hsieh PJ. Physicians’ acceptance of electronic medical records exchange: an extension of the decomposed TPB model with institutional trust and perceived risk. Int J Med Inform. 2015a;84(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Kim DJ, Ferrin DL. Rao HR. a trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decis Support Syst. 2008;44(2):544–64.CrossRef
44.
Teo TS, Liu J. Consumer trust in e-commerce in the United States. Singapore and China Omega. 2007;35(1):22–38.
45.
Chen YH, Barnes S. Initial trust and online buyer behaviour. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2007;107(1):21–36.CrossRef
46.
Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Meas. 1970;30(3):607–10.CrossRef
47.
48.
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. 1988;103(3):411–23.CrossRef
49.
Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract. 2011;19(2):139–51.CrossRef
50.
Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Mark Sci. 2012;40(3):414–33.CrossRef
51.
Ramayah T, Lee JWC, In JBC. Network collaboration and performance in the tourism sector. Serv Bus. 2011;5(4):411–28.CrossRef
52.
Ramayah T, Yeap JA, Ignatius J. An empirical inquiry on knowledge sharing among academicians in higher learning institutions. Minerva. 2013;51(2):131–54.CrossRef
53.
Gholami R, Sulaiman AB, Ramayah T, Molla A. Senior managers’ perception on green information systems (IS) adoption and environmental performance: results from a field survey. Inf Manag. 2013;50(7):431–8.CrossRef
54.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50.CrossRef
55.
Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. Eur Bus Rev. 2014;26(2):106–21.CrossRef
56.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
57.
Chin WW. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA, editor. Modern methods for business research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998. p. 295–358.
58.
Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv Int Mark. 2009;20:277–319.
59.
Tenenhaus M, Vinzi VE, Chatelin YM, Lauro C. PLS path modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2005;48(1):159–205.CrossRef
60.
Fornell C, Cha J. Partial least squares. In: Bagozzi RP, editor. Advanced methods of marketing research. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business; 1994. p. 52–78.
61.
Choe J, Yoo SK. Web-based secure access from multiple patient repositories. Int J Med Inform. 2008;77(4):242–8.PubMedCrossRef
62.
63.
Zhijun W, Zhihan C, Caiyun W, Jin L. Access control scheme with attribute revocation for SWIM. J China Univ Posts Telecommunications. 2017;24:49–54.CrossRef
64.
Khan FA, Ali A, Abbas H. Haldar NAH. A cloud-based healthcare framework for security and patients’ data privacy using wireless body area networks. Procedia Comput Sci. 2014;34:511–7.CrossRef
65.
Mundy DP. Customer privacy on UK healthcare websites. Med Inform Internet Med. 2006;31(3):175–93.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Sucurovic S. An approach to access control in electronic health record. J Med Syst. 2010;34(4):659–66.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Cho J, Park I, Michel JW. How does leadership affect information systems success? The role of transformational leadership. Inf Manag. 2011;48(7):270–7.CrossRef
68.
Dhillon G, Syed R, Pedron C. Interpreting information security culture: an organizational transformation case study. Comput Secur. 2016;56:63–9.CrossRef
69.
Herath T, Rao HR. Encouraging information security behaviors in organizations: role of penalties, pressures and perceived effectiveness. Decis Support Syst. 2009;47(2):154–65.CrossRef
70.
Ifinedo P. Information systems security policy compliance: an empirical study of the effects of socialisation, influence, and cognition. Inf Manag. 2014;51(1):69–79.CrossRef
71.
Vaidyanathan G, Berhanu N. Impact of security countermeasures in organizational information convergence: a theoretical model. Issues Inform Syst. 2012;13(2):21–5.
72.
Lluch M. Healthcare professionals’ organisational barriers to health information technologies - a literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(12):849–62.PubMedCrossRef
73.
74.
Hussain Shah M, Peikari HR, Yasin NM. The determinants of individuals’ perceived e-security: evidence from Malaysia. Int J Inf Manag. 2014;34:48–57.CrossRef
75.
Ghobadei Far M, Mosalanejad L. Evaluation of staff adherence to professionalism in Jahrom University of Medical Sciences. J Educ Ethics Nurs. 2013;2(2):1–7 (In Persian).
76.
77.
78.
79.
Boss SR, Kirsch LJ, Angermeier I, Shingler RA, Boss RW. If someone is watching, I’ll do what I'm asked: mandatoriness, control, and information security. Eur J Inf Syst. 2009;18(2):151–64.CrossRef
80.
Cavusoglu H, Cavusoglu H, Son JY, Benbasat I. Institutional pressures in security management: direct and indirect influence on organizational investment in information security control resources. Inf Manag. 2015;52:385–400.CrossRef
81.
Cheng L, Li Y, Li W, Holm E, Zhai Q. Understanding the violation of IS security policy in organizations: an integrated model based on social control and deterrence theory. Comput Secur. 2013;39:447–59.CrossRef
82.
Flores WR, Ekstedt M. Shaping intention to resist social engineering through transformational leadership, information security culture and awareness. Comput Secur. 2016;59:26–44.CrossRef
83.
Guo KH, Yuan Y. The effects of multilevel sanctions on information security violations: a mediating model. Inf Manag. 2012;49:320–6.CrossRef
84.
Hu Q, West R, Smarandescu L. The role of self-control in information security violations: insights from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. J Manag Inf Syst. 2015;31(4):6–48.CrossRef
85.
Ifinedo P. Understanding information systems security policy compliance: an integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. Comput Secur. 2012;31(1):83–95.CrossRef
86.
Lee Y, Larsen KR. Threat or coping appraisal: determinants of SMB executives’ decision to adopt anti-malware software. Eur J Inf Syst. 2009;18(2):177–87.CrossRef
87.
Ng BY, Kankanhalli A. Xu YC. Studying users’ computer security behavior: a health belief perspective. Decis Support Syst. 2009;46(4):815–25.CrossRef
88.
Öğütçü G, Testik ÖM, Chouseinoglou O. Analysis of personal information security behavior and awareness. Comput Secur. 2016;56:83–93.CrossRef
89.
Rhee HS, Kim C, Ryu YU. Self-efficacy in information security: its influence on end users’ information security practice behavior. Comput Secur. 2009;28(8):816–26.CrossRef
90.
Siponen M, Mahmood MA, Pahnila S. Employees’ adherence to information security policies: an exploratory field study. Inf Manag. 2014;51:217–24.CrossRef
91.
Safa NS, Von Solms R. An information security knowledge sharing model in organizations. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;57:442–51.CrossRef
92.
Safa NS, Sookhak M, Von Solms R, Furnell S, Ghani NA, Herawan T. Information security conscious care behaviour formation in organizations. Comput Secur. 2015;53:65–78.CrossRef
93.
Safa NS, Von Solms R, Furnell S. Information security policy compliance model in organizations. Comput Secur. 2016;56:70–82.CrossRef
94.
Vance A, Siponen M, Pahnila S. Motivating IS security compliance: insights from habit and protection motivation theory. Inf Manag. 2012;49(3):190–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patients’ perception of the information security management in health centers: the role of organizational and human factors
Authors
Hamid Reza Peikari
Ramayah T.
Mahmood Hussain Shah
May Chiun Lo
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0681-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Patient facing decision support system for interpretation of laboratory test results

Technical advance

Towards stroke prediction using electronic health records

Research article

Smart medical beds in patient-care environments of the twenty-first century: a state-of-art survey

Research article

Are publicly available internet resources enabling women to make informed fertility preservation decisions before starting cancer treatment: an environmental scan?

Research article

Development and pilot evaluation of a pregnancy-specific mobile health tool: a qualitative investigation of SmartMoms Canada

Research article

Combining EEG signal processing with supervised methods for Alzheimer’s patients classification