Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32554388›Full record

SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Hospital Bring-Your-Own-Device Security Challenges and Solutions: Systematic Review of Gray Literature.

Tafheem Ahmad Wani, Antonette Mendoza, Kathleen Gray

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Smartphone Use and Security Challenges in Hospitals: A Survey among Resident Physicians in Germany.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tafheem Ahmad WaniSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9884-0563
Antonette MendozaSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6903-1169
Kathleen GrayCentre for Digital Transformation of Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1616-2170
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs familiarity with and convenience of using personal devices in hospitals help improve the productivity, efficiency, and workflow of hospital staff, the health care bring-your-own-device (BYOD) market is growing consistently. However, security concerns owing to the lack of control over the personal mobile devices of staff, which may contain sensitive data such as personal health information of patients, make it one of the biggest health care information technology (IT) challenges for hospital administrations.

objectiveGiven that the hospital BYOD security has not been adequately addressed in peer-reviewed literature, the aim of this paper was to identify key security challenges associated with hospital BYOD usage as well as relevant solutions that can cater to the identified issues by reviewing gray literature. Therefore, this research will provide additional practical insights from current BYOD practices.

methodsA comprehensive gray literature review was conducted, which followed the stepwise guidelines and quality assessment criteria set out by Garousi et al. The searched literature included tier 1 sources such as health care cybersecurity market reports, white papers, guidelines, policies, and frameworks as well as tier 2 sources such as credible and reputed health IT magazines, databases, and news articles. Moreover, a deductive thematic analysis was conducted to organize the findings based on Schlarman's People Policy Technology model, promoting a holistic understanding of hospitals' BYOD security issues and solutions.

resultsA total of 51 sources were found to match the designed eligibility criteria. From these studies, several sociotechnical issues were identified. The major challenges identified were the use of devices with insufficient security controls by hospital staff, lack of control or visibility for the management to maintain security requirements, lack of awareness among hospital staff, lack of direction or guidance for BYOD usage, poor user experience, maintenance of legal requirements, shortage of cybersecurity skills, and loss of devices. Although technologies such as mobile device management, unified endpoint management, containerization, and virtual private network allow better BYOD security management in hospitals, policies and people management measures such as strong security culture and staff awareness and training improve staff commitment in protecting hospital data.

conclusionsThe findings suggest that to optimize BYOD security management in hospitals, all 3 dimensions of the security process (people, policy, and technology) need to be given equal emphasis. As the nature of cybersecurity attacks is becoming more complex, all dimensions should work in close alignment with each other. This means that with the modernization of BYOD technology, BYOD strategy, governance, education, and relevant policies and procedures also need to adapt accordingly.

Indexed as

Computer SecurityGray LiteratureComputers, HandheldHealth FacilitiesHospitalsHumansbring-your-own-deviceBYODcomputer securityconfidentialityhealth care facilitiesmhealthmobile phone

Identifiers

PMID32554388
PMCPMC7333072
OpenAlexW3015732378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.