ArticleDigital health
Phishing simulation exercise in a large hospital: A case study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cognitive Dissonance-Based Priming Intervention: Randomized Encouragement With in-the-Wild Phishing Simulation Attack in Health Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Phishing is a major threat to the data and infrastructure of healthcare organizations and many cyberattacks utilize this socially engineered pathway. Phishing simulation is used to identify weaknesses and risks in the human defences of organizations. There are many factors influencing the difficulty of detecting a phishing email including fatigue and the nature of the deceptive message. Method: A major Italian Hospital with over 6000 healthcare staff performed a phishing simulation as part of its annual training and risk assessment. Three campaigns were launched at approx. 4-month intervals, to compare staff reaction to a general phishing email and a customized one. Results: The results show that customization of phishing emails makes them much more likely to be acted on. In the first campaign, 64% of staff did not open the general phish, significantly more than the 38% that did not open the custom phish. A significant difference was also found for the click rate, with significantly more staff clicking on the custom phish. However, the campaigns could not be run as intended, due to issues raised within the organization. Conclusions: Phishing simulation is useful but not without its limitations. It requires contextual knowledge, skill and experience to ensure that it is effective. The exercise raised many issues within the Hospital. Successful, ethical phishing simulations require coordination across the organization, precise timing and lack of staff awareness. This can be complex to coordinate. Misleading messages containing false threats or promises can cause a backlash from staff and unions. The effectiveness of the message is dependent on the personalization of the message to current, local events. The lessons learned can be useful for other hospitals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.