Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40838797›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Sociotechnical Cybersecurity Framework for Securing Health Care From Vulnerabilities and Cyberattacks: Scoping Review.

Pius Ewoh, Tero Vartiainen, Timo Mantere

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Pius EwohSchool of Technology and Innovations, Information Systems Science, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4006-619X
Tero VartiainenSchool of Technology and Innovations, Information Systems Science, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3843-8561
Timo MantereSchool of Technology and Innovations, Automation Technology, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9266-1006

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe vulnerability of health care systems to cyberattacks and breaches of health information is on the rise worldwide. Considering the increasing rate of reported cyber incidents and the risks they pose to patient safety, privacy, and financial losses, there is a need to examine the way cybersecurity is conceptualized in health care organizations, taking into account technology, processes, and humans.

objectiveThis study examined the dynamics of the factors of vulnerabilities and cyberattacks in the context of sociotechnical systems theory underlying the relationships among humans, technology, and processes. It developed a conceptual sociotechnical cybersecurity framework for preventing vulnerabilities and responding to cyberattacks and threats in health care systems.

methodsA scoping review was conducted to search the extant literature in 3 databases-Web of Science, PubMed (MEDLINE), and Scopus. A total of 1375 papers from the period of 2012-2024 were retrieved, 76 of which, in the domain of health care and cybersecurity, were reviewed and analyzed. Original research and review papers were included. Only published English-language papers were included to focus on contemporary issues, challenges, and solutions. Relevant information from the included sources was charted and summarized. The study characteristics were extracted from the included papers, and the evidence was synthesized using thematic analysis.

resultsOf the 1375 papers identified, 76 (5.5%) met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that the factors of vulnerabilities to cyberattacks comprise 12 subfactors in health care systems. Concerning technology-related factors of vulnerabilities, most studies described the complex system design and usability (16/76, 21%) and integration of new technology (15/76, 20%) as challenges in health care systems. Concerning human-related factors, most studies described a shortage of skilled professionals and limited budgets as contributing to poor cybersecurity management. The study found that processes involved both technology and humans relative to the unit factors of vulnerabilities to cyberattacks. There was a sociotechnical interplay across the factors of vulnerabilities. The concept of sociotechnical cybersecurity offers a comprehensive and explicit perspective on the sociotechnical underpinning and joint optimization required to advance cybersecurity toward achieving sustainable health care systems.

conclusionsThe conceptual framework of sociotechnical cybersecurity provides a contemporary foundation and deep insight for identifying and preventing vulnerabilities and responding to cyberattacks in health care systems. The framework is important due to its suitability, applicability, and customizability for dynamic and complex health care systems. The study also provides compliance standards for applying the proposed conceptual framework to guide health care organizations in cybersecurity practices. The study of cybersecurity through the sociotechnical lens in the health care domain is limited. Further studies are needed on cybersecurity incident management. Health care organizations should leverage the strength of cybersecurity through the implementation of risk assessment and incident response plans.

Indexed as

Computer SecurityDelivery of Health CareHumansbreachescomputer securitycyber threatsdigital healthelectronic health record systemhealth informationnetwork securityransomware

Identifiers

PMID40838797
PMCPMC12572753

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.