| Literature DB >> 30442138 |
Hamid Reza Peikari1, Ramayah T2, Mahmood Hussain Shah3, May Chiun Lo4.
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.Entities:
Keywords: Ethics; Monitoring; Security; Technical and physical protection; Training; Trust
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30442138 PMCID: PMC6238272 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-018-0681-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Questionnaire Details
| Variable | No. of Items | Sources | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Physical Protection | 7 | [ | 0.82 |
| Perceived Security | 3 | [ | 0.89 |
| Perceived Ethical Practice | 6 | [ | 0.87 |
| Perceived Monitoring | 7 | [ | 0.84 |
| Perceived Training | 5 | [ | 0.85 |
| Trust in Hospital | 3 | [ | 0.75 |
| Technical Protection | 4 | [ | 0.82 |
The Results of the Demographic Analysis
| Demographics | Categories | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | Less than 21 | 8 | 2.09 |
| 21–30 | 53 | 13.87 | |
| 31–40 | 67 | 17.55 | |
| 41–50 | 81 | 21.20 | |
| > 50 | 173 | 45.29 | |
| Gender | Female | 180 | 47.12 |
| Male | 202 | 52.88 | |
| Education | Under diploma | 43 | 11.26 |
| Diploma | 179 | 46.86 | |
| B.A. | 43 | 11.26 | |
| B.Sc. | 90 | 23.56 | |
| M.Sc. and above | 27 | 7.06 |
Assessment of Measurement Model
| Construct | Items | Loadings | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethics | Ethics1 | 0.743 | 0.551 | 0.880 |
| Ethics2 | 0.727 | |||
| Ethics3 | 0.730 | |||
| Ethics4 | 0.753 | |||
| Ethics5 | 0.741 | |||
| Ethics6 | 0.759 | |||
| Monitoring | Monitor1 | 0.584 | 0.516 | 0.881 |
| Monitor2 | 0.616 | |||
| Monitor3 | 0.722 | |||
| Monitor4 | 0.768 | |||
| Monitor5 | 0.820 | |||
| Monitor6 | 0.751 | |||
| Monitor7 | 0.737 | |||
| Physical | Physical2 | 0.686 | 0.549 | 0.859 |
| Physical3 | 0.736 | |||
| Physical4 | 0.790 | |||
| Physical6 | 0.743 | |||
| Physical7 | 0.746 | |||
| Security | Security1 | 0.887 | 0.816 | 0.930 |
| Security2 | 0.915 | |||
| Security3 | 0.908 | |||
| Technical | Technical1 | 0.865 | 0.659 | 0.884 |
| Technical2 | 0.873 | |||
| Technical3 | 0.859 | |||
| Technical4 | 0.624 | |||
| Training | Training1 | 0.801 | 0.630 | 0.895 |
| Training2 | 0.813 | |||
| Training3 | 0.766 | |||
| Training4 | 0.768 | |||
| Training5 | 0.819 | |||
| Trust | Trust1 | 0.871 | 0.731 | 0.890 |
| Trust2 | 0.896 | |||
| Trust3 | 0.793 |
Note: Item Physical1 was deleted due to low loadings
Discriminant Validity Assessment
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ethics |
| ||||||
| 2. Monitoring | 0.639 |
| |||||
| 3. Perceived Security | 0.559 | 0.566 |
| ||||
| 4. Physical | 0.433 | 0.463 | 0.411 |
| |||
| 5. Technical | 0.607 | 0.506 | 0.556 | 0.563 |
| ||
| 6. Training | 0.461 | 0.620 | 0.510 | 0.451 | 0.465 |
| |
| 7. Trust | 0.507 | 0.570 | 0.445 | 0.270 | 0.426 | 0.495 |
|
Note: Values on the diagonal (bolded) are square root of the AVE while the off-diagonals are correlations
Hypotheses Testing
| Hypothesis | Std Beta | Std Error | t-value | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Training - > Perceived Security | 0.160 | 0.068 | 2.350*** | Supported |
| H2 | Monitoring - > Perceived Security | 0.186 | 0.065 | 2.862*** | Supported |
| H3 | Physical protection- > Perceived Security | 0.024 | 0.042 | 0.587 | Not Supported |
| H4 | Ethics - > Trust | 0.187 | 0.059 | 3.176*** | Supported |
| H5 | Physical protection- > Trust | 0.121 | 0.052 | 2.317** | Supported |
| H6 | Technical - > Trust | 0.123 | 0.058 | 2.107** | Supported |
| H7 | Training - > Trust | 0.212 | 0.057 | 3.693*** | Supported |
| H8 | Monitoring - > Trust | 0.313 | 0.067 | 4.638*** | Supported |
| H9 | Ethics - > Perceived Security | 0.181 | 0.064 | 2.845*** | Supported |
| H10 | Training - > Ethics | 0.461 | 0.052 | 8.914*** | Supported |
| H11 | Trust - > Perceived Security | 0.060 | 0.042 | 1.420* | Supported |
| H12 | Technical - > Perceived Security | 0.238 | 0.068 | 3.526** | Supported |
***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1
Fig. 1Hypotheses Results (−-->: Not Supported,➔: Supported)
Studies on the behavioural Security in Organizational Context
| Study | Antecedents of Security | Dependent variable | Respondents |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Mandatoriness | Precautions Taken | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Mimetic Pressure, Coercive Pressure, Normative Pressure | Level of information security control resources | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Perceived certainty and severity of sanctions, Attachment, Commitment, Involvement, Belief, Subjective Norm, Co-worker Behavior | IS security policyviolation Intention | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Perceived certainty of sanctions, PerceivedSeverity of sanctions, | IS misuse intention | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Self-Efficacy, Attitude, Normative Beliefs | Intention to resist social engineering | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Organizational Sanctions, Workgroup sanctions | intention to violate information security | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Organizational commitment, Self-Efficacy, Security Policy Attitude, Punishment Severity, Detection Certainty, Subjective Norm, Descriptive Norm. | Security Policy Compliance Intention | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Self-control | Information Security Violations | Undergraduate students |
| [ | Perceived vulnerability, Perceived severity, Response efficacy, Response cost, Self-efficacy, Attitude towardcompliance with ISSP, Subjective norms | Information security compliancebehavioral intention | business managers and IS professionals |
| [ | Attitude toward information security compliance, Subjective norms, self-efficacy, Locus of control | compliance behavioral intentions | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Perceived threat Severity and certainty, ResponseEfficacy, Self-Efficacy, Perceived Cost, Vendor support, IT Budget, Firm Size | Intention to Adopt Anti-malware by SME Executives | Information systems experts |
| [ | Perceived susceptibility, Perceived severity, Perceived benefits, Perceived barriers, Cues to action, General security orientation, Self-efficacy, | Computer security behavior | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Conservative Behavior, Exposure to Offence, Risk Perception | IS users’ risky behaviors threatening information security | IS users’ |
| [ | Self-Efficacy in Information Security | Security Practice Technology, Intention to Strengthen Security Effort, Security Practice Care Behavior | Business management students |
| [ | Severity, Vulnerability, Response efficacy, Self-efficacy, Attitude, Normative beliefs, Rewards | Intention to comply with information security policies | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Intention, Trust, Organization Support, | Information security knowledge sharing | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Attitude, subjective norm, behavioral control, Threat appraisal, Self-Efficacy | Information security conscious care behavior | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Information security knowledge sharing, Information security collaboration, Information security intervention, Information security experience, Attachment, Commitment, Personal norms, Attitude | attitude towards compliance with information security policy compliance | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Perceived severity, Perceived vulnerability, Response efficacy, Self-efficacy, Perceived realism, Response cost, Rewards | Intention to IS security compliance | Employees (system Users) |
| [ | Data Evaluation, Risk Analysis, Training, Integration, Policies, Legislation/Regulation, Architecture | Human Resource IS security | No data collection/No respondents |