Back

Governing Trust in Health AI: A Qualitative Study of Cybersecurity Professionals Perspectives

Adekunle, T.; Ohaeche, J.; Adekunle, T.; Adekunle, D.; Kogbe, M.

2026-03-03 health informatics
10.64898/2026.03.01.26347389 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundArtificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in healthcare delivery. Its legitimacy depends on institutional governance, not technical performance alone. Prior research has centered on clinicians and patients. Less attention has been given to cybersecurity professionals who sustain the digital infrastructures that support health AI. This study examines how cybersecurity professionals conceptualize AI as clinical infrastructure and how these interpretations shape understandings of trust, risk, and oversight. MethodsGuided by sociotechnical systems theory and institutional trust scholarship, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with twenty cybersecurity professionals working in healthcare-relevant domains. Participants were recruited through professional networks and LinkedIn outreach. Interviews were conducted between May and August 2025. They were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with constant comparison. Two researchers independently coded transcripts and refined themes through iterative discussion. The study received Institutional Review Board approval. ResultsParticipants described health AI as an augmented clinical infrastructure. They emphasized that AI extends workflow capacity but requires sustained human oversight. Healthcare data systems were characterized as fragmented and vulnerable. Breaches were treated as anticipated events. Trust in AI was described as contingent and built over time through visible accountability. Cybersecurity stewardship was framed as foundational to institutional trustworthiness. ConclusionsHealth AI credibility emerges through governance practices that demonstrate accountability. Cybersecurity professionals and institutional stakeholders jointly shape trust in digitally mediated healthcare systems through governance decisions that signal accountability.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.5%
2
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.0%
3
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.1%
4
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
5
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.7%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
6.2%
8
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 35%
3.6%
10
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.7%
11
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.3%
12
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
13
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.6%
15
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.6%
16
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
18
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
19
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
21
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
23
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
24
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%