Governing Trust in Health AI: A Qualitative Study of Cybersecurity Professionals Perspectives
Adekunle, T.; Ohaeche, J.; Adekunle, T.; Adekunle, D.; Kogbe, M.
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 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and preliminary testing of Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL): A framework for healthcare delivery organizations to mitigate the risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities 94%
- Benefits and Challenges of Using Virtual Primary Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Key Lessons to a Framework for Implementation 94%
- Theory of radiologist interaction with instant messaging decision support tools: a sequential-explanatory study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 94%
- Cracking the Code: A Scoping Review to Unite Disciplines in Tackling Legal Issues in Health Artificial Intelligence 94%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Lifecycle of Electronic Health Record Data in HIV-Related Big Data Studies: A Qualitative Study of Instances of and Potential Opportunities to Minimize Bias 93%
- How the COVID-19 pandemic is favoring the adoption of digital technologies in healthcare: a literature review 93%
- Understanding how the design and implementation of Online Consultations influence primary care outcomes: Systematic review of evidence with recommendations for designers, providers, and researchers 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Nurses’ experience of using video consultation in a digital care setting and its impact on their workflow and communication 94%
- Clinical code sets and the problem of redundancy in code set repositories 92%
- Key topics in pandemic health risk communication: A qualitative study of expert opinions and knowledge 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- The experiences of 33 national COVID-19 dashboard teams during the first year of the pandemic in the WHO European Region: a qualitative study 93%
- Validating a Clinical Decision Support System for Palliative Care using healthcare professionals’ insights 91%
- How suitable are clinical vignettes for the evaluation of symptom checker apps? A test theoretical perspective 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.