IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i23p16519-d1293227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Security Risk Assessment Framework for the Healthcare Industry 5.0

Author

Listed:
  • Abdullah Baz

    (Department of Computer and Network Engineering, College of Computers, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia)

  • Riaz Ahmed

    (Department of Computer Science, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak 484886, Madhya Pradesh, India)

  • Suhel Ahmad Khan

    (Department of Computer Science, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak 484886, Madhya Pradesh, India)

  • Sudesh Kumar

    (Department of Computer Science, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak 484886, Madhya Pradesh, India)

Abstract

The relevance of Industry 5.0 confirms the collaborative relationship between humans and machines through an inclusive automation process. The healthcare industry at present is facilitated by the use of these emerging technologies, which promise a more personalized, patient-centric approach, enabling more prompt, cost-effective, and efficacious medical care to the affected. However, managing enormous data volumes, lack of standards, risks to data security, and regulatory obstacles, such as regulatory compliance, are critical issues that must be addressed to ensure that Industry 5.0 can be effectively integrated into the healthcare industry. This research assumes significance in the stated context as it seeks to reveal the gaps between security risks and threats assessments for personalized healthcare services based on Industry 5.0. The study’s investigations cite that the identification of security risks and various threats is an imperative need and must be prioritized so as to ensure optimal security for the healthcare system. Furthermore, the study peruses various security threats and security risk assessments for enhancing and safeguarding the healthcare industry. Moreover, the study also proposes a framework for security risk assessment based on Industry 5.0 (SRVF HI5.0 ) for the healthcare security system. A step-wise procedure is applied to validate the proposed framework and provide support for designing feasible security evaluation criteria and tools for future research. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the measure of the applicability of multiple criteria, the tool’s reliability, and factor analysis. This offers an adequate basis for accepting the suggested risk assessment methodology based on Healthcare Industry 5.0 for implementation as well as further research and analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdullah Baz & Riaz Ahmed & Suhel Ahmad Khan & Sudesh Kumar, 2023. "Security Risk Assessment Framework for the Healthcare Industry 5.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-27, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16519-:d:1293227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16519/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16519/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bojana Bajic & Nikola Suzic & Slobodan Moraca & Miladin Stefanović & Milos Jovicic & Aleksandar Rikalovic, 2023. "Edge Computing Data Optimization for Smart Quality Management: Industry 5.0 Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Jawon Kim & Chanwoo Lee & Hangbae Chang, 2020. "The Development of a Security Evaluation Model Focused on Information Leakage Protection for Sustainable Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-20, December.
    3. O'Brien, Rourke & Bair, Elizabeth F. & Venkataramani, Atheendar S., 2022. "Death by Robots? Automation and Working-Age Mortality in the United States," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(2), pages 607-628.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ilaria Natali & Mathias Dewatripont & Victor Ginsburgh & Michel Goldman & Patrick Legros, 2023. "Prescription opioids and economic hardship in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(9), pages 1473-1504, December.
    2. Michael Cauvel & Miguel Alejandro Sanchez, 2023. "Life Expectancy and the Labor Share in the U.S," Working Papers PKWP2308, Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES).
    3. Shannon M. Monnat, 2022. "Demographic and Geographic Variation in Fatal Drug Overdoses in the United States, 1999–2020," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 703(1), pages 50-78, September.
    4. Paolo Morganti & Rosa Carolina Valdes, 2023. "The Perils of Asymmetrical Technological Changes in a Knowledge Economy with Complete Markets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Connor, Dylan Shane & Berg, Aleksander K & Kemeny, Tom & Kedron, Peter, 2023. "Who gets left behind by left behind places?," SocArXiv nkydt, Center for Open Science.
    6. Anna Matysiak & Daniela Bellani & Honorata Bogusz, 2023. "Industrial Robots and Regional Fertility in European Countries," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 39(1), pages 1-36, December.
    7. Osea Giuntella & Johannes König & Luca Stella, 2023. "Artificial Intelligence and Workers’ Well-being," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1194, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    8. Giuntella, Osea & König, Johannes & Stella, Luca, 2023. "Artificial Intelligence and Workers' Well-Being," IZA Discussion Papers 16485, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Hyunae Park & Youngcheon Yoo & Hwansoo Lee, 2021. "7S Model for Technology Protection of Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-25, June.
    10. Min Zeng & Chuanzhou Dian & Yaoyao Wei, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Insider Threats Based on IHFACS-BN," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16519-:d:1293227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.