Most of the literature looking into anxiety/stress in the workplace fails to report on experiences of physiological stress symptoms, including panic attack symptomatology. We will use the well-known Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) [37] as an example to further explain. HADS is probably the most common tool used to measure anxiety in studies related to workplace well-being and anxiety in the workplace; meta-analytic findings suggest that studies that used the HADS reported stronger relationships between burnout and anxiety compared to studies that used other scales, while interestingly the relationship was slightly less strong among healthcare professional than in the general employed population. These limitations

#### *Panic Disorder and Burnout in the Workplace: Review of the Evidence and Recommendations… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107533*

can be further highlighted by the fact that between 2013 and 2018, only one longitudinal study was identified on the relationship between anxiety and burnout [18].

HADS was designed to help measure anxiety symptoms in patient/hospital settings (e.g., patients with coronary heart disease), and there is no evidence of a latent variable structure, being frequently criticized for not being sensitive enough to differentiate between depression and anxiety as clearly as claimed [38]. A 10-year systematic review [38] revealed anomalous factor loadings of both anxiety and depression items on depression and anxiety respectively or on both factors. This suggests that some of the items included in the HADS do not represent clearly depressive or anxiety symptoms, as these could be potentially present in both cases. With regard to the experience of somatic symptoms that might be an indicator of anxiety or panic attacks, no somatic items had been included in the construction of this scale—mostly due to the fact that the scale was designed for hospital/patient samples, and thus, somatic symptoms are expected to be common due to health conditions (e.g., cardiovascular heart disease) [39]. The scale includes one item that reads "I get sudden feelings of panic" (answered on a four-point Likert scale), which, although at a face validity level seems relevant to panic disorder, the phrasing "feelings of panic" is up for interpretation by each participant; the word "panic" when used in daily life and not in clinical/psychological contexts might indicate excessive worry, intense fear or anxiety, feelings of helplessness, or "not knowing what to do," anticipation anxiety, distress (etc.). Thus, one of the most widely used measures for anxiety in studies looking into working populations does not have any references to somatic symptoms or the experience of panic attacks, as it has been developed to be administered to patient/hospital samples. In that case, if participants from working populations experience panic attacks or even somatic symptoms that can indicate panic-disorder risk, this is most likely to go under radar due to the instruments that are most commonly used in quantitative studies. In practical terms, this mean that if the employees of an organization are screened for anxiety with the use of the HADS, the screening results will not provide any information on whether any of the employees suffer or are at risk of suffering from panic attacks. Thus, despite the findings connecting work with anxiety—such as the relationship between anxiety and job burnout—the evidence on how/whether work contributes to panic attacks and/or panic disorders is rare and cannot be validly deduced from screening instruments such as the HADS.

#### **3.2 A technocratic approach to anxiety among working populations: differentiating or compartmentalizing?**

Measuring anxiety in working populations has almost become a "habit," especially when researchers include measures of burnout in their studies. Moreover, there are references to work-related anxiety [40]; job anxiety [41] or job-related anxiety, which is separated into team-job related anxiety and individual job-related anxiety [42]; employee anxiety[43]; to these we would also like to add other closely related concepts such as work stress [44]; work-related stress [45]; job-related stress [46]; job stress [47]; occupational stress [48]; organizational stress [49]. This is indicative of one of the well-recognized difficulties in conducting research related to stress and anxiety, as discrepancies in the operationalization and definition of the concepts are wide and very common, while each field and discipline is looking at stress and anxiety from different perspectives. There is no consensus as to whether stress and anxiety are independent variables (i.e., causes or contributing factors), whether they are outcomes (i.e., results from other causes and contributing factors), or whether they are

mediating processes critical in understanding how work-related life impacts overall mental and physical health and general quality of life. Especially in the work-related literature, the almost nonexistent experimental studies along with the very few longitudinal studies with limited validity regarding causal models testing and the overwhelming number of cross-sectional studies have led to a reciprocal understanding of the relationship between the different types of work-related stressors and anxiety outcomes. In this difficult to navigate literature, the use of generic anxiety measures as explained before makes practical implications even more difficult to delineate, as although we know that during difficult times at work, working populations are more likely to report higher anxiety levels, our understanding of what type of anxiety symptoms they are experiencing, when and where those symptoms are more intense as well as their meaning-making process is extremely limited. In addition, although the compartmentalization of anxiety might make it easier for quantitative analysis, the proof that work anxiety is indeed a "distinct" construct that is mainly the result of work-related stressors is also mostly built on theoretical assumptions and cross-sectional data; and in the meantime, there is no proof that work-related anxiety cannot be reduced by improving out-of-work quality of life or is different to anxiety induced from a toxic family culture. Such an assumption suggests that "compartmentalizing" anxiety into types based on the sphere of life might have some practical benefits, but it could also lead to several potential methodological artifacts, especially given that work life is mostly explored without controlling for personal and family life variables when it comes to quantitative research. We are not in any way implying that work life cannot be the main source of anxiety in a person's life; our concerns are related to the potential biases stemming from quantitative research that might overlook individual (e.g., personality, predisposition etc.) and out-of-work factors (e.g., contextual and socio-cultural factors) that could be significant in explaining work related anxiety.

We should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; of course, the research on work and anxiety has produced significant findings and has highlighted that working populations are undergoing extreme amounts of anxiety and stress to meet work demands—and many times beyond what is necessary for the job to be done (e.g., working with toxic supervisors). The identification of work-related mental health challenges is a very important step in creating healthy workplaces, and the work of several scholars has served as a milestone in advancing our understanding of the real impact that work life has on people's mental health [50, 51]. We wonder, however, whether this approach has now limited practical implications mainly driven by the need to produce generalizable and representative findings that serve the methodological axioms of quantitative research, which sometimes might result in a metaphysical obsession with method [52] rather than with how to identify who needs support and how we can provide it better. And while there are several taxonomies and sub-definitions of stress and anxiety for working populations, very little has been reported in studies regarding how often, e.g., employees in different professions and industries experience panic attacks in the work environment or out of it, when are panic attacks more likely to happen (e.g., prior, during, or after the shift), what percentage of affected employees seek help, whether they share this information with supervisors and coworkers, whether panic attacks at work are exacerbated during work-related crises or times of personal difficulty (etc). The need to address this gap in the literature becomes even more evident considering the several blogs, pop-psychology articles, personal testimonies, and anecdotal evidence that panic attacks in the workplace or panic attacks triggered by work demands are in fact very common. Articles and blog pieces entitled "Managing a Panic Attack

#### *Panic Disorder and Burnout in the Workplace: Review of the Evidence and Recommendations… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107533*

at Work"1 "Managing your panic Disorder at Work 2 "I had a panic attack at work. This is what happened 3 "What to do when a Panic Attack hits at work 4 frequently include information transferred from general therapeutic protocols for anxiety and panic attacks (e.g., CBT; Mindfulness etc.) in the form of tips. One article, however, entitled "My stressful job is giving me panic attacks, but I feel guilty leaving 5 by Alison Greens, owner of the blog "Ask a Manager 6 can help further understand the complexity of dealing with panic attacks (e.g., CBT; Mindfulness etc.) in the form of tips. One article, however, entitled "My stressful job is giving me panic attacks, but I feel guilty leaving" by Alison Greens, owner of the blog "Ask a Manager" can help further understand the complexity of dealing with panic attacks at work or because of work, which goes beyond collecting data on the relationship between anxiety and burnout: employees and managers need support and help making sense out of the subjective experience of having a panic attack and what to do when it happens or when an employee informs them that they have been having panic attacks. The latter article highlights the guilt that employees might be experiencing when considering leaving a job that is potentially contributing to the decline of their mental and/or physical health, which in this case might also stem from a need for the employee to feel valuable and needed by their team and organization; e.g., "I cannot abandon my team because they need me"; "I feel guilty towards the manager who offered me the job," etc. Clinical literature supports that guilt is a key theme when it comes to mental health disorders [53], and literature on burnout has showcased that employees very often experience feelings of guilt as they cannot cope with the job demands due to insufficient resources (personal or organizational) [54]. And to that end, although compartmentalizing anxiety might help quantitative researchers, a multidisciplinary view of anxiety in the workplace might be more productive when looking into the experiences of the working populations.

#### **3.3 "It's your fault you can't handle the pressure": panic attacks as "personal weakness" and the idolization of resilience**

Work stress has been a major research topic especially with regard to healthcare professionals—not surprisingly so, as healthcare professionals rank among the top burnt-out work groups [55, 56]. All the available evidence points to the fact that the most healthcare systems in the world (e.g., the NHS in the UK) are under considerable stress. The overwhelming majority of healthcare workers wake up every day motivated to positively impact the patients they serve. Employees with a high calling intensity (such as healthcare professionals) are especially prone to the detrimental effects of emotionally disturbing work. The drive for healthcare employees, for example, to "keep going" and "get the job done" has a dark side referred to as pathological altruism, which refers to behaviors that attempt to promote the welfare of another but can have pernicious long-term consequences for the care giver [57].

1 https://hbr.org/2022/03/managing-a-panic-attack-at-work#:~:text=Common%20triggers%20at% 20work%20include,Racing%20heart%20rate

2 https://www.verywellmind.com/panic-disorder-and-the-workplace-2584191

3 https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/i-had-a-panic-attack-at-work-this-is-what-happened/101115920

4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniesarkis/2019/11/21/what-to-do-when-a-panic-attack-hits-at -work/?sh=252b9b869427

5 https://www.thecut.com/article/my-job-started-giving-me-panic-attacks.html

6 https://www.askamanager.org/about

Such an approach very frequently idolizes resilience—in the sense of enduring hardship at any cost—to a degree that being able to handle any hardship, stress, and difficulties happening at or stemming from one's job becomes a badge of honor. Healthcare can exploit the professional ethic of healthcare professionals, which results in a form of dysfunctional professionalism that supports maladaptive healthcare structures in education and practice and which can influence staff at all levels.

We believe that this culture of "performance first" no matter the cost and the admiration of abnormally resilient employees has been transferred to many sectors and industries over time and has been further exacerbated by the economic crises, as these give permission to organizations and employers to use the "limited resources" narrative when imposing extreme demands on employees with non-equivalent benefits. The culture of "performance first" implies that showing any sign of difficulty to deal with work demands is a weakness and as such it is not "allowed." Personal stories from blogs include references to occasions when employees have managed to "press pause" on an upcoming anxiety or panic attack until they find themselves in a space where nobody can witness this "proof of personal weakness." A work culture like this adds more stress to an already stressful work life where, for example, meeting tight deadlines is one of the most valued attributes for corporate executives or managing to care for a disproportionate number of patients during a pandemic is one of the most valued attributes for nurses. Such cultures usually involve a non-speaking-up dimension as well, where employees feel that they are not actually allowed to express themselves and if they do so, this might have serious consequences. Therefore, symptoms of anxiety and panic disorder are more likely to be developed and usually left unattended. But the fact remains that having the "resilience" to endure the aforementioned along with several other stressors in both one's work and personal life has been an idolized profile for a very long time; this means that employees are less likely to openly communicate facing mental health difficulties, including experiencing panic attacks in or outside of work. Is it, then, any surprise that these highly motivated individuals feel numb or cynical toward interventions that seek to increase their "resilience" or "engagement"?

#### **4. Recommendations and conclusions**

Our knowledge about panic disorders in the workplace is significantly limited. This is an evidence gap when we consider the unclear field of coexisting and partially overlapping conditions that exists with the more frequently studied phenomena of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Moreover, a more fine-grained understanding of panic disorder and panic attacks in relation to work stressors might help better understand the role of the stress response mechanism in burnout.

This chapter has demonstrated that quantitative organizational researchers have ignored or overlooked the panic symptomatology in their use of generic scales (e.g., HADS) that purport to measure anxiety. We can speculate that panic disorders are more easily viewed as being under the remit of clinical psychology rather than that of occupational/organizational research. However, this is a missed opportunity as concepts such as rumination have been successfully imported from clinical psychology into occupational/organizational psychology. Additionally, panic disorders have the potential to help understand the nexus between work and non-work domains better, in that a panic disorder is more likely to be "brought home" in occupations with high levels of burnout.

*Panic Disorder and Burnout in the Workplace: Review of the Evidence and Recommendations… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107533*

#### **5. Summary of main points**

Panic attacks are often described by psychologists as "attacks" taking place to notify the person that there is something wrong in their lives. Lack of control in one's life could be a reason a panic attack can occur—a red button alarm that is flashing and screams danger. The experience is acute and extremely uncomfortable as the person experiencing it thinks that death is near. The danger might not be "real"—they are not actually dying—but they might have a low control over their lives that is causing this overwhelming feeling of fear and lack of safety. If we could use a metaphor to describe it, the experience of stressful work can be like that of an animal facing grave danger but is locked in a cage and cannot act toward its safety. Work environments with low sense of psychological safety can resemble a cage, meaning that they limit the employees' ability for control and autonomy; this results in a sense of helplessness, which can lead to high stress levels and potentially panic attacks. The culture of stress and the strict hierarchies is common in most sectors and industries, with employees facing high demands, little control, and often a lack of empathy and attention to well-being. A closer focus on experiences of panic symptoms with the use of interviews (qualitative research) and scales measuring physiological stress symptoms/panic attack symptoms (quantitative research) will contribute to our understanding of how to create healthier workplaces.

#### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Author details**

Olga Lainidi1 \*, Eva Tzioti2 , Maria Spiliou3 , Panagiota Koutsimani4 and Anthony Montgomery5

1 University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

2 Mediterranean College, Thessaloniki, Greece

3 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

4 University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece

5 Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Muschalla B, Linden M. Arbeitsplatzängste und Arbeitsplatzphobie und ihre Auswirkungen auf die berufliche Partizipation [Workplacerelated anxiety, workplace phobia and disorders of participation]. Versicherungsmedizin German. PMID. 1 Jun 2009;**61**(2):63-68. 19544717

[2] Haines J, Williams CL, Carson JM. Workplace phobia: Psychological and psychophysiological mechanisms. International Journal of Stress Management. 2002;**9**(3):129-145. DOI: 1072-5245/02/0700-0129/0

[3] Asai Y, Imamura K, Kawakami N. Association of job stressors with panic attack and panic disorder in a working population in Japan: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2017;**59**(6):516-521. DOI: 10.1097/ JOM.0000000000001021

[4] Good BJ, Kleinman AM. Culture and anxiety: Cross-cultural evidence for the patterning of anxiety disorders. In: Tuma AH, Maser J, editors. NY: Routledge; 2019. pp. 297-324

[5] Alonso J, Vilagut G, Alayo I, Ferrer M, Amigo F, Aragón-Peña A, et al. Mental impact of Covid-19 among Spanish healthcare workers. In: A large longitudinal survey. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences. 2022. p. 31

[6] Rasheed-Karim W. The influence of policy on emotional labour and burnout among further and adult education teachers in the U.K. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). 2020;**15**(24):232. DOI: 10.3991/ ijet.v15i24.19307

[7] Freudenberger HJ. Staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues. 1974;**30**:159-165. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974. tb00706.x

[8] Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach Burnout Inventory. Manual. 3rd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1996

[9] Leiter MP, Maslach C. Latent burnout profiles: A new approach to understanding the burnout experience. Burnout Research. 2016;**3**(4):89-100

[10] Montgomery A, Maslach C. Health care professionals'. In: Llewellyn CD, et al., editors. Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine. Cambridge University Press; 2019;**353-356**

[11] Starrin B, Larsson G, Styrborn S. A review and critique of psychological approaches to the burn-out phenomenon. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 1990;**4**(2):83-91

[12] MacKinnon M, Murray S. Reframing physician burnout as an organizational problem: A novel pragmatic approach to physician burnout. Academic Psychiatry. 2018;**42**(1):123-128

[13] American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fifth ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013

[14] World Health Organization. ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics 2018

[15] Middeldorp CM, Cath DC, Berg MVD, Beem AL, Dyck RV, Boomsma DI. The association of personality with anxious and depressive psychopathology. In: Canli T, editor. Biology of Personality and Individual

*Panic Disorder and Burnout in the Workplace: Review of the Evidence and Recommendations… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107533*

Differences. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006. pp. 251-272

[16] Salvagioni DAJ, Melanda FN, Mesas AE, González AD, Gabani FL, de Andrade SM. Physical, psychological and occupational consequences of job burnout: A systematic review of prospective studies. PLoS One. 2017;**12**:e0185781. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0185781

[17] Stelnicki AM et al. Associations between burnout and mental disorder symptoms among nurses in Canada. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research. 2021;**53**(3):254-263

[18] Koutsimani P, Montgomery A, Georganta K. The relationship between burnout, depression, and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;**10**:284-302. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00284

[19] Bayes A, Tavella G, Parker G. The biology of burnout: Causes and consequences. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry. 2021;**22**(9):686-698

[20] Durning SJ, Costanzo M, Artino AR Jr, Dyrbye LN, Beckman TJ, Schuwirth L, et al. Functional neuroimaging correlates of burnout among internal medicine residents and faculty members. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2013;**4**:131

[21] Jovanovic H, Perski A, Berglund H, Savic I. Chronic stress is linked to 5-HT1A receptor changes and functional disintegration of the limbic networks. NeuroImage. 2011;**55**(3):1178-1188

[22] Perrotta G. Panic disorder: Definitions, contexts, neural correlates and clinical strategies. Current Trends in Clinical & Medical Sciences. 2019;**1**(2):1-10

[23] Kudielka BM, Kirschbaum C. Sex differences in HPA axis responses to stress: A review. Biological Psychology. 2005;**69**(1):113-132

[24] Maier SF, Amat J, Baratta MV, Paul E, Watkins LR. Behavioral control, the medial prefrontal cortex, and resilience. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience. 2006;**8**(4):397

[25] Savic I, Perski A, Osika W. MRI shows that exhaustion syndrome due to chronic occupational stress is associated with partially reversible cerebral changes. Cerebral Cortex. 2018;**28**(3):894-906

[26] Graeff FG, Zangrossi H Jr. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in anxiety and panic. Psychology & Neuroscience. 2010;**3**:3-8

[27] Bühler KE, Land T. Burnout and personality in intensive care: An empirical study. Hospital Topics. 2003;**81**:5-12. DOI: 10.1080/00185860309598028

[28] Karasek RA Jr. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979;**24**(2):285-308

[29] Taris TW et al. Job control and burnout across occupations. Psychological Reports. 2005;**97**(3):955-961

[30] Park H et al. Job control and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. Applied Psychology. 2014;**63**(4):607-642

[31] Sapolsky RM. The endocrine stress-response and social status in the wild baboon. Hormones and Behavior. 1982;**16**(3):279-292

[32] Sherman GD et al. Leadership is associated with lower levels of stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;**109**(44):17903-17907

[33] de Miquel C et al. The mental health of employees with job loss and income loss during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating role of perceived financial stress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;**19**(6):3158

[34] Hochschild AR. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press; 1983

[35] Iancu AE, Rusu A, Măroiu C, Păcurar R, Maricuțoiu LP. The effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing teacher burnout: A metaanalysis. Educational Psychology Review. 2017;**30**(2):373-396. DOI: 10.1007/ s10648-017-9420-8

[36] Jones-Rincon A, Howard KJ. Anxiety in the workplace: A comprehensive occupational health evaluation of anxiety disorder in public school teachers. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research. 2018;**24**(1):e12133. DOI: 10.1111/jabr.12133

[37] Spinhoven PH et al. A validation study of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychological Medicine. 1997;**27**(2):363-370

[38] Cosco TD et al. Latent structure of the hospital anxiety and depression scale: A 10-year systematic review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2012;**72**(3):180-184

[39] Coyne JC et al. Lack of prognostic value of type D personality for mortality in a large sample of heart failure patients. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2011;**73**(7):557-562

[40] Erickson SR et al. Severity of anxiety and work-related

outcomes of patients with anxiety disorders. Depression and Anxiety. 2009;**26**(12):1165-1171

[41] Muschalla B, Linden M, Olbrich D. The relationship between job-anxiety and trait-anxiety—A differential diagnostic investigation with the jobanxiety-scale and the state-trait-anxietyinventory. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2010;**24**(3):366-371

[42] Mao J et al. Team job-related anxiety and creativity: Investigating team-level and cross-level moderated curvilinear relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2021;**42**(1):34-47

[43] Ahmad A, Saud S. The effect of role overload on employee anxiety and organization citizenship behavior. Journal of Managerial Sciences. 2016;**10**:1

[44] Ganster DC, Rosen CC. Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management. 2013;**39**(5):1085-1122

[45] Rauschenbach C, et al. Age and work-related stress: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2013;**28**(7/8):781-804

[46] Ratnawat RG, Jha PC. Impact of job related stress on employee performance: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business and Management. 2014;**16**(11):1-16

[47] LaMontagne AD et al. A systematic review of the job-stress intervention evaluation literature, 1990-2005. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2007;**13**(3):268-280

[48] Singh C et al. Occupational stress facing nurse academics—A mixedmethods systematic review. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2020;**29**(5-6):720-735 *Panic Disorder and Burnout in the Workplace: Review of the Evidence and Recommendations… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107533*

[49] Cooper CL, et al. Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. Foundations for Organizational Science. Sage Publications. 2001

[50] Torquati L et al. Shift work and poor mental health: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. American Journal of Public Health. 2019;**109**(11):e13-e20

[51] Ford MT et al. Relationships between psychological, physical, and behavioural health and work performance: A review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress. 2011;**25**(3):185-204

[52] Robinson DN. An Intellectual History of Psychology. Wisconsin, USA: University of Wisconsin Press; 1995

[53] Carnì S et al. Intrapsychic and interpersonal guilt: A critical review of the recent literature. Cognitive Processing. 2013;**14**(4):333-346

[54] Gil-Monte PR. The influence of guilt on the relationship between burnout and depression. European Psychologist. 2012;**17**(3):231

[55] Benfante A et al. Traumatic stress in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic: A review of the immediate impact. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;**11**:2816

[56] d'Ettorre G et al. Post-traumatic stress symptoms in healthcare workers dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;**18**(2):601

[57] Wong AMF. Beyond burnout: Looking deeply into physician distress. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;**55**(3):7-16

Section 3


**4. Findings and analysis**

*Data Integrity and Quality*

suits their needs.

automatically by the device itself.

The second solution concerns on the data storage and communication within the organisation. The management should strongly encrypt organisation's confidential data that are contained within the built-in storage as well as the removable media storage and any device that will be reissued to other personnel must first be wiped to clean the data previously stored in it. Additionally, if any of the organisation's device is assumed to be lost or stolen by unknown instigators that by any chance cannot be trusted, the management should initiate remote wipe on the device to prevent confidential information from being harvested by malicious attackers [16, 23–25]. Another way to prevent the mobile device from being accessed illegally is by implementing a configuration that has wipe feature within its devices that will automatically factory-resets all the data within after it detected several failed authentication attempts. The organisation should also aim at having a secure data communication between organisation and mobile devices by encrypting it using Virtual Private Network (VPN) or other encryption tools that

The third solution is based on the device and user authentication. A user authentication step should be implemented before any personnel could access the organisation's data and resources, which could be in the form of password or other various authentication such as token-based or domain authentication. The organisation should also include certain parameters for password characters, password length and the maximum number of retries allowed before the device is locked out or wiped. In cases where a user has requested a password reset or was locked out of the mobile device, the administrator should be able to restore the user's access to it remotely. Any device that is suspected to be accessed in an unsecured location should be remotely locked under the supervision of the administrator and any device that is in an inactive state for a certain period of time should be locked

The final solution involves restrictions on various aspects of mobile applications. The management should restrict the list of app stores that can be accessed by personnel to download mobile applications or instead, the management could issue applications from a chosen application store. In addition, the installation of certain applications should also be restricted through the process of whitelisting and blacklisting. There should also be a restriction on what device location are permissible for the application to access such as storage access or camera access. The digital signatures found in applications should be verified to ensure that the applications installed are from a safe and trusted source and that the code wasn't altered

The evaluation method which has been utilised by countless researchers in obtaining research data known as the questionnaire method was implemented in this study. A random sampling method has also been chosen and implemented as a method of collecting the research data in this study. The nature of questionnaires asked will be focused on the topic of cyber threats, cyber security and its relationship with SMD. Through the employment of the random sampling method, a set of questionnaires have been distributed within the duration of approximately three months to the targeted group of respondents. Other platforms as well as social media had also been utilised to distribute the online survey such as WhatsApp and Instagram. The target respondents of this study are focusing particularly on the youths which include the generation-Z strictly. This particular group of respondents have been chosen as they represent the majority of mobile device users that are

**122**

in any way.

**3. Methodology**

The data analysis will be made according to each of the section that has been created within the survey questionnaire as follows:

### *Demographics.*

In this section, the questions asked the respondents about their gender, their age group, their current status as well as their present educational level.

Referring to **Figure 4**, out of 114 respondents that participated in the survey, 67.5% of them are female respondents and consequently 32.5% of them are male respondents, thus highlighting that a majority of the respondents are female. When looking at the age range of the respondents who have answered the survey questions, a large number of them are within the age range of 20–29 years old which contributes to a high 83.3% of total respondents. The rest of the respondents originated from two other age groups where 15.8% of the respondents are aged below 18 years old while the remaining percentage are within the age group of 30–39 years old.

**Figure 4.** *Respondents demographic.*

It has been observed in **Figure 5**, that amongst the respondents, 49.1% of them are students from Universiti Teknologi Brunei, 13.2% of them are students from Universiti Brunei Darussalam, 5.3% of them are from Politeknik Brunei and 11.4% of the respondents came from various other public or a private higher institutions such as Institute of Brunei Technical Education (IBTE), Laksamana College (LCB), Cosmopolitan College of Commerce & Technology and Micronet International College. Additionally, the survey also received responses from non-university students where it comprises of 7.9% from high school students, 7.9% from the working population as well as 5.3% from the unemployed population.

*General Section.*

In this section, the questions that were asked were focused on finding out the type of mobile device the youths are generally using, their general purpose of using a mobile device as well as the frequency of internet connectivity amongst the youths.

**Figure 6** shows the questions that were asked within the general section of the survey questionnaire. When respondents were asked about the type of smart mobile device they are currently using, there are 86 respondents that uses Android devices which contributes to 75.4% of the chart, 24 respondents that uses Apple devices which contributes to 21.1% of the chart and a small number of respondents which is 4 respondents uses both Android and Apple devices thus contributing to 3.5% of the chart. An assumption was made in this survey whereby every respondents that answers the survey has at least one mobile device, which is the reason why the question directly asks its respondents the type of mobile device used. It can be seen

**Figure 5.** *Education background.*

**125**

**Figure 7.**

*Internet connectivity types.*

*Revealing Cyber Threat of Smart Mobile Devices within Digital Ecosystem: User Information…*

that majority of the respondents favours the android devices compared to the apple

Also, when the respondents were asked about their general purpose of using a mobile phone, the respondents have chosen various purposes as the survey questionnaire allowed them to choose more than one purpose. The chart shows that 111 out of 114 respondents which agreed that one of the main purpose of using a mobile device is to keep in touch with family and friends. The chart also showed that 95 respondents uses a mobile device to share videos, picture or music, 89 respondents uses their mobile device to play games, 76 respondents uses their mobile device to make online transactions, 74 respondents uses their mobile device to perform online banking, 60 respondents utilises their mobile device to make professional and business contacts and 51 respondents uses their mobile device to create new friends. There were also some minority purposes chosen by the respondents where 7 respondents believes their purpose of using a mobile device is to go on social media platforms, 3 respondents uses their mobile device to watch entertainment, 2 respondents uses their mobile devices to take pictures and lastly, one respondent each believes that their purpose of using a mobile device is to either surf the internet, read news, listen to radio, download video, create digital notebooks or doing some phone modification. This means that most of the respondents feel that it is safe to use their mobile device to do important activities such as maintaining communication as well as making online/bank transactions. It also acts as an indicator that the respondents felt it is secure enough to send and share videos, music or pictures

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95752*

devices which is proven by the results shown on the charts.

amongst themselves and their friends through their mobile devices.

information is through the use of internet.

*Password Security Section.*

they are using to surf the internet.

**Figure 7** shows that when the respondents are asked about how frequent they are connected to the internet, 100% of the respondents agreed that they are constantly connected to the internet and when asked about how they are connected to the internet in which they are given three choices, 95.4% of the respondents are connected through the Wi-Fi medium, 93.6% of the respondents are connected through their mobile data (cellular connection) and 25.7% of the respondents are connected through the use of hotspot. Another assumption was made while doing the survey which believes that almost all respondents are constantly connected to the internet and this assumption was proven through the survey results whereby 100% of the respondents stated that they are frequently connected to the internet. It is inevitable for the users of mobile device to be constantly connected to the internet because within this technological era, the only way to maintain communication and receive

In this section, the questions asked were focused on discovering respondent's behaviour and habit in regard to the security of their mobile device and the network

**Figure 6.** *Smart Mobile device usability.*

#### *Revealing Cyber Threat of Smart Mobile Devices within Digital Ecosystem: User Information… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95752*

that majority of the respondents favours the android devices compared to the apple devices which is proven by the results shown on the charts.

Also, when the respondents were asked about their general purpose of using a mobile phone, the respondents have chosen various purposes as the survey questionnaire allowed them to choose more than one purpose. The chart shows that 111 out of 114 respondents which agreed that one of the main purpose of using a mobile device is to keep in touch with family and friends. The chart also showed that 95 respondents uses a mobile device to share videos, picture or music, 89 respondents uses their mobile device to play games, 76 respondents uses their mobile device to make online transactions, 74 respondents uses their mobile device to perform online banking, 60 respondents utilises their mobile device to make professional and business contacts and 51 respondents uses their mobile device to create new friends.

There were also some minority purposes chosen by the respondents where 7 respondents believes their purpose of using a mobile device is to go on social media platforms, 3 respondents uses their mobile device to watch entertainment, 2 respondents uses their mobile devices to take pictures and lastly, one respondent each believes that their purpose of using a mobile device is to either surf the internet, read news, listen to radio, download video, create digital notebooks or doing some phone modification. This means that most of the respondents feel that it is safe to use their mobile device to do important activities such as maintaining communication as well as making online/bank transactions. It also acts as an indicator that the respondents felt it is secure enough to send and share videos, music or pictures amongst themselves and their friends through their mobile devices.

**Figure 7** shows that when the respondents are asked about how frequent they are connected to the internet, 100% of the respondents agreed that they are constantly connected to the internet and when asked about how they are connected to the internet in which they are given three choices, 95.4% of the respondents are connected through the Wi-Fi medium, 93.6% of the respondents are connected through their mobile data (cellular connection) and 25.7% of the respondents are connected through the use of hotspot. Another assumption was made while doing the survey which believes that almost all respondents are constantly connected to the internet and this assumption was proven through the survey results whereby 100% of the respondents stated that they are frequently connected to the internet. It is inevitable for the users of mobile device to be constantly connected to the internet because within this technological era, the only way to maintain communication and receive information is through the use of internet.

*Password Security Section.*

In this section, the questions asked were focused on discovering respondent's behaviour and habit in regard to the security of their mobile device and the network they are using to surf the internet.

**Figure 7.** *Internet connectivity types.*

*Data Integrity and Quality*

*General Section.*

the youths.

It has been observed in **Figure 5**, that amongst the respondents, 49.1% of them are students from Universiti Teknologi Brunei, 13.2% of them are students from Universiti Brunei Darussalam, 5.3% of them are from Politeknik Brunei and 11.4% of the respondents came from various other public or a private higher institutions such as Institute of Brunei Technical Education (IBTE), Laksamana College (LCB), Cosmopolitan College of Commerce & Technology and Micronet International College. Additionally, the survey also received responses from non-university students where it comprises of 7.9% from high school students, 7.9% from the working

In this section, the questions that were asked were focused on finding out the type of mobile device the youths are generally using, their general purpose of using a mobile device as well as the frequency of internet connectivity amongst

**Figure 6** shows the questions that were asked within the general section of the survey questionnaire. When respondents were asked about the type of smart mobile device they are currently using, there are 86 respondents that uses Android devices which contributes to 75.4% of the chart, 24 respondents that uses Apple devices which contributes to 21.1% of the chart and a small number of respondents which is 4 respondents uses both Android and Apple devices thus contributing to 3.5% of the chart. An assumption was made in this survey whereby every respondents that answers the survey has at least one mobile device, which is the reason why the question directly asks its respondents the type of mobile device used. It can be seen

population as well as 5.3% from the unemployed population.

**124**

**Figure 6.**

*Smart Mobile device usability.*

**Figure 5.**

*Education background.*

In **Figure 8**, when the respondents were asked about how frequent their network password are changed, 43.0% of the chart which accounts to 49 respondents rarely changes their network password, 26.3% of the chart which accounts for 30 respondents changes their password sometimes, 23.7% of the chart which accounts for 27 respondents never changed their password, 4.4% of the chart which accounts for 5 respondents frequently changes their password and finally, only 2.6% of the chart which accounts for 3 respondents always changes their password.

It is important to change the network password regularly as it is one of the simple measures to avoid people from silently stealing the user's network data unconsciously. Few of the dangers of not changing the network password regularly is that the users might be exposed to network attacks such as sniffing or eavesdropping and there might also be illicit entities or hackers that had previously obtained the password to enter the network, hacked into the user's network and using the network to perform unlawful actions.

In **Figure 9**, when the respondents were asked about what type of security measure they have implemented to their mobile device, the responses received were divided into few categories. About 40.4% of the respondents uses fingerprint protection only, 24.6% of the respondents uses password protection only, 11.4% of the respondents employs solely pattern protection, 2.6% of the respondents uses face protection measure and 5.3% does not employ any kind of protection measure. There were also respondents that utilises multiple protection measures for their mobile device where 12.3% of the respondents uses a combination of two protection measures and 3.5% of the respondents uses a combination of three protection measures.

It can be seen that many users tend choose fingerprint lock compared to other security measures such as password or pattern. It is considered as the best option because fingerprint is a unique identifier of each individual person and since it is

**Figure 8.** *Changing the passport.*

**127**

**Figure 10.**

*Apps installation from unknown sources.*

*Revealing Cyber Threat of Smart Mobile Devices within Digital Ecosystem: User Information…*

hard to obtain someone else's fingerprint, it makes it difficult for attackers to gain access to the mobile device. Password and pattern are also good measures of security lock for mobile devices, but it has a disadvantage. As all smart mobile devices have touch screen input, any act of accessing the mobile device by using the pattern or password lock will inevitably leave smudges or residues of the screen which could be used by attacker to retrace the pattern and access the device. But then again it will take the attacker some time to figure out the pattern correctly, hence it is still better for a mobile device to be protected by a security measure rather than having

The final question asked within this sub-section was aimed at discovering how frequent does the respondents change their mobile screen lock or protection measure and it was seen that 43.0% of the respondents which contributes to 49 respondents rarely changes their mobile screen lock, 34.2% of the respondents which is equivalent to 39 respondents never changed their mobile screen lock, 17.5% of the respondents which contributes to 20 respondents alter their mobile screen lock sometimes and 5.3% of the respondents which is equivalent to 6 respondents

It can also be see that many respondents have never change their mobile screen lock or rarely do so. The act of changing the mobile screen lock regularly is particularly important to users that implement password and pattern lock measures. It will reduce the user's risk of being breached physically or virtually and if the worst case comes whereby an attacker that aims to breach the device had figured out some of the correct password or pattern, the process of regularly changing the lock screen

In this section, the respondents were asked on questions that were inter-related in nature that aims at revealing respondent's behaviour as well as awareness towards

In **Figure 10**, when the respondents were asked about whether the respondents have installed any mobile applications from unknown sources, 71.9% of the respondents agreed that they have installed applications from unknown sources while the remaining 28.1% of the respondents have never installed applications to their mobile device from unknown sources. When users downloads applications from unknown sources, it means that users are downloading third party applications from third party app stores rather than the official stores such as Google or Apple store. Third party applications are known for being risky because these applications has been created by other creators or programmers and not made by the manufacturer of the mobile device or the operating system of the mobile device. Basically these applications cannot be guaranteed safe and secure for use or free from malware by the mobile device's manufacturer as they came from unknown sources.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95752*

none at all in order to reduce the risk of being breached.

will ensure that these attackers will fail in their attempt.

frequently changes their mobile screen lock.

*Application security section.*

the security of applications.

**Figure 9.** *Security measuring.*

#### *Revealing Cyber Threat of Smart Mobile Devices within Digital Ecosystem: User Information… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95752*

hard to obtain someone else's fingerprint, it makes it difficult for attackers to gain access to the mobile device. Password and pattern are also good measures of security lock for mobile devices, but it has a disadvantage. As all smart mobile devices have touch screen input, any act of accessing the mobile device by using the pattern or password lock will inevitably leave smudges or residues of the screen which could be used by attacker to retrace the pattern and access the device. But then again it will take the attacker some time to figure out the pattern correctly, hence it is still better for a mobile device to be protected by a security measure rather than having none at all in order to reduce the risk of being breached.

The final question asked within this sub-section was aimed at discovering how frequent does the respondents change their mobile screen lock or protection measure and it was seen that 43.0% of the respondents which contributes to 49 respondents rarely changes their mobile screen lock, 34.2% of the respondents which is equivalent to 39 respondents never changed their mobile screen lock, 17.5% of the respondents which contributes to 20 respondents alter their mobile screen lock sometimes and 5.3% of the respondents which is equivalent to 6 respondents frequently changes their mobile screen lock.

It can also be see that many respondents have never change their mobile screen lock or rarely do so. The act of changing the mobile screen lock regularly is particularly important to users that implement password and pattern lock measures. It will reduce the user's risk of being breached physically or virtually and if the worst case comes whereby an attacker that aims to breach the device had figured out some of the correct password or pattern, the process of regularly changing the lock screen will ensure that these attackers will fail in their attempt.

### *Application security section.*

*Data Integrity and Quality*

network to perform unlawful actions.

measures.

**Figure 8.**

*Changing the passport.*

In **Figure 8**, when the respondents were asked about how frequent their network password are changed, 43.0% of the chart which accounts to 49 respondents rarely changes their network password, 26.3% of the chart which accounts for 30 respondents changes their password sometimes, 23.7% of the chart which accounts for 27 respondents never changed their password, 4.4% of the chart which accounts for 5 respondents frequently changes their password and finally, only 2.6% of the chart

It is important to change the network password regularly as it is one of the simple measures to avoid people from silently stealing the user's network data unconsciously. Few of the dangers of not changing the network password regularly is that the users might be exposed to network attacks such as sniffing or eavesdropping and there might also be illicit entities or hackers that had previously obtained the password to enter the network, hacked into the user's network and using the

In **Figure 9**, when the respondents were asked about what type of security measure they have implemented to their mobile device, the responses received were divided into few categories. About 40.4% of the respondents uses fingerprint protection only, 24.6% of the respondents uses password protection only, 11.4% of the respondents employs solely pattern protection, 2.6% of the respondents uses face protection measure and 5.3% does not employ any kind of protection measure. There were also respondents that utilises multiple protection measures for their mobile device where 12.3% of the respondents uses a combination of two protection measures and 3.5% of the respondents uses a combination of three protection

It can be seen that many users tend choose fingerprint lock compared to other security measures such as password or pattern. It is considered as the best option because fingerprint is a unique identifier of each individual person and since it is

which accounts for 3 respondents always changes their password.

**126**

**Figure 9.** *Security measuring.*

In this section, the respondents were asked on questions that were inter-related in nature that aims at revealing respondent's behaviour as well as awareness towards the security of applications.

In **Figure 10**, when the respondents were asked about whether the respondents have installed any mobile applications from unknown sources, 71.9% of the respondents agreed that they have installed applications from unknown sources while the remaining 28.1% of the respondents have never installed applications to their mobile device from unknown sources. When users downloads applications from unknown sources, it means that users are downloading third party applications from third party app stores rather than the official stores such as Google or Apple store. Third party applications are known for being risky because these applications has been created by other creators or programmers and not made by the manufacturer of the mobile device or the operating system of the mobile device. Basically these applications cannot be guaranteed safe and secure for use or free from malware by the mobile device's manufacturer as they came from unknown sources.

**Figure 10.** *Apps installation from unknown sources.*

**Figure 11** shows two charts which reflect the in-depth questions that were aimed towards the security aspect of applications, where one of the questions asked whether they have read the End User-Licence Agreement (EULA) and privacy policy before installing any applications. The chart shows that 56.1% of the respondents have never read it, 36.8% of the respondents have read the policy sometimes and the remaining 7.0% of the respondents always reads the policy prior to installing any applications to their mobile device. When users are being prompted to install any application, there will usually be a window which request the users to deny or agree to the agreement stated in the application's privacy and policy which includes the EULA policy. It is very important for users to read these policies because some these policies will state the purpose and the time period for using the user's personal data and information as well as how users are supposed to use their manufacturer's applications without breaking any of the policies.

The respondents were also asked on whether they have read the application's phone access permissions before installing any application and it was revealed that 46.5% of the respondents always reads it before installing any applications, 36.0% of the respondents reads it sometimes while 17.5% of the respondents never reads it. Prior to installing any application to a mobile device, the application will request the user's permission to access certain folders or areas within the mobile device such as the camera, storage, location and more. Before accepting such permissions, users must first read the "phone access permission" carefully so that can evaluate for themselves whether it is safe to do so instead of just accepting any permissions because there might be instances where some applications requested certain permission that it does not necessarily needs. The act of just accepting any permissions that prompt up could lead in the user handing over their information willingly and unknowingly to shady application developers or fraudulent data miner, which could further result in the exposure and breach of the user's personal information.

*Email and Account Security.*

In this section, the questions asked were aimed at measuring and assessing respondent's tendency as well as awareness towards the security aspect of email and accounts.

In **Figure 12**, when the respondents were asked a question on whether they would initially check the authenticity of the sender before opening the attachment received. The second chart shows that 67 respondents which would always check the authenticity of the sender before opening the attachment, 41 respondents would sometimes check for the authenticity while the remaining 6 respondents had never checked the authenticity of the sender. This is a good indicator that shows users are taking precautionary measures to protect themselves from harmful attacks that are being orchestrated through the medium of emails and even text messages. These

**129**

*Revealing Cyber Threat of Smart Mobile Devices within Digital Ecosystem: User Information…*

attackers could be sending emails or attachments that may seem to be from a legit sender such as official corporations initially but it is a scam that aims to trick the users to open, download or click the sent attachment or link. When users successfully downloaded it, the virus will start to spread to other emails or contact list thus as a result endangering other users as well. Hence, this behaviour of checking the sender serves a good measure to protect user's mobile device and the sensitive

Additionally, when respondents were asked whether the respondents sign out from their email or personal accounts after using them, the graph showed that only 18 out of 114 respondents always logs out from their accounts after use wile 46 respondents does log out from their accounts sometimes and 50 respondents had never signed out from their accounts after using them. Most users that accessed their personal accounts through their mobile device tend to tend to stay logged in rather than logging out after using them. This might pose risk and dangers to user's personal data and information because if someone unknown such as an intruder gained access to a user's mobile device such as in the case of mobile device theft, these intruders could easily access the user's personal accounts as they are already logged in and it makes it possible for the intruder to steal the user's identity this way. Hence, the behaviour of logging out from personal accounts after using them is a best practice to ensure that the user's sensitive and personal data are constantly

In this section, the questions that were asked to respondents were focused on the security aspect of respondent's personal data in their mobile device and their action in securing it. The result shows that 66.7% of the respondents stores their confidential or sensitive data within their mobile device while 33.3% of the respondents does not store any within their mobile device. Many users considers their mobile as an item that is very near and personal to their owners and it is also regarded very crucial as it usually kept the user's sensitive or confidential information which is proven from the results stated above. Due to the mobility of mobile devices, users tend to keep their confidential or sensitive information within their mobile devices since it allows users to access is much faster compared to other means. It is necessarily not wrong for users to keep their precious data within their mobile devices, but it is recommended for users to set up the most optimum level of security measures to their mobile devices in case it is under a threat of being compromised or breached by malicious entities. Then, when the respondents were asked next on whether they have installed any security software such as anti-virus within their mobile device, only 39.4% of the respondents installs a security software within their mobile device while the remaining 60.6% of the respondents do not equip or install any

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95752*

information contained in it from being harmed.

protected from any possibilities of malicious actions.

security software to protect their mobile device.

*Personal security.*

**Figure 12.** *Sender authenticity.*

**Figure 11.** *Security aspects of apps.*

#### *Revealing Cyber Threat of Smart Mobile Devices within Digital Ecosystem: User Information… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95752*

**Figure 12.** *Sender authenticity.*

*Data Integrity and Quality*

applications without breaking any of the policies.

*Email and Account Security.*

accounts.

**Figure 11** shows two charts which reflect the in-depth questions that were aimed towards the security aspect of applications, where one of the questions asked whether they have read the End User-Licence Agreement (EULA) and privacy policy before installing any applications. The chart shows that 56.1% of the respondents have never read it, 36.8% of the respondents have read the policy sometimes and the remaining 7.0% of the respondents always reads the policy prior to installing any applications to their mobile device. When users are being prompted to install any application, there will usually be a window which request the users to deny or agree to the agreement stated in the application's privacy and policy which includes the EULA policy. It is very important for users to read these policies because some these policies will state the purpose and the time period for using the user's personal data and information as well as how users are supposed to use their manufacturer's

The respondents were also asked on whether they have read the application's phone access permissions before installing any application and it was revealed that 46.5% of the respondents always reads it before installing any applications, 36.0% of the respondents reads it sometimes while 17.5% of the respondents never reads it. Prior to installing any application to a mobile device, the application will request the user's permission to access certain folders or areas within the mobile device such as the camera, storage, location and more. Before accepting such permissions, users must first read the "phone access permission" carefully so that can evaluate for themselves whether it is safe to do so instead of just accepting any permissions because there might be instances where some applications requested certain permission that it does not necessarily needs. The act of just accepting any permissions that prompt up could lead in the user handing over their information willingly and unknowingly to shady application developers or fraudulent data miner, which could

further result in the exposure and breach of the user's personal information.

In this section, the questions asked were aimed at measuring and assessing respondent's tendency as well as awareness towards the security aspect of email and

In **Figure 12**, when the respondents were asked a question on whether they would initially check the authenticity of the sender before opening the attachment received. The second chart shows that 67 respondents which would always check the authenticity of the sender before opening the attachment, 41 respondents would sometimes check for the authenticity while the remaining 6 respondents had never checked the authenticity of the sender. This is a good indicator that shows users are taking precautionary measures to protect themselves from harmful attacks that are being orchestrated through the medium of emails and even text messages. These

**128**

**Figure 11.**

*Security aspects of apps.*

attackers could be sending emails or attachments that may seem to be from a legit sender such as official corporations initially but it is a scam that aims to trick the users to open, download or click the sent attachment or link. When users successfully downloaded it, the virus will start to spread to other emails or contact list thus as a result endangering other users as well. Hence, this behaviour of checking the sender serves a good measure to protect user's mobile device and the sensitive information contained in it from being harmed.

Additionally, when respondents were asked whether the respondents sign out from their email or personal accounts after using them, the graph showed that only 18 out of 114 respondents always logs out from their accounts after use wile 46 respondents does log out from their accounts sometimes and 50 respondents had never signed out from their accounts after using them. Most users that accessed their personal accounts through their mobile device tend to tend to stay logged in rather than logging out after using them. This might pose risk and dangers to user's personal data and information because if someone unknown such as an intruder gained access to a user's mobile device such as in the case of mobile device theft, these intruders could easily access the user's personal accounts as they are already logged in and it makes it possible for the intruder to steal the user's identity this way. Hence, the behaviour of logging out from personal accounts after using them is a best practice to ensure that the user's sensitive and personal data are constantly protected from any possibilities of malicious actions.

## *Personal security.*

In this section, the questions that were asked to respondents were focused on the security aspect of respondent's personal data in their mobile device and their action in securing it. The result shows that 66.7% of the respondents stores their confidential or sensitive data within their mobile device while 33.3% of the respondents does not store any within their mobile device. Many users considers their mobile as an item that is very near and personal to their owners and it is also regarded very crucial as it usually kept the user's sensitive or confidential information which is proven from the results stated above. Due to the mobility of mobile devices, users tend to keep their confidential or sensitive information within their mobile devices since it allows users to access is much faster compared to other means. It is necessarily not wrong for users to keep their precious data within their mobile devices, but it is recommended for users to set up the most optimum level of security measures to their mobile devices in case it is under a threat of being compromised or breached by malicious entities. Then, when the respondents were asked next on whether they have installed any security software such as anti-virus within their mobile device, only 39.4% of the respondents installs a security software within their mobile device while the remaining 60.6% of the respondents do not equip or install any security software to protect their mobile device.

From the results, it is observed that many users believes that installing security software or applications such as anti-virus is not crucial or important for their mobile device. Thus, when these respondents were asked on their main reason for not installing any security software, various answers have been received where one of responses mention that their mobile device already had a built-in antivirus, hence the absence of need to install another anti-virus. There are few similar responses that were made by different respondents where some of it mentions that some respondents did not know the existence of an anti-virus for a mobile device and some had problems choosing an anti-virus that is trustworthy to be installed. Some of the respondents also stated that it is not necessary to install an anti-virus because they believed that they have not installed any malicious programmes or applications to their mobile device. A few of the respondents are hesitant to install a security software due to the need to pay for it while some are blatantly has no desire to install one at all as they deem anti-virus as unnecessary.

Various kind of behaviours in these responses reflects that many users are having a lack of awareness and knowledge on the importance and benefits of having an anti-virus within their mobile device which is worrying in general. For instance, users are hesitant to install an anti-virus software because they assumed that the built-in anti-virus is sufficient and it makes users think their mobile device is safe enough. But it still does not justify the reason for not installing any security software because there is no operating system that is completely secure and invulnerable from cyber risk and danger. Malicious programs, applications, viruses or malwares could still infiltrate mobile devices through every possible way which is why it is recommended for users to set layers of protection for their mobile device instead of being negligent and over-reliant on the built-in protection within their mobile device.

Then, a question was also asked to the respondents that have installed anti-virus on their mobile device on whether they regularly update their mobile security software. The responses that were received was surprising because out of 44 respondents, 18 respondents relied heavily on the auto-update feature of their mobile device to update their anti-virus, 16 respondents regularly updates their anti-virus and the remaining 10 respondents rarely updates their anti-virus. This indicates that there are over reliance amongst users towards the automatic update function in their mobile device's operating system or the anti-virus itself. Users that rarely updates their anti-virus or only relying on automatic update are usually the type of users that assume that it is "good enough" to have an anti-virus that prevents harmful activities being done to their mobile device.

#### *Knowledge and attitude towards mobile security.*

Within this last section of the survey questionnaire, the questions asked are aimed at measuring the respondent's level of knowledge towards mobile security as well as their attitude on the subject of security within mobile devices.

In **Figure 13**, when the respondents were asked on whether they have experience any privacy or security breach on their respective mobile devices, 97 respondents which contributes to 85.1% of the chart had never experienced anything similar before while 17 respondents which is equivalent to 14.9% of the chart have experienced a privacy or security breach on their mobile device beforehand. It can be assumed that these 17 respondents or users might have become victim to privacy or security incidents due user's lack of security measures implementation to their data and mobile device. Thus, due to a prior experience in a privacy or security breach, these users might have increased their knowledge on this matter and started tightening their security measures in their effort to prevent the incident from happening again. On the other hand, it also shows that most of the respondents have never experienced such incidents which might be due to sufficient implementation

**131**

*Revealing Cyber Threat of Smart Mobile Devices within Digital Ecosystem: User Information…*

of some security measures to protect their mobile device and their personal data. But it is gravely reminded for users not become negligent and starts lowering down their security efforts because attacker will always look for those small opportunities

Then, when the respondents were asked on whether they are aware of the latest security as well as privacy issues that is occurring to mobile devices, 65.8% of the respondents are apparently not aware of any mobile security issues while 34.2% of the respondents are aware of the security issues that are trending nowadays and happening to mobile devices. This means that most of the mobile device users are not educating themselves with the latest security incidents and happenings associated with mobile devices. It is a fact that many cyber crime related cases such as privacy and security issues are not being publicised and the society rarely hears anything about these issues but it does not mean that users should not take any initiative in educating themselves especially within this era of digitalization. It is important to be updated with such matters because the information gained by reading, researching and knowing how the security issues happen could turn out to be useful to users. Users which had beforehand known of such incidents could equip themselves with the useful information and when users are encountering a similar incident, users knows the know-how to handle

Additionally, the respondents were asked on whether they would be willing to use an application that have previously suffered a privacy or security issue. The chart in **Figure 14**, shows that 46.5% of the respondents might be willing to use such applications, 49.1% of the respondents were not willing to use such applications and the remaining 4.4% of the respondents are willing to use applications that have previously suffered a privacy or security issue. When the respondents were further asked as to why they are not willing to use them, various respondents provided similar answers. Some respondents believed that an application that has been breached or hacked is not secure enough for users to use, some have lost their trust to use a breached app and many respondents believed such application is not secure at all and prioritise over their desire to protect their data and privacy.

A similar in-depth question was also asked to respondents as to why they might give it another chance to use applications that previously had security or privacy issues, there are a number of responses received from various respondents that were similar in nature. Many respondents stated their desire to use the app once the issue had been fixed, resolved or patched while some respondents believed they will do so depending on several factors which are the availability of the app, the necessity of the app, the rating of the app and the severity of the security issue that occurred before. Several respondents also highlighted that they will only use the app if they know or were informed of the true cause of the issue, for instance a security breach that occurred might not have been caused by the developer itself but by the users of

such matters and not be tricked by the scheme created by attackers.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95752*

to perform malicious activities.

*Smart Mobile devices security breaches.*

**Figure 13.**

#### *Revealing Cyber Threat of Smart Mobile Devices within Digital Ecosystem: User Information… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95752*

**Figure 13.** *Smart Mobile devices security breaches.*

*Data Integrity and Quality*

mobile device.

From the results, it is observed that many users believes that installing security software or applications such as anti-virus is not crucial or important for their mobile device. Thus, when these respondents were asked on their main reason for not installing any security software, various answers have been received where one of responses mention that their mobile device already had a built-in antivirus, hence the absence of need to install another anti-virus. There are few similar responses that were made by different respondents where some of it mentions that some respondents did not know the existence of an anti-virus for a mobile device and some had problems choosing an anti-virus that is trustworthy to be installed. Some of the respondents also stated that it is not necessary to install an anti-virus because they believed that they have not installed any malicious programmes or applications to their mobile device. A few of the respondents are hesitant to install a security software due to the need to pay for it while some are blatantly has no desire

Various kind of behaviours in these responses reflects that many users are having a lack of awareness and knowledge on the importance and benefits of having an anti-virus within their mobile device which is worrying in general. For instance, users are hesitant to install an anti-virus software because they assumed that the built-in anti-virus is sufficient and it makes users think their mobile device is safe enough. But it still does not justify the reason for not installing any security software because there is no operating system that is completely secure and invulnerable from cyber risk and danger. Malicious programs, applications, viruses or malwares could still infiltrate mobile devices through every possible way which is why it is recommended for users to set layers of protection for their mobile device instead of being negligent and over-reliant on the built-in protection within their

Then, a question was also asked to the respondents that have installed anti-virus

on their mobile device on whether they regularly update their mobile security software. The responses that were received was surprising because out of 44 respondents, 18 respondents relied heavily on the auto-update feature of their mobile device to update their anti-virus, 16 respondents regularly updates their anti-virus and the remaining 10 respondents rarely updates their anti-virus. This indicates that there are over reliance amongst users towards the automatic update function in their mobile device's operating system or the anti-virus itself. Users that rarely updates their anti-virus or only relying on automatic update are usually the type of users that assume that it is "good enough" to have an anti-virus that prevents

Within this last section of the survey questionnaire, the questions asked are aimed at measuring the respondent's level of knowledge towards mobile security as

In **Figure 13**, when the respondents were asked on whether they have experience any privacy or security breach on their respective mobile devices, 97 respondents which contributes to 85.1% of the chart had never experienced anything similar before while 17 respondents which is equivalent to 14.9% of the chart have experienced a privacy or security breach on their mobile device beforehand. It can be assumed that these 17 respondents or users might have become victim to privacy or security incidents due user's lack of security measures implementation to their data and mobile device. Thus, due to a prior experience in a privacy or security breach, these users might have increased their knowledge on this matter and started tightening their security measures in their effort to prevent the incident from happening again. On the other hand, it also shows that most of the respondents have never experienced such incidents which might be due to sufficient implementation

well as their attitude on the subject of security within mobile devices.

to install one at all as they deem anti-virus as unnecessary.

harmful activities being done to their mobile device. *Knowledge and attitude towards mobile security.*

**130**

of some security measures to protect their mobile device and their personal data. But it is gravely reminded for users not become negligent and starts lowering down their security efforts because attacker will always look for those small opportunities to perform malicious activities.

Then, when the respondents were asked on whether they are aware of the latest security as well as privacy issues that is occurring to mobile devices, 65.8% of the respondents are apparently not aware of any mobile security issues while 34.2% of the respondents are aware of the security issues that are trending nowadays and happening to mobile devices. This means that most of the mobile device users are not educating themselves with the latest security incidents and happenings associated with mobile devices. It is a fact that many cyber crime related cases such as privacy and security issues are not being publicised and the society rarely hears anything about these issues but it does not mean that users should not take any initiative in educating themselves especially within this era of digitalization. It is important to be updated with such matters because the information gained by reading, researching and knowing how the security issues happen could turn out to be useful to users. Users which had beforehand known of such incidents could equip themselves with the useful information and when users are encountering a similar incident, users knows the know-how to handle such matters and not be tricked by the scheme created by attackers.

Additionally, the respondents were asked on whether they would be willing to use an application that have previously suffered a privacy or security issue. The chart in **Figure 14**, shows that 46.5% of the respondents might be willing to use such applications, 49.1% of the respondents were not willing to use such applications and the remaining 4.4% of the respondents are willing to use applications that have previously suffered a privacy or security issue. When the respondents were further asked as to why they are not willing to use them, various respondents provided similar answers. Some respondents believed that an application that has been breached or hacked is not secure enough for users to use, some have lost their trust to use a breached app and many respondents believed such application is not secure at all and prioritise over their desire to protect their data and privacy.

A similar in-depth question was also asked to respondents as to why they might give it another chance to use applications that previously had security or privacy issues, there are a number of responses received from various respondents that were similar in nature. Many respondents stated their desire to use the app once the issue had been fixed, resolved or patched while some respondents believed they will do so depending on several factors which are the availability of the app, the necessity of the app, the rating of the app and the severity of the security issue that occurred before. Several respondents also highlighted that they will only use the app if they know or were informed of the true cause of the issue, for instance a security breach that occurred might not have been caused by the developer itself but by the users of

**Figure 14.** *Apps issues towards security.*

the application itself. If it was in such instances, then these respondents are willing to use the application once more.

Lastly, when the respondents were asked on whether they think cyber security is important for mobile devices, 99.1% of the respondents agrees on the importance of cyber security for mobile devices while 0.9% of the respondents disagrees and believes that cyber security is unimportant for mobile devices. Almost all respondents believed that cyber security is important to mobile devices because the respondents believed that cyber security will protect their personal or sensitive data, their privacy as well as confidentiality that were available within their mobile device from being manipulated, misused or taken advantage of. The respondents also believed that the presence of cyber security is the most effective way to fight against cyber threat issues and reduce the number of cyber crime cases throughout the world.


**Author details**

Aida Moreira da Silva1,2\*

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
1 Molecular Physical-Chemistry, R&D Unit, Department of Chemistry, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

2 Coimbra College of Agriculture, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal