Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1911–1925 | Cite as

Self-efficacy and new technology adoption and use among trainee mid-wives in Ijebu-Ode, Nigeria

  • Anuoluwa Awodoyin
  • Niran Adetoro
  • Temitope Osisanwo
Article
  • 114 Downloads

Abstract

Technology has impacted positively on health care delivery and particularly medical personnel have had to embrace emerging technologies in order to provide safe, competent and quality health care. The study investigated self-efficacy for new technology adoption and use by trainee midwives at the school of midwifery, Ijebu-Ode. The study is a survey based on the ex post facto type. Total enumeration technique was used to capture Seventy (70) trainee midwives using a questionnaire. All questionnaire administered were returned and found useful for the study. The study revealed that the level of self-efficacy for new technology adoption by the trainee midwives was high however social media 40(57.1 %), text messaging 36 (51.4 %), downloading of articles, music and videos 30(42.9 %) were the most frequently used technologies either daily or several times weekly. Only 6 (8.6 %) use the internet for information search daily. PowerPoint software, spreadsheet, Blogs, skype, podcasts, audio creation software etc. were less frequently used. Though the perceived level of new technology adoption was high, self-efficacy for new technology adoption was not significantly related to use of the technologies, also level of technology adoption has no correlation with level of use. The paper concludes that trainee midwives may not be capable of adequately providing technology based maternity and reproductive health services after training. The study thus recommends review of the midwifery curriculum, internet access, retraining of tutors and increased exposure/ awareness to emerging technologies.

Keywords

Self efficacy New technology adoption Technology use Trainee midwives Nigeria 

References

  1. Adetoro, N., & Sodipe, O. (2013). Undergraduates use of internet capable handheld devices at Babcock University, Nigeria. Library Hi Tech News, 30(2), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adetoro, N., Simisaye, A. O., & Oyefuga, A. B. (2010). Relationship between Self-efficacy and Information Literacy among LIS Undergraduates in a University of Education. Ife Psychologia, 18(2), 172–191. Available at http:// www.ifepsychologia.org.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adjuwon, G. (2003). Computer and internet use by first year clinical and nursing students in a Nigerian teaching hospital. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 3(10), 1–7.Google Scholar
  4. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of Information technology. Information system research, 9(2), 204–215.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control (p. 604). New York: WH Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Buhari, S., Ahmad, G., & HadiAshara, B. (2014). Use of Social media among students of Nigerian Polytechnic. Being a paper presented at the International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design. Held between 24-26 April, Istanbul-Turkey.Google Scholar
  7. Chau, P., & Hu, P. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model of comparison approach. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crozier, K., Sinclair, M., Kernohan, W., & Porter, S. (2007). Ethnography of technological competence in clinical midwifery practice. Evidence Based Midwifery, 5(2), 59–65.Google Scholar
  9. Daniel, G., & Oyetunde, M. (2013). Nursing informatics: a key to improving nursing practice in Nigeria. International Journal of Nursing and Midwifery, 5(5), 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, F. (1999). Perceieved usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, F. (2000). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ejechi, E. (2016). Information communication technology: Are Nigeria’s university students using it more for social and leisure activities? International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(5), 67–73.Google Scholar
  13. Godoe, P., & Johansen, T. (2012). Understanding adoption of new technologies: technology readiness and technology acceptance as an integrated concept. Journal of European Psychology Students, 3, 38–52. doi: 10.5334/jeps.aq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta, B., & Adarsh, B. (2009). Perceptions of health professionals regarding use and provision of LIS through mobile technologies. Journal of Library & Information Technology, 30(3), 7–12.Google Scholar
  15. Hamer, S. (2013). Involving nurses in developing new technology. Nursing Times, 109(47), 18–19.Google Scholar
  16. Hartwick, & Barki. (2000). Student distress in a web-based distance education course. Information, Communication and Society, 3(4), 557–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hegney, Buikstra, Eley, Fallon, Gilmore, & Soar. (2007). Nurses and Information technology. Commonwealth of Australia. Available at http://anmf.org.au/documents/reports/IT_Project.pdf.
  18. International Confederation of Midwives (2005) accessed 17th March 2015 from http://www.internationalmidwives.org/who-we-are/policy-and-practice/icm-international-definition-of-the-midwife/.
  19. Isiaka, R., Olayemi, R., & Adewole, K. (2011). Implementing mobile-learning in Nigeria tertiary educational system – a feasibility study. International Journal of Science and Advanced Technology, 1(7), 84–90.Google Scholar
  20. Koivunen, M. (2009) Acceptance and use of information technology among nurses in psychiatric Hospitals. Being a PhD thesis submitted to department of Nursing Science University of Turku Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  21. Kurbanoglu, S. (2003). Self-efficacy: a concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 730–743. Retrieved 16th May, 2008 from http://www.eneraldinsight.com/ 10.1108/00220410610714949.Google Scholar
  22. Lam, M., Nguyen, M., Lowe, R., Nagajan, S., & Lincoln, M. (2014). I can do it: does confidence and perceived ability in learning new ICT skills predict pre-service health professionals’ attitude towards engaging in e-healthcare? Investing in E-Health: People, Knowledge and Technology for a Healthy Future, 204, 60–66.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, J. (2005). Segmenting the non-adopter category in the diffusion of internet banking. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23(4), 414–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, S., Chib, A., & Jeong-Nam, K. (2011). Midwives’ cell phone use and health knowledge in rural communities. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 1006–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Limley, & Burnham. (2009). Web 2.0 tools in medical and nursing school curricula. Journal of Medical Library Association, 97(1), 50–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucky, A., & Achebe, N. (2013). The effect of digital divide on information accessibility among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. Research Journal of Information Technology, 5(1), 01–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mohagheghzadeh, M., Mortazavi, S., Ghasempour, M., & Jarideh, S. (2014). The impact of computer and information communication technology literacy on the academic achievement of medical and dental Students at shiraz university of Medical sciences. European Scientific Journal, 10(9), 273–280.Google Scholar
  28. Mojaye, E. (2015). Mobile phone usage among Nigerian University students and its impact on teaching and learning. Global Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(1), 29–38.Google Scholar
  29. Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & Management, 38, 217–230.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nahl, D., & Tanopir, C. (1996). Affective and cognitive searching behaviour of novice end users of a full-text database. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 47(4), 276–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelson. (1992). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 16(1), 155–176.Google Scholar
  32. Obilinger, D., & Obilinger, J. (Eds) (2005) Educating the net generation. EDUCAUSE Retrieved 20 April 2011-from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/.
  33. OECD. (2000). Learning to bridge the digital guide. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ogedebe, P., Emannuel, J., & Musa, Y. (2012). A survey of facebook and academic performance in Nigeria Universities. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2(4), 788–797.Google Scholar
  35. Ormsod, J.E. (2006) Educational psychology: developing learners. New Jesey.Google Scholar
  36. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M Maehr & PR. Pintrich (eds) Advances in motivation and achievement. Vol. 10:1–49. Greenwich: SAI Press Retrieved 15th May 2009 from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/effchapter.html.
  37. Priyanka, S. (2012). Technology acceptance model: a survey of literature. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 2(4), 175–178.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramayah, T., & Bushra, A. (2004). Role of Self-efficacy in e-library usage among students of a Public University in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 9(1), 39–57. Retrieved 16th May, 2008 from http://ejum.fsktm.um/edu.my/articleinformation.aspx.Google Scholar
  39. Ren, W. (2000). Library instruction and college student self-sufficiency in electronic information searching. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(5), 323–328.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schunk, D. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self regulation of learning and performance: issues and educational applications (pp. 75–99). New Jersey: Lawrence Erbalum.Google Scholar
  41. Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2003). A new perspective to analyze user technology acceptance, Working Paper, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  42. Sweis, R., Isa, A., Azzeh, H., Shtyh, B., Musa, E., & AlBtoush, R. (2014). Nurses’ resistance to the adoption of information technology in Jordanian hospitals. Life Science Journal, 11(4s), 8–18.Google Scholar
  43. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (1991). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ward, R., Moule, P., & Lockyer, L. (2009). Adoption of web 2.0 technologies in education for health professionals in the UK: where are we and why? Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(2), 165–172.Google Scholar
  45. Zimund. (1991). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course web sites. Computers and Education, 40, 343–360.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anuoluwa Awodoyin
    • 1
  • Niran Adetoro
    • 1
  • Temitope Osisanwo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Library and Information ScienceTai Solarin University of EducationIjebu-OdeNigeria

Personalised recommendations