Skip to main content
The Pan African Medical Journal logoLink to The Pan African Medical Journal
. 2015 Jun 15;21:127. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2015.21.127.6185

Use of mobile learning technology among final year medical students in Kenya

Moses Muia Masika 1,&, Gregory Barnabas Omondi 2, Dennis Simiyu Natembeya 2, Ephraim Mwatha Mugane 3, Kefa Ogonyo Bosire 4, Isaac Ongubo Kibwage 5
PMCID: PMC4546722  PMID: 26327964

Abstract

Introduction

Mobile phone penetration has increased exponentially over the last decade as has its application in nearly all spheres of life including health and medical education. This study aimed at assessing the use of mobile learning technology and its challenges among final year undergraduate students in the College of Health sciences, University of Nairobi.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted among final year undergraduate students at the University of Nairobi, College of Health Sciences. Self-administered, anonymous questionnaires were issued to all final year students in their lecture rooms after obtaining informed consent. Data on demographics, mobile device ownership and mobile learning technology use and its challenges was collected. Data entry and analysis was done using SPSS®. Chi-square and t-test were used for bivariate analysis.

Results

We had 292 respondents; 62% were medical students, 16% were nursing students, 13% were pharmacy students and 9% were dental surgery students. The majority were female (59%) and the average age was 24 years. Eighty eight percent (88%) of the respondents owned a smart device and nearly all of them used it for learning. 64% of the respondents used medical mobile applications. The main challenges were lack of a smart device, lack of technical know-how in accessing or using apps, sub-optimal internet access, cost of acquiring apps and limited device memory.

Conclusion

Mobile learning is increasingly popular among medical students and should be leveraged in promoting access and quality of medical education.

Keywords: Smartphone, mobile-device, mobile learning, mobile application, medical education

Introduction

Mobile phone technology has been available in one form or another for about four decades now [1, 2]. In the late nineties and early noughties, smartphones were adopted for mass usage, first in Japan then in the rest of the world [3]. The last decade has seen an exponential rise in spread and functionality of smartphones [4]. Globally, there are now over 6.8 billion mobile telephone subscribers and 70% of these are in LMICs [5]. Sub-Saharan Africa has a mobile phone penetration of about 65%. In Kenya, mobile phone penetration is about 75% [6, 7]. Currently, over half of the mobile phones being sold in Kenya are smartphones [8]. In the health sector, Mobile health (mHealth) is taking root in diverse applications such as health information, patient care and collecting data [912]. International technical organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) are encouraging adoption of eHealth and other Information and communication technologies (ICTs) in health facilities. One of the targets set in 2003 by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva is to connect all hospitals and health centres with ICTs by 2015. It is therefore inevitable that today′s health practitioners will have to contend with widespread technology use in their practice for which they should be well prepared. Medical schools are a good place to undertake this preparation. Smartphones are now in use in medical education for various purposes - as sources of information and reference, a guide in rounding and for enhancing problem-based learning [1316]. The use of mobile technology in medical education is a welcome development especially because it offers a good platform for continuous self-directed learning, an important skill for all health practitioners [17, 18]. Many young doctors across the world have shown a propensity to adopt to mobile technology fast [19, 20] and some medical schools are facilitating this by offering tablets or smartphones to their medical students [21].

In Kenya, data abounds on mobile telephone use in the general population. A national survey in 2012 showed that all healthcare workers had a mobile phone with 50% of them accessing internet on their phones [22]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there′s no data on smart phone use among medical students in the country. Mobile learning (ML) breaks the limits of space and time as learning can go on anytime and anywhere by use of various devices including laptops, mobile phones, tablet computers and audio players [23]. It can be online or offline. ML offers several advantages including portability and lower cost as compared to books and desktop computers as well as augmented learning through case simulation. It also offers versatility in content delivery ranging from text, videos, audio, graphics, animation, pictures and games to interactive platforms. This makes learning more interesting and effective. ML has been applied in medical education across several contexts to serve various functions and purposes. Mobile apps are now available for a vast number of subjects ranging from basic sciences like biochemistry and anatomy to drug information, patient education and bioethics [14, 16, 2427]. These sources of reference can be helpful for medical students during pre-rounds or ward rounds, for regular studying, and preparing for exams. Mobile applications have also been employed for transparent and objective performance assessment and evaluation of medical students by their teachers. This includes performance in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) and web-based courses [28]. In addition, mobile learning provides medical students a means to self-directed learning, an important tool in the medical practice where learning is continuous and life-long [17, 18]. It also facilitates evidence-based practice by promoting access to references for medical information such as journals.

A previous study at the University of Nairobi indicated that access to new medical information was sub-optimal [29]. ML has the potential to remedy this situation. ML is mounted on several technologies. One of these is mobile applications (apps) which are programs designed to run on mobile devices. These can be native apps or mobile web browsers. Once installed, native apps are used offline though they may require intermittent internet connection for updates. Web-based applications require an internet connection to function [30, 31]. Mobile apps are run on a mobile operating system. There are several of these including Android® by Google, Windows-Mobile® by Microsoft, iOs® by Apple, Blackberry-OS® by Research in Motion, LiMo® by Linux and Symbian® by Accenture. More than 80% of smart phone users currently are using either Android® or iOs®. Other platforms are Sailfish®, Firefox®, Palm-OS® and Bada® [30]. Operating systems can be open-source or closed-source. Open-source platforms such as Android® and Limo® are distributed under free licence providing universal access of the source code thus allowing modifications or use by other users at no cost [32]. Closed-source platforms are proprietary software distributed under strict license rules and the user is not allowed to modify, share or redistribute it. The source code is usually not universally available [33]. There are now tens of thousands of mobile apps built to run on various platforms. They can be obtained from application stores for a fee or at no cost. These stores include Google Play, iOs App Store, Windows Phone Store, Blackberry World, and Amazon Appstore, among others. This technology is designed for various devices; usually Smartphones, Tablet computers, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). Each device has its unique characteristics especially in regard to processor speeds, memory size, screen size, and battery life. However, there are general characteristics that cut across the categories. Each of them is hand-held and highly portable and has technical capacity to support mobile applications, full internet browsing, blue-tooth connectivity, Wi-Fi, and several other utility features. Notably, mobile apps cannot run on basic mobile phones, including high-end ones that have touchscreen, media player, camera and Bluetooth [31].

To our knowledge, there are no studies done in Kenya or sub-Saharan Africa to explore the use of mobile learning technology among undergraduate medical students or its challenges. Nevertheless, there are dozens of studies on mHealth innovations within sub-Saharan Africa that have been completed with positive results. All indications are that use of mobile technology will continue to grow thus unless medical schools incorporate ML into medical education, there′s a looming risk of producing health care workers who are under-prepared to utilize mHealth technology fully [13]. Data on mobile phone usage in Kenya is impressive. However, we do not know the patterns of use of mobile technology for education among students including medical students. This information is key in ML content development and improving access to mobile learning for the target group and other similar groups elsewhere. This study aimed to assess use of mobile learning technology among final year undergraduate students at the University of Nairobi College of Health Sciences. Students’ preferences and challenges in accessing and using mobile learning technology were also be explored.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional descriptive study among final year undergraduate students in the University of Nairobi, College of Health Sciences (CHS). The college has five schools, three institutes and one centre and a total of about 4200 undergraduate and postgraduate students. In 2014, the college had 491 undergraduate final year students in the Schools of Medicine (331 students), Pharmacy (70 students), Nursing Science (60 students) and Dental Surgery (31 students). This study was designed to attain a 95% confidence interval, a power of 80%, and a 5% margin of error. We used convenience sampling issuing anonymous, self-administered questionnaires to students in their lecture rooms before or after lectures after obtaining informed consent. All students available in the lecture rooms were given the opportunity to participate. We collected data on demographics, device ownership, device use and challenges to mobile learning. The questionnaire was tested among 20 nursing students before data collection began. Data was entered into SPSS®for cleaning and analysis. Descriptive analysis for categorical data was done using frequencies and proportions, and for continuous data using measures of central tendency. Bivariate analysis to test differences or associations was done using student t-test for numerical variables and chi-square test for categorical variables. Where expected count for any cell was less than 5, we used Fishers Exact Test, in place of Chi-square Test. This study was approved by Kenyatta National Hospital- University of Nairobi Ethics and Research Committee.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-two final year students participated in this study. Sixty two percent were medical students, 16% were nursing students, 13% were pharmacy students and 9% were dental surgery students. The majority were female (59%) and the average age was 24 years (Table 1).

Table 1.

Respondents’ demographic characteristics

Characteristic School of Pharmacy School of Nursing School of Dental Surgery School of Medicine Total
Respondents 37 (13%) 48 (16%) 25 (9%) 182(62%) 292
Sex:
Male 13 (36%) 19 (41%) 9 (36%) 75 (43%) 116 (41%)
Female 23 (64%) 27 (59%) 16 (64%) 101(57%) 167 (59%)
N 36 46 25 176 283
Age
Mean 23.3 24.0 23.5 24.2 23.9
Standard deviation 0.944 1.15 1.25 1.05 1.12
Minimum 22 22 21 22 21
Maximum 26 28 27 28 28
Fee payment mode:
Self-sponsored 17 (46%) 24 (51%) 10 (40%) 126(70%) 177 (61%)
Government-sponsored 20 (54%) 23 (49%) 15 (60%) 55 (30%) 113 (39%)
N 37 47 25 181 290
Income (KES)xβ
Less than 2500 12 (34%) 20 (44%) 6 (24%) 19 (12%) 57 (21%)
2500 – 4999 7 (20%) 11 (24%) 7 (28%) 27 (17%) 52 (20%)
5000 - 10,000 13 (37%) 14 (30%) 8 (32%) 69 (43%) 104 (39%)
Over 10,000 3 (9%) 1 (2%) 4 (16%) 45 (28%) 53 (20%)
N 35 46 25 160 266
x

KES = Kenya shillings

β

One United States Dollar = KES. 85.00

Device ownership: Most of the respondents owned a smart device (88%, n = 258/292). This was either a tablet or smart phone (including iPhones, and Blackberries). A similar number of students owned laptops too. Eighty percent of the respondents owned both a laptop and a smart device (n = 235/292) (Figure 1). Students who had a monthly income above KES. 5000 (USD. 55) were more likely to own a smart device (p = 0.047). Students who did not own a laptop were less likely to own a smart device (p < 0.001). Reasons offered for not owning a smart device were cost (65%), preference (20%), loss or theft (15%). The most popular device makes were Samsung (46%), Tecno (12%) and Apple (10%). Other brands were Nokia (9%), Sony (8%), Huawei (7%), Alcatel (5%) and LG (5%), each of which were owned by under 10% of the respondents (n = 232).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Device ownership

Device platform: The most popular mobile operating systems for smart devices were Android (85%), Windows Mobile (10%) and iOs (Apple -10%). Other platforms were used by 2% of the respondents (n = 250).

General Use of smart device: Nearly all participants used their smart devices for short messaging service (SMS), internet access, social media and email (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

General uses of mobile devices by medical students at the University of Nairobi

Educational use: Virtually all respondents who owned a smart device reported using it for learning (n = 257/258). The major educational features accessed on smart devices were web browsers (87%), portable documents (81%), mobile applications (72%), images (60%) and eBooks (59%). Less commonly accessed materials were videos (47%) and podcasts (17%) (Figure 3). Smart device holders accessed learning materials for several purposes: Regular study (85%), revising for exams (74%), taking notes or images (62%) and accessing research journals (46%).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Educational use of smart devices by medical students at the University of Nairobi

Mobile applications: Sixty four percent of all respondents had medical mobile applications (n = 186/292). 72% of smart device holders (186/258) listed at least one app they had used on their device (an average of 1.5 apps, standard deviation = 1.56). 65% of smart device holders reported having 1-5 medical mobile applications on their device. The most commonly listed apps were Medscape (66%), drug index apps (9%), and medical dictionaries (7%). The most accessed app types were disease management apps (88% of respondents), procedure guides (88%), and medical dictionaries (87%). Other commonly accessed apps were for laboratory reference (81%), drug reference/index (73%) and medical calculators (31%) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Frequency of mobile application use by type

Application category Never used Rarely used Occasionally used Often used Constantly used Ever used n
Disease management 12% 7% 25% 43% 13% 88% 239
Procedure guide 12% 12% 36% 33% 7% 88% 242
Medical dictionaries 13% 15% 30% 30% 12% 87% 243
Lab reference 19% 13% 28% 31% 10% 81% 231
Drug index 27% 17% 25% 24% 6% 73% 240
Medical calculators 31% 20% 28% 15% 7% 69% 234

This table shows how frequently University of Nairobi medical students use different Mobile Application types.

Payment for medical apps: Fifteen percent (15%) of the respondents had ever paid for a medical app. 43% would be willing to pay for one in the future (n = 292). There was no association between willingness to pay and the income of the respondent.

Proficiency: The majority of respondents reported moderate proficiency in mobile application use. Half of the respondents had installed several apps to test the experience. A few (1%), reported having developed their own app (Table 3).

Table 3.

Medical students’ proficiency in mobile application use

Statement Respondents Percent
I do not use mobile apps 10 4%
I use a few factory installed apps 18 6%
I have installed a few apps that I have seen or heard about 106 38%
I have installed many apps to test the utility 143 51%
I have developed my own apps 3 1%

This table shows how medical students self-rated their skills in use of Mobile Applications

Accessing Medical journals: Eighty six percent of all respondents (n = 228/266) had ever accessed a medical journal. Respondents who owned a smart device were more likely to access medical journals though the association was not statistically significant (p = 0.058).

Cellular internet connection: The most popular cellular internet provider among the respondents was Safaricom (85%). Airtel Kenya had 15%, Orange 7% and Yu Mobile 2%.

Potentially harmful use of smart devices: Nearly a third (29%) of the respondents had ever used a mobile device while driving, 74% had used a device during sleep breaks and 85% during lectures (Table 4).

Table 4.

Potentially harmful use of mobile devices by medical students at the university of Nairobi

Device Use Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always
During lectures 15% 26% 35% 19% 5%
During sleep breaks 26% 14% 22% 22% 16%
While driving 71% 13% 11% 3% 2%

Limitations of mobile application use: Several limitations to the use of mobile applications were cited- 29% of the respondents did not know how to download apps, 28% had devices that could not support installation of new apps, 27% had limited internet access and 23% did not know which apps to download. A few felt that apps were expensive (16%) or downloading apps was expensive (5%). Ten percent reported limited device memory as a hindrance.

Desired information: Respondents reported that they would like to access medical journals on their devices (41%), 20% desired to have free access to ‘for-pay’ apps, 14% desired to have apps developed for Kenya while a similar number desired to access drug index apps on their device. Some students desired to access their exam results or transcripts (8%), to access clinical guidelines (8%), lecture notes (3%) or Free Wireless internet connection on their devices (3%).

Discussion

This study aimed at assessing the use of mobile learning technology by final year undergraduate students at the College of Health Sciences, University of Nairobi as well as exploring the challenges that impede adoption of mobile learning technology in the target population. We found that most of the students owned smart devices, a majority of which run on the Androidplatform. Nearly all students who owned a smart device used it for learning. The main educational uses were regular study, revising for exams, taking notes or images and accessing research journals. About three quarters of the students with smart devices were using medical mobile applications. These were mainly disease management apps, procedure guides, medical dictionaries, laboratory references, drug indexes and medical calculators. The main challenges were lack of a smart device, lack of technical know-how in accessing or using apps, lack of internet access, cost of acquiring apps and limited device memory. Our findings show that smart device ownership among medical students is higher than in the general Kenyan population (88% versus 51%) [8]. As their cost goes down, smartphones are becoming increasingly popular among university students. Our findings compare with studies from South Korea [34] and Saudi Arabia [35] which showed that nearly all university students own a smart phone. In the United Kingdom (UK) [20] and the United States (USA) [36], about 80% of medical students own a smart phone. Mobile learning, though relatively a new concept, is highly popular among medical students in Kenya. This reflects findings from work done in other countries such as the UK, [20] and USA [37]. Limitations to adoption of mobile learning technology described in this study such as cost and sub-optimal internet connection are similar to those depicted elsewhere. Some limitations are technical such as short battery life, small screen size, and application incompatibility across various operating systems. Cost, privacy and security concerns also limit the use of mobile technology as does the rapid growth that often leads to gadget obsolescence as new apps may be incompatible with older devices. Sub-optimal penetration of broadband internet connectivity is also a limitation [31]. Lack of awareness of available applications or how to access and use them is also a hindrance [15, 20, 38]. ML also requires institutional readiness and human and infrastructural resources that may not always be available in low and middle income countries [39]. A limitation for this study is that technological jargon is not always clear to everyone. Although every effort was made to make the questionnaire as simple and unambiguous as possible, it is possible that some respondents may have misunderstood some of the questions. In this regard, a questionnaire administered by trained personnel, in place of self-administered questionnaires may have offered more accurate responses. This was not possible due to resource limitations.

Conclusion

This study shows that mobile learning is popular among medical students. It also shows key challenges to the adoption of ML in medical education. This information should be useful to modern-day medical educators that are seeking to exploit mobile technology to improve access to and quality of medical education. Mobile learning is likely to increase among medical students. There's need to apply more effort in developing mobile technologies that fit the needs of students. These may include local national clinical guidelines, national drug index/formulary, university organization and administration information such as timetables, exam results and lecture notes among others. University campuses should also provide students with easy-to-connect, yet secure, free internet access.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Partnership for Innovative Medical Education in Kenya (PRIME-K) for a student grant that facilitated this study. The PRIME-K project is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, award number 1R24TW008889. We also acknowledge Jean Claude Semuto for translating the abstract into French.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors were involved in design, data interpretation and manuscript preparation for this paper. M Masika, G Omondi, D Natembeya and E Mugane also undertook, data collection, entry and analysis.

References

  • 1.Lippi G, Plebani M. Laboratory applications for smartphones: risk or opportunity? Clinical biochemistry. 2011 Mar;44(4):273–4. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2010.12.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ozdalga E, Ozdalga A, Ahuja N. The smartphone in medicine: a review of current and potential use among physicians and students. Journal of medical Internet research. 2012;14(5):e128. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bertel TF. Mobile Communication in the Age of Smartphones; 2013. IT University of Copenhagen. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wikipedia. Smartphone: Wikipedia; Online Encyclopedia; 2014. (cited 2014 9th June). Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.ITU. International Telecommunication Union: Statistics. 2014. (cited 2014 24th June). Available from: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.CCK. Nairobi, Kenya: Communications Commission of Kenya; 2013. Communications Commission of Kenya - Annual Report 2012 - 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.InfoDev. Washington DC, USA: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; 2012. Mobile Usage at the Base of the Pyramid in Kenya. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gicheru M. Smartphones are now 50% of mobile phones sold in Kenya: TechWeez: Technology News and Reviews; 2014. [cited 2014 9th June,]. Available from: http://www.techweez.com/2014/01/23/smartphones-now-50-mobile-phones-sold-kenya/. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lester RT, Ritvo P, Mills EJ, Kariri A, Karanja S, Chung MH, et al. Effects of a mobile phone short message service on antiretroviral treatment adherence in Kenya (WelTel Kenya1): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2010 Nov 27;376(9755):1838–45. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61997-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Maddison R, Pfaeffli L, Stewart R, Kerr A, Jiang Y, Rawstorn J, et al. The HEART Mobile Phone Trial: The Partial Mediating Effects of Self-Efficacy on Physical Activity among Cardiac Patients. Frontiers in public health. 2014;2:56. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Morrison J, Shrestha NR, Hayes B, Zimmerman M. Mobile Phone Support for Rural Health Workers in Nepal through ‘Celemedicine’. JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association. 2013 Jul-Sep;52(191):538–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Brouard B, Bardo P, Vignot M, Bonnet C, Vignot S. eHealth and mHealth: current developments in 2014 and perspectives in oncology. Bulletin du cancer. 2014 Oct;101(10):940–50. doi: 10.1684/bdc.2014.1950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gaglani SM, Topol EJ. iMedEd: the role of mobile health technologies in medical education. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2014 Sep;89(9):1207–9. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Albrecht UV, Folta-Schoofs K, Behrends M, von Jan U. Effects of mobile augmented reality learning compared to textbook learning on medical students: randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of medical Internet research. 2013;15(8):e182. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ehteshami A, Hachesu PR, Esfahani MK, Rezazadeh E. Awareness and using of medical students about mobile health technology in clinical areas. Acta informatica medica: AIM: journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina: casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH. 2013;21(2):109–12. doi: 10.5455/aim.2013.21.109-112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Parsons K, Woolley AB. Use of an instant messaging application to facilitate pharmacy students’ learning during medical rounds. American journal of health-system pharmacy: AJHP: official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. 2013 Oct 1;70(19):1654–5. doi: 10.2146/ajhp130294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Alegria DA, Boscardin C, Poncelet A, Mayfield C, Wamsley M. Using tablets to support self-regulated learning in a longitudinal integrated clerkship. Medical education online. 2014;19:23638. doi: 10.3402/meo.v19.23638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.van Schaik S, Plant J, O'Sullivan P. Promoting self-directed learning through portfolios in undergraduate medical education: the mentors’ perspective. Medical teacher. 2013;35(2):139–44. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.733832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Garritty C, El Emam K. Who's using PDAs? Estimates of PDA use by health care providers: a systematic review of surveys. Journal of medical Internet research. 2006;8(2):e7. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.2.e7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Payne KB, Wharrad H, Watts K. Smartphone and medical related App use among medical students and junior doctors in the United Kingdom (UK): a regional survey. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2012;12(1):121. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Casey M. New age app doctors: world hospitals and health services. The official journal of the International Hospital Federation. 2013;49(3):22–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zurovac D, Otieno G, Kigen S, Mbithi AM, Muturi A, Snow RW, et al. Ownership and use of mobile phones among health workers, caregivers of sick children and adult patients in Kenya: cross-sectional national survey. Globalization and health. 2013;9(20):1–7. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-9-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Savill-Smith C, Attewell J, Tribal GS. Mobile learning in practice. London, UK: Learning & Skills Network; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dayer L, Heldenbrand S, Anderson P, Gubbins PO, Martin BC. Smartphone medication adherence apps: potential benefits to patients and providers. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association: JAPhA. 2013 Mar-Apr;53(2):172–81. doi: 10.1331/JAPhA.2013.12202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lewis TL, Burnett B, Tunstall RG, Abrahams PH. Complementing anatomy education using three-dimensional anatomy mobile software applications on tablet computers. Clinical anatomy (New York, NY) 2014 Apr;27(3):313–20. doi: 10.1002/ca.22256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Markman TM, Sampognaro PJ, Mitchell SL, Weeks SR, Khalifian S, Dattilo JR. Medical student appraisal: applications for bedside patient education. Applied clinical informatics. 2013;4(2):201–11. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2013-01-R-0007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Teri S, Acai A, Griffith D, Mahmoud Q, Ma DW, Newton G. Student use and pedagogical impact of a mobile learning application. Biochemistry and molecular biology education: a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2014 Mar-Apr;42(2):121–35. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ferenchick GS, Solomon D. Using cloud-based mobile technology for assessment of competencies among medical students. Peer J. 2013;1:e164. doi: 10.7717/peerj.164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gituma A, Masika M, Muchangi E, Nyagah L, Otieno V, Irimu G, et al. Access, sources and value of new medical information: views of final year medical students at the University of Nairobi. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH. 2009 Jan;14(1):118–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02209.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bowen K, Pistilli MD. Student Preference for Mobile App Usage; 2012. EDUCAUSE Centre for Applied Research. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Brown J, Haag J. Mobile Learning Handbook: Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL); 2011. Available from: http://mlhandbook.adlnet.gov. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.LINFO. Open Source Definition; 2006. [updated Jan 03, 2007]. Available from: http://www.linfo.org/open_source.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.LINFO. Proprietary Software Definition: The Linux Information Project; 2004. [cited 2014 16th June,]. Available from: http://www.linfo.org/proprietary.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Nam S-Z. Evaluation of University Students? Utilization of Smartphone. International Journal of Smart Home. 2013;7(4) [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Alfawareh HM, Jusoh S. Smartphone Usage Among University Students: Najran University Case. Internal Journal of Academic Research. 2014;6(2) [Google Scholar]
  • 36.eMarketer. College Students Adopt Mobile across the Board - Nine in 10 college students to own a smartphone by 2016: eMarketer; 2012. [cited 2014 27th June,]. Available from: http://www.emarketer.com/newsroom/index.php/college-students-adopt-mobile-board/#qCMzPhPec4C7UuGQ.99. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bruce-Low SS, Burnet S, Arber K, Price D, Webster L, Stopforth M. Interactive mobile learning: a pilot study of a new approach for sport science and medical undergraduate students. Advances in physiology education. 2013 Dec;37(4):292–7. doi: 10.1152/advan.00004.2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Walton G, Childs S, Blenkinsopp E. Using mobile technologies to give health students access to learning resources in the UK community setting. Health information and libraries journal. 2005 Dec;22(Suppl 2):51–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-3327.2005.00615.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Frehywot S, Vovides Y, Talib Z, Mikhail N, Ross H, Wohltjen H, et al. E-learning in medical education in resource constrained low- and middle-income countries. Human resources for health. 2013;11(1):4. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-11-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Pan African Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of The Pan African Medical Journal

RESOURCES