Cross-sectional survey assesses e-learning use in obstetrics and gynecology specialists, suggesting improvements are needed.
E-learning has been widely adopted in medical education for its flexibility and ability to extend learning into resource-limited settings. However, uptake remains low in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with infrastructure and skill gaps limiting use. This study assessed e-learning utilization among Ethiopian obstetrics and gynecology specialists. We conducted a multi-center cross-sectional survey of 316 Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN) residents and consultants in Ethiopian teaching hospitals. Data on demographics, digital skills, attitudes, infrastructure access, and self-reported e-learning activities were collected. A composite utilization score (0–100%) was computed, with ≥ 60% defined as “good” utilization. Statistical analysis examined factors associated with utilization. The mean e-learning utilization score was 47.2 ± 15.9%, with only 24.4% of participants achieving a “good” utilization rate. Most (75.6%) had poor utilization (< 60%). After adjustment, female participants had significantly lower odds of poor utilization (aOR ≈ 0.20) than males. Workload, institutional Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure, and technical support were significantly associated with utilization. Importantly, positive attitudes toward e-learning and its perceived usefulness and ease were strongly linked to higher utilization, consistent with technology acceptance models. Digital literacy and internet access quality were not independently predictive. E-learning use among Ethiopian OBGYN trainees is low. Given evidence that e-learning can improve knowledge and skills without sacrificing quality, strengthening digital infrastructure, training, and faculty support is essential. Targeted investments (e.g., smartphone-compatible content, ICT training) are needed to boost equitable access and build specialist capacity in Ethiopia and similar LMIC contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Solomon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: