Introduction Mobile devices are embedded in postgraduate clinical training, yet evidence from Latin American and resource-constrained clinical learning environments remains limited. Framed by self-regulated, situated, and sociotechnical perspectives on mobile learning, this study explored educational use patterns, perceived benefits, barriers, and a resident-centered conceptual model among residents in pediatric training programs in Mexico. Material and methods A cross-sectional survey included 240 residents in Pediatrics and pediatric subspecialties affiliated with a large public university system in Mexico. A 45-item questionnaire developed from prior qualitative work and refined through expert review, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing assessed device use, activities, perceptions, and barriers. We calculated descriptive estimates with 95% confidence intervals, domain-specific measurement analyses, and exploratory subgroup comparisons. Results Smartphones were the main learning device. Residents frequently or always used mobile devices to search scientific articles (97.5%), consult clinical practice guidelines (94.6%), communicate through messaging applications (91.3%), and use medical calculators (82.9%). Perceptions were highly favorable for theoretical and clinical learning, academic organization, and access to scientific information. Main tensions were distraction, privacy, and transient or superficial learning; contextual barriers were unstable hospital Wi-Fi, reliance on personal mobile data, and battery limitations. Conclusion Mobile learning is a routine, resident-driven component of clinical training. Its value depends on self-regulation and institutional support for connectivity, data governance, faculty guidance, equitable access, and patient safety. The proposed model integrates the resident-device interaction with the clinical learning environment and institutional enablers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gutiérrez-Hernández et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: