Digital Technology-Enhanced Remote Health Services: Antenatal Clients’ Perception, Acceptance and Readiness at a Nigerian Tertiary Hospital.
Main Article Content
Keywords
Digital technology, remote healthcare, antenatal care , technology readiness index, TRI, teaching hospital, Nigeria
Abstract
Background: Digital technology offers promising solutions for monitoring pregnant women but client’s readiness for its adoption in Nigeria remains underexplored. This study assessed antenatal clients’ perceptions and readiness for digital health adoption.
Methodology: This cross-sectional survey involved 228 antenatal clients recruited through systematic sampling. Participants completed the 16-item Technology Readiness Index (TRI 2.0) and supplementary perception scales on 5-point response scales. Respondents were categorised as explorers, pioneers, skeptics, paranoids, or laggards based on their TRI scores. The range of Cronbach’s alpha for scales was: 0.80–0.92. Data were analysed using SPSS version 29, applying descriptive and generalised linear regression analyses, with statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05.
Results: The response rate was 100% and most participants were aged 25–34 (43.9%), married (51.8%), and held tertiary education (38.6%). Ownership of digital devices was smartwatches (6.1%), smartphones (25.9%), and computers (26.3%). Clients prioritised e-prescription (3.09±1.11) and access to personal health information (3.08±1.13) as top benefits of remote services. TRI Scores were overall TRI (3.00±0.31), optimism (3.12), innovativeness (3.22), discomfort (3.12), and insecurity (3.19). Majority (90.4%) were classified as skeptics. Unemployed clients showed lower acceptance of devices for remote maternal monitoring (B = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.24, -0.01, p = 0.033).
Conclusion: Despite the global momentum toward digital maternal health solutions, antenatal clients in Nigeria demonstrate low digital engagement and are predominantly skeptics. Targeted interventions including digital literacy campaigns, improved trust through data privacy protections, and broader infrastructural investments are critical for promoting equitable adoption of remote digital maternal health solutions.
References
2. Labrique AB, Vasudevan L, Kochi E, Fabricant R, Mehl G. mHealth innovations as health system strengthening tools: 12 common applications and a visual framework. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013;1(2):160–71.
3. Free C, Phillips G, Watson L, Galli L, Felix L, Edwards P, et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001363.
4. Sharma R, Kapoor M, Bhatia A, Singh K, Iyer V, Prinja S. Acceptability and utilization of mHealth interventions for improving maternal health in India: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232414.
5. Chib A, Wilkin H, Ling LX, Hoefman B, Van Biejma H. You have an important message! Evaluating the effectiveness of a text message HIV/AIDS campaign in Northwest Uganda. J Health Commun. 2012;17 Suppl 1:146–57.
6. National Population Commission (NPC) [Nigeria], ICF. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2018. Abuja, Nigeria, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: NPC and ICF; 2019.
7. Akinfaderin-Agarau F, Chirtau M, Ekponimo S, Power S. Mobile health and the challenges of health system innovation in Nigeria. In: Marsch LA, Lord SE, Dallery J, editors. Behavioral Healthcare and Technology: Using Science-Based Innovations to Transform Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 208–23.
8. Musoke D, Boynton P, Butler C, Musoke MB. Health seeking behaviour and challenges in utilising health facilities in Wakiso district, Uganda. Afr Health Sci. 2014;14(4):1046–55.
9. Bhutta ZA, Das JK, Bahl R, Lawn JE, Salam RA, Paul VK, et al. Can available interventions end preventable deaths in mothers, newborn babies, and stillbirths, and at what cost? Lancet. 2014;384(9940):347–70.
10. Oyeyemi SO, Wynn R. The use of cell phones and radio communication systems to reduce delays in getting help for pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Glob Health Action. 2014; 7:25687.
11. Mechael PN, Batavia H, Kaonga N, Searle S, Kwan A, Goldberger A, et al. Barriers and gaps affecting mHealth in low and middle-income countries: Policy White Paper. New York: Columbia University; 2010.
12. Ogaji DS, Anyanwu CE. Implementing electronic healthcare record in a public health facility in Nigeria: awareness, acceptance and concerns among critical stakeholders. International Journal of Electronic Healthcare. 2021;11(4):364-77.
13. World Health Organization. Digital Health Strategy 2020–2025. Geneva: WHO; 2020
14. Parasuraman A, Colby CL. An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: TRI 2.0. Journal of service research. 2015 Feb;18(1):59-74.
15. Alotaibi N, Wilson CB, Traynor M. Enhancing digital readiness and capability in healthcare: a systematic review of interventions, barriers, and facilitators. BMC health services research. 2025 Apr 4;25(1):500.
16. Ogaji DS, Arthur AO, George I. Effectiveness of mobile phone-based support on exclusive breastfeeding and infant growth in Nigeria: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics. 2021 Feb 1;67(1):fmaa076.doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmaa076
17. Mustapha AY, Gbaraba SV, Tomoh BO, Mbata AO, Forkuo AY. Enhancing Maternal and Child Health in Rural Areas Through AI and Mobile Health Solutions.International Journal of Medical Evaluation and Physical Report. 2025;9(1):92 - 123
18. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals: Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages [Internet]. United Nations; 2023 [cited 2025 May 10]. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal3
19. University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital (UPTH). Annual Report 2022. Port Harcourt: UPTH; 2023.
20. Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC. Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Information technology, learning, and performance journal. 2001 Jul 12;19(1):43.
21. Schramm K, Grassl N, Nees J, Hoffmann J, Stepan H, Bruckner T, Haun MW, Maatouk I, Haist M, Schott TC, Sohn C. Women’s attitudes toward self-monitoring of their pregnancy using noninvasive electronic devices: cross-sectional multicenter study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2019 Jan 7;7(1):e11458.
22. Parasuraman A, Colby CL. An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: TRI 2.0. Journal of service research. 2015 Feb;18(1):59-74.
23. Marangunić N, Granić A. Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal access in the information society. 2015 Mar;14(1):81-95.
24. Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. Journal of biomedical informatics. 2010 Feb 1;43(1):159-72.
25. Mohamed H, Ismail A, Sutan R, Rahman RA, Juval K. A scoping review of digital technologies in antenatal care: recent progress and applications of digital technologies. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2025 Feb 13;25(1):153.
26. Moulaei K, Sheikhtaheri A, Fatehi F, Shanbehzadeh M, Bahaadinbeigy K. Patients’ perspectives and preferences toward telemedicine versus in-person visits: a mixed-methods study on 1226 patients. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2023 Nov 15;23(1):261.
27. Ahmad MI. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). LinkedIn Pulse. 2015;1.
28. Or CK, Karsh BT. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2009 Jul 1;16(4):550-60.
29. Baig MM, GholamHosseini H, Connolly MJ. Mobile healthcare applications: system design review, critical issues and challenges. Australasian physical & engineering sciences in medicine. 2015 Mar;38(1):23-38.
30. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and users’ acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 1989; 13(3):319 – 340
31. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003; 27(3):425 - 478
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access journal and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike License 4.0. This licence allows users to download and share, remix, tweak and build upon the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the original authorship is acknowledged and the new creations are licensed under identical terms.