ArticleBMC medical education2026
Technology affinity, digital tool use, and implications for health professions education: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital transformation in healthcare requires professionals who are prepared to integrate technological innovations into clinical practice. Beyond structural implementation, successful adoption depends on individual technology affinity and everyday digital engagement. However, evidence on how routine digital tool use relates to technology attitudes among healthcare professionals remains limited. This study examined the association between daily digital tool usage and technology affinity in German healthcare professionals and explored implications for education and training.
methodsAn exploratory quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted in accordance with the STROBE reporting guidelines. An anonymous online questionnaire was administered between June 2023 and April 2024 among healthcare professionals in Germany. Technology affinity was measured using the validated TAEG scale, assessing enthusiasm for technology, perceived competence, perceived benefits, and perceived drawbacks. Statistical analyses comprised descriptive statistics and group comparisons. To examine differences in technology affinity across levels of daily digital tool usage while controlling for potential confounders, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted with age, gender, education, and profession as covariates. In addition, multiple regression analyses were performed to assess independent associations between digital tool usage and technology affinity dimensions. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29.
resultsData from 1,211 healthcare professionals were analyzed. Higher levels of daily digital tool usage were significantly associated with stronger technology affinity across all dimensions, independent of sociodemographic and professional factors. Younger and male participants demonstrated higher affinity scores. Differences between nurses and other healthcare professionals were small; however, given the aggregated nature of the occupational variable, these findings should be interpreted with caution and do not permit conclusions regarding differences between specific professional groups.
conclusionsEveryday digital engagement appears to be closely associated with positive technology attitudes among healthcare professionals, although causal relationships cannot be inferred. Educational and professional development programs should therefore integrate structured opportunities for practical digital tool use and address age- and gender-related differences in digital confidence. Strengthening digital competence through experiential learning may enhance readiness for digital innovation in healthcare settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.