الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 149 |  |  |
| | | from | 149 | | |
Abstract
Health systems all over the world have been witnessed a remarkable an unprecedented reform due to smart technology proliferation and smart phones revolution. The use of smart phones in the recent context plays a significant role in shaping the professional and personal life of health care providers especially nurses. Almost every nurse in this decade possess a smart phone that use it in wide range of activities in nursing practice. Smartphones provide valuable benefits to nurses. On the other hand, excessive use of smartphones can have negative consequence on mental health of nurses. In addition, abuse of smartphones to the level that can interfere with daily life may lead to smartphone addiction. Smartphone addiction is the excessive use of smartphones that interfere with social relationship and hinders achieving personal life and work-related goals.
Addictive use of smartphone is dominant time waster as it makes nurse distracted by other irrelevant or tempting applications on the smartphone and information which could progress to procrastination behavior. Procrastination behavior is defined as the voluntary or involuntary delay of an intended task despite expecting to be worse off for the delay. Procrastination behavior can affect one’s work performance, such as missed deadlines, reduced quality of work, increase stress and reduced satisfaction. By conducting this study, valuable insights can be gained, leading to interventions and strategies that help nurse manager to cultivate productive behavior among nurses through reducing use of smartphone in non-value-added activities.
Aim of the study
The present study aimed to examine smart phone addiction and its relationship to procrastination behavior among nurses.
Summary
68
Setting and subjects
This study was conducted at all critical care units (N= 23) of Alexandria Main University Hospital. It is the largest educational University Hospital in Alexandria. It is the first university hospital to start serious steps to fulfill requirements of the General Authority for Health Accreditation and Regulation (GAHAR). Out of 415 nurses working in the previous mentioned units, 360 were recruited conveniently to collect necessary data. They provide direct, indirect care with at least 6 months of experience and they are willing to participate in the study.
Tools:
Three tools were used in the study.
Tool I: Smart Phone Addiction Inventory (SPAI):
This tool was developed by Lin et al. (2014). It was adopted by the researchers to measure to what extent nurses exhibit smartphone addiction. It consisted of 26 items, categorized into four dimensions: compulsive behaviors (9 items), functional impairment (8 items), withdrawal (6 items), and tolerance (3 items). Responses were obtained by using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from (1) = strongly disagree to (4) = strongly agree. Internal consistency was high; the overall Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.94 for the global scale (Lin et al. 2014(. The overall score of smart phone addiction among nurses ranges from 26 to 104. The cut points of the scale were 26–51: low level, 52–77: moderate level, and 78–104: high level) Lin et al. 2014).
Tool II: New Active Procrastination Scale (NAPS):
The New Active Procrastination Scales (NAPS) were developed by Chu & Choi (2005) as a 12-item scale to measure active procrastination behavior among nurses and were later modified into a 16-item measure (Choi & Moran, 2009). The modified version of NAPS was adopted to conduct this study. The NAPS focuses on four dimensions of active procrastination: a preference for pressure (4 items), an
Summary
69
intentional decision to procrastinate (4 items), an ability to meet deadlines (4 items), and the ability to create a satisfactory outcome (4 items). The responses were obtained using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from not at all true (1) to very true (7). Internal consistency was high; the overall Cronbach’s alpha score was (α =.80) for the global scale. Scoring of all the items is in reversed form except items no. 9, 10, 11, and 12 (Choi & Moran, 2009). The overall score of active procrastination behavior among nurses ranges from 16 to 112. The cut points of the scale were 16–47: low level, 48–80: moderate level, and 81–112: high level (Choi & Moran, 2009).
Tool III: Unintentional Procrastination scale (UPS)
The Unintentional Procrastination Scale (UPS) was developed by Fernie et al. (2017) and it was adopted to assess passive procrastination behavior among nurses. The UPS consists of six items that were measured using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from don’t agree (1) to very much agree (4), with a single-factor structure. Internal consistency was high; the overall Cronbach’s alpha score was.89 for the global scale (Fernie et al. 2017). The overall score of passive procrastination behavior among nurses’ ranges from 6 to 24. The cut points of the scale were 6–11: low level, 12–17: moderate level, and 18–24: high level (Fernie et al. 2017).
In addition to, personal data and work-related characteristic sheet was developed by the researcher and consist of questions related to: nurses` age, gender, qualification, year of experience in nursing profession, working unit, social status, previous attendance of workshop or courses about smart phone use or procrastination.
Method
Approval from the Research Ethics Committee (REC), Faculty of Nursing, Alexandria.