Search

Anatomy-related departments have access to comparative research productivity data (e.g., Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research), yet no datasets exist for comparing departments' general practices pertinent to education-focused faculty. Practice trends in anatomy-related departments across U.S. medical schools were explored by surveying departmental leaders. The survey inquired about: (i) faculty time allocations, (ii) anatomy teaching services, (iii) faculty labor distribution models, and (iv) faculty compensation practices. A nationally representative sample of 35 departments (of 194) responded to the survey. On average, anatomy educators are allotted 24% (median = 15%) protected time for research, irrespective of funding, 62% for teaching and course administration (median = 68%), 12% for service, and 2% for administration. Forty-four percent (15 of 34) of departments taught at least five different student populations, often across multiple colleges. Many departments (65%; 11 of 17) applied formulaic methods for determining faculty workloads, often as a function of course credits or contact hours. Average base salaries for assistant and associate professors reported by this survey were consistent (p = 0.056) with national means (i.e., Association of American Medical Colleges Annual Faculty Salary Report). Merit-based increases and bonuses averaged 5% and 10% of faculty's salaries, respectively, when awarded. Cost-of-living increases averaged 3%. Overall, departments' workload and compensation practices vary widely, likely a consequence of different institutional cultures, locations, needs, and financial priorities. This sample dataset allows anatomy-related departments to compare and reflect upon their practices and competitiveness in recruiting and retaining faculty.

Medical education has reported a shortage of anatomy educators since the 1960s. While the faculty pipeline has recently been explored, insights into retirement intentions, a key driver of faculty turnover, have yet to be investigated. With the mean age of anatomists rising, knowledge of retirement intentions among current educators is essential to understanding the anatomy educator shortage. This study explored the retirement intentions of current anatomy educators and their likely effects on the workforce. Surveys were distributed to department heads and the American Association for Anatomy (AAA) membership to inquire about job postings from 2018-2020 and retirement intentions, respectively. Department heads sought to fill open positions due to faculty retirements (36%, 15 of 42), faculty relocations/sabbaticals/new responsibilities (31%), and brand new positions (24%). The retirement intentions survey revealed that 61% (23 of 38) of faculty '55 and older' intend to retire within five years. Based on the extrapolation of AAA membership data, estimates suggest that almost twice as many anatomy faculty could retire per year (n = 40) over the next five years compared to the estimated number of annual PhD graduates (n = 22) likely to enter the workforce. Factors driving retirement intentions were overwhelmingly age and finances, followed by job satisfaction and family. The creation of new anatomy educator positions to address increased student enrollments and new health sciences programs is likely to place even greater strain on workforce demands.

Altmetrics are non-traditional metrics that can capture downloads, social media shares, and other modern measures of research impact and reach. Despite most of the altmetrics literature focusing on evaluating the relationship between research outputs and academic impact/influence, the perceived and actual value of altmetrics among academicians remains nebulous and inconsistent. This work proposes that ambiguities surrounding the value and use of altmetrics may be explained by a multiplicity of altmetrics definitions communicated by journal publishers. A root cause analysis was initiated to compare altmetrics definitions between anatomy and medical education journal publishers' websites and to determine the comparability of the measurement and platform sources used for computing altmetrics values. A scoping content analysis of data from across eight publishers' websites revealed wide variability in definitions and heterogeneity among altmetrics measurement sources. The incongruencies among publishers' altmetrics definitions and their value demonstrate that publishers may be one of the root cause of ambiguity perpetuating confusion around the value and use of altmetrics. This review highlights the need to more deeply explore the root causes of altmetrics ambiguities within academia and makes a compelling argument for establishing a ubiquitous altmetrics definition that is concise, clear, and specific.

Interest in spatial ability has grown over the past few decades following the emergence of correlational evidence associating spatial aptitude with educational performance in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The research field at large and the anatomy education literature on this topic are mixed. In an attempt to generate consensus, a meta-analysis was performed to objectively summarize the effects of spatial ability on anatomy assessment performance across multiple studies and populations. Relevant studies published within the past 50 years (1969-2019) were retrieved from eight databases. Study eligibility screening was followed by a full-text review and data extraction. Use of the Mental Rotations Test (MRT) was required for study inclusion. Out of 2,450 screened records, 15 studies were meta-analyzed. Seventy-three percent of studies (11 of 15) were from the United States and Canada, and the majority (9 of 15) studied professional students. Across 15 studies and 1,245 participants, spatial ability was weakly associated with anatomy performance (r[subscript pooled] = 0.240; CI at 95% = 0.09, 0.38; P = 0.002). Performance on spatial and relationship-based assessments (i.e., practical assessments and drawing tasks) was correlated with spatial ability, while performance on assessments utilizing non-spatial multiple-choice items was not correlated with spatial ability. A significant sex difference was also observed, wherein males outperformed females on spatial ability tasks. Given the role of spatial reasoning in learning anatomy, educators are encouraged to consider curriculum delivery modifications and a comprehensive assessment strategy so as not to disadvantage individuals with low spatial ability.

Faculty qualified to teach in the anatomical sciences are growing scarce just as the need for trained anatomists is greater than ever. Enrollments are surging in anticipation of a large physician shortfall; meanwhile, many anatomists are reaching retirement age. Who will fill the teaching gap? This study assessed trends in doctorates awarded in Anatomy and related fields within the United States (US) since 1969 and evaluated modern graduate education in the anatomical sciences. Data were compiled from the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates. The total number of doctorates in the anatomical sciences and number of doctorates by sex and race/ethnicity were plotted for trend analysis. The number of PhD anatomy training programs within US medical schools was also assessed. Curricula and major characteristics of all active programs were evaluated through website searches and program director interviews. While doctorates in cell biology, developmental biology, and neuroscience have grown, the number of PhDs awarded in Anatomy has declined, on average, by 3.1 graduates per year to a 50-year low of only 8 graduates in 2017. Currently, 21 active doctoral programs in anatomy operate within US medical schools and fall into three general categories: anatomy education (n = 8), classic anatomy (n = 8), and anthropology/evolutionary anatomy (n = 5). Without a concerted effort by stakeholders to address the shortage, anatomists may face extinction. Expansion of the anatomy education doctoral degree may represent a necessary evolution of the field to meet job market needs and to thwart the extinction threat.

In 2002, a widely publicized report projected an anatomy educator shortage based on department chairpersons' perceptions. Now, 17 years later, the question lingers: "Does an anatomy educator shortage persist and, if so, how severe is the shortage?" Trends in the number, type, and fill rate of anatomy educator job openings were explored by analyzing job posting in the United States over the past two years. A survey was distributed to leaders of anatomy-related departments in the United States, Canada, and European Union. Most departmental leaders who responded (65% or more) from the United States/Canada (n = 81) and the European Union (n = 52) anticipate they will have "moderate" to "great" difficulty hiring anatomy educators in gross anatomy, histology, and embryology over the next five years. Within the United States, the number of anatomy educator job postings at medical schools more than doubled from at least 21 postings in 2017 to 52 postings in 2018. Twenty-one percent of postings between 2017 and 2018 were never filled. While the number of anatomy educator openings within the United States/Canada is perceived to remain in a steady state for the next five years, the European Union estimates a five-fold increase in the number of openings. Departmental leaders prioritize anatomy educator applicants who have teaching experience (mean ± SD = 4.64 ± 0.84 on five-point Likert scale), versatility in teaching multiple anatomy disciplines (3.93 ± 1.07), and flexibility in implementing various teaching pedagogies (3.69 ± 1.17). Collectively, these data suggest the shortage of anatomy educators continues in the United States/Canada and the European Union.

Anatomical sciences are foundational to the health professions, yet little is known about the qualifications of anatomy educators at the graduate and professional level in the United States. Moreover, there is concern that the number of qualified anatomy educators being trained may be insufficient to meet the growing demand posed by new and expanded programs in medicine and allied health specialties. The authors surveyed anatomists from across the country to (i) characterize the educational credentials of current anatomy educators and (ii) assess the perceived need for education-focused postdoctoral positions or formal mentorships to prepare anatomists for teaching-intensive faculty positions. To probe the survey responses more deeply, one-on-one interviews were conducted with eight individuals selected to represent a diverse sample of respondents in terms of institution, gender, and academic rank. Results indicate that 30-40% of educators at the graduate level and approximately 60% of those at the undergraduate level lack graduate coursework in histology, embryology, and neuroanatomy. Forty-five percent of respondents had completed a postdoctoral fellowship. Eighty-six percent replied "yes/maybe" to the question of whether an anatomy education postdoctoral fellowship would benefit doctoral graduates. The top 3 reasons for this recommendation were to (i) establish independent educational research, (ii) improve a publication record, and (iii) gain additional teaching experience. Notable weaknesses of education-focused postdoctoral training were related to finances, fear of exploitation, and undervaluing of teaching. Moving forward, postdoctoral fellowships and other forms of postgraduate training may represent a key strategy for training anatomists in the current educational climate.

While prior meta-analyses in anatomy education have explored the effects of laboratory pedagogies and histology media on learner performance, the effects of student-centered learning (SCL) and computer-aided instruction (CAI) have not been broadly evaluated. This research sought to answer the question, "How effective are student-centered pedagogies and CAI at increasing student knowledge gains in anatomy compared to traditional didactic approaches?" Relevant studies published within the past 51 years were searched using five databases. Predetermined eligibility criteria were applied to the screening of titles and abstracts to discern their appropriateness for study inclusion. A summary effect size was estimated to determine the effects of SCL and CAI on anatomy performance outcomes. A moderator analysis of study features was also performed. Of the 3,035 records screened, 327 underwent full-text review. Seven studies, which comprised 1,564 participants, were included in the SCL analysis. An additional 19 studies analyzed the effects of CAI in the context of 2,570 participants. Upon comparing SCL to traditional instruction, a small positive effect on learner performance was detected (standardized mean difference (SMD = 0.24; [CI = 0.07, 0.42]; P = 0.006). Likewise, students with CAI exposure moderately outscored those with limited or no access to CAI (SMD = 0.59; [CI = 0.20, 0.98]; P = 0.003). Further analysis of CAI studies identified effects (P = 0.001) for learner population, publication period, interventional approach, and intervention frequency. Overall, learners exposed to SCL and supplemental CAI outperformed their more classically-trained peers as evidenced by increases in short-term knowledge gains.

Continuing education (CE) is an essential element in the life-long learning of health care providers and educators. Despite the importance of the anatomical sciences in the training and practice of clinicians, no studies have examined the need/state of anatomy-related CE nationally. This study assessed the current landscape of CE in the anatomical sciences to contextualize preferences for CE, identify factors that influence the perceived need for CE, and examine the association between supply and demand. Surveys were distributed to educators in the anatomical sciences, practicing physical therapists (PTs), and anatomy training programs across the United States. Twenty-five percent (9 of 36) of training programs surveyed offered CE, certificates, or summer series programs related to anatomy. The majority of PTs (92%) and anatomy educators (81%) felt they had a potential or actual need for anatomy related CE with the most popular formats being online videos/learning modules and intensive, hands-on workshops. The most commonly perceived barriers to participating in CE for both groups were program location, cost, and duration, while educators also perceived time of year as a significant factor. Logistic regression analyses revealed that no investigated factor influenced the need or desire for PTs to engage in anatomy related CE (P = 0.124), while teaching experience and the highest level of learner taught significantly influenced the perceived need among anatomy educators (P < 0.001). Overall, quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed a robust need for CE that strategically integrates anatomy with areas of clinical practice and education.

With integrated curricula and multidisciplinary assessments becoming more prevalent in medical education, there is a continued need for educational research to explore the advantages, consequences, and challenges of integration practices. This retrospective analysis investigated the number of items needed to reliably assess anatomical knowledge in the context of gross anatomy and histology. A generalizability analysis was conducted on gross anatomy and histology written and practical examination items that were administered in a discipline-based format at Indiana University School of Medicine and in an integrated fashion at the University of Alabama School of Medicine and Rush University Medical College. Examination items were analyzed using a partially nested design [sx(i:o)] in which items were nested within occasions (i:o) and crossed with students (s). A reliability standard of 0.80 was used to determine the minimum number of items needed across examinations (occasions) to make reliable and informed decisions about students' competence in anatomical knowledge. Decision study plots are presented to demonstrate how the number of items per examination influences the reliability of each administered assessment. Using the example of a curriculum that assesses gross anatomy knowledge over five summative written and practical examinations, the results of the decision study estimated that 30 and 25 items would be needed on each written and practical examination to reach a reliability of 0.80, respectively. This study is particularly relevant to educators who may question whether the amount of anatomy content assessed in multidisciplinary evaluations is sufficient for making judgments about the anatomical aptitude of students.