Search

Authors report here a survey of medical student feedback on the effectiveness of two different anatomy curricula at Christian Medical College, Vellore, India. Undergraduate medical students seeking the Bachelor in Medicine and Bachelor in Surgery (M.B.B.S.) degrees were divided into two groups by the duration of their respective anatomy curriculum. Group 1 students had completed a longer, 18-month curriculum whereas Group 2 counterparts followed a shorter, 12-month curriculum. Students' responses to a questionnaire were studied. Analysis of feedback from Groups 1 and 2 contrasted the effectiveness of the two anatomy curricula. The coverage of gross anatomy was rated adequate or more than adequate by 98% of Group 1 and 91% of Group 2. A desire for greater emphasis on gross anatomy teaching was expressed by 24% of Group 1 and 50% of Group 2 (P = 0.000). Two-thirds of all students felt that the one-year program was not adequate, and 90% of Group 1 and 74% of Group 2 felt that clinically oriented anatomy teaching required more emphasis. Dissection was helpful or very helpful for 94% of Group 1 and 88% of Group 2. This study suggests that a better understanding of gross anatomy was gained from a course of longer duration (18 months with 915 contact hr vs. 12 months with 671 contact hr). Students who completed the longer anatomy course had greater appreciation of the need for clinically oriented anatomy teaching and dissection., (2009 American Association of Anatomists)

Authors report here a survey of medical student feedback on the effectiveness of two different anatomy curricula at Christian Medical College, Vellore, India. Undergraduate medical students seeking the Bachelor in Medicine and Bachelor in Surgery (M.B.B.S.) degrees were divided into two groups by the duration of their respective anatomy curriculum. Group 1 students had completed a longer, 18-month curriculum whereas Group 2 counterparts followed a shorter, 12-month curriculum. Students' responses to a questionnaire were studied. Analysis of feedback from Groups 1 and 2 contrasted the effectiveness of the two anatomy curricula. The coverage of gross anatomy was rated adequate or more than adequate by 98% of Group 1 and 91% of Group 2. A desire for greater emphasis on gross anatomy teaching was expressed by 24% of Group 1 and 50% of Group 2 (P = 0.000). Two-thirds of all students felt that the one-year program was not adequate, and 90% of Group 1 and 74% of Group 2 felt that clinically oriented anatomy teaching required more emphasis. Dissection was helpful or very helpful for 94% of Group 1 and 88% of Group 2. This study suggests that a better understanding of gross anatomy was gained from a course of longer duration (18 months with 915 contact hr vs. 12 months with 671 contact hr). Students who completed the longer anatomy course had greater appreciation of the need for clinically oriented anatomy teaching and dissection. (Contains 4 tables and 2 figures.)