Search

There has been a lack of empirical information regarding anatomy education for occupational therapists (OTs). Insufficient anatomy education can result in underprepared entry-level OTs, who may then produce increased practice errors and reduced patient care. The objective of this study was to investigate how human gross anatomy was taught in entry-level occupational therapy programs throughout the United States and evaluate faculty perspectives on its teaching. A mixed-methods survey was sent to the directors of entry-level occupational therapy programs in the United States. Survey responses were compiled to best represent the current occupational therapy education environment. Ten of sixty-eight participating programs did not teach anatomy as a part of their standard occupational therapy curriculum. Of the programs that featured entry-level occupational therapy anatomy courses, the majority were taught by either a non-clinician anatomist or an OT without specialized anatomy training in a region-based, standalone anatomy course during the first semester. In most programs, anatomy was taught to only occupational therapy students using lecture, models/plastination, and/or prosection. Teaching tools, methods, faculty, and programmatic factors were perceived as contributing to program strengths. The design, resources, and faculty involved in the occupational therapy anatomy course may negatively impact the perceived quality of an occupational therapy anatomy program and its students. Participants identified several consequences of insufficient anatomy preparedness, including academic, clinical reasoning, treatment skills, patient care, and professional identity concerns. Occupational therapy educators may want to be aware of the current climate of occupational therapy anatomy education in the United States when designing entry-level occupational therapy anatomy curricula.

Student struggles in gross anatomy coursework at the professional level can result in hours of remediation along with a need to allot time and other resources by both the student and the faculty. Since this course typically occurs in the first semester of the first year, programs can turn to admissions data to try to determine which of these students may struggle. This study looked at two years of medical (n = 280) and dental (n = 78) students to determine if there is a relationship between pre-admissions anatomy coursework and performance in gross anatomy at the professional school level. Students provided data regarding their past anatomy coursework and final grades in professional school gross anatomy courses were obtained. In addition, students responded to questions regarding their feelings of preparation and how they valued the prior anatomy coursework as it related to the professional course. Statistical analysis showed no difference in final course grade between students with and without prior anatomy in either program. Counter to the numerical data, 96.6% of the students in the study recommended an anatomy course prior to pursuing a health science degree. The primary reasons given for this recommendation were the benefits of repeated content exposure, knowledge of the anatomy terminology, and decreased stress regarding the course. The results from this study suggest that the benefits of prior anatomy may be seen more in the students' stress and quality of life rather in the numerical performance of course grades.

Most health-related educational programs are traditionally stressful. One of the most frequent academic stressors that students report is their gross anatomy experience. A variety of symptoms, including stress, anxiety, and emotional distress, have been reported among students in anatomy, particularly concerning working with anatomical donors. However, the literature remains sparse concerning what other stressors could contribute to the experiences of students in a donor-based anatomy course. Reports of stress are also common among students in non-donor dissection-based courses. This study aimed to investigate what stressors occupational and physical therapy students experienced in both the laboratory and lecture components of their anatomy course. A thematic analysis based on a descriptive phenomenological study was designed. This allowed the exploration of anatomy-related stress from the students' perspective as a phenomenon they experienced during their study. Thematic responses were categorized into laboratory and non-laboratory anatomy-specific stressors. Themes included dissection supervision, dissection group dynamics, emotional preparation, fear of death, condition of anatomical donor, anatomical donor's subcutaneous tissue, quality of dissection, previous anatomy experience, anatomical terminology, amount of information, teaching styles, fear of failure, self-directedness, and time constraint. Most stressors pointed to a course or curriculum issue and could be potentially modifiable. Knowledge of these stressors that students face could contribute to understanding the challenges in the study of anatomy from the student's perspective and contribute to future efforts in addressing these stressors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has suggested that changing one's answer on multiple-choice examinations is more likely to lead to positive academic outcomes. This study aimed to further understand the relationship between changing answer selections and item attributes, student performance, and time within a population of 158 first-year medical students enrolled in a gross and developmental anatomy course at an academic medical institution in the United States. For each student, answer changes, overall exam performance, and individual item performance data were retrieved from an online testing software for a single block exam. Researchers determined how many times students changed their answers, the associated outcomes, and time spent on each item and the entire exam in relation to item performance. Students in the highest performing quartiles were more likely to keep their initial answer selection, spent more time choosing their initial answer selection, and averaged a higher total exam time than each of the lowest two performance quartiles. Time on individual items and answer changes had a statistically significant relationship, with more time relating to the presence of an answer change. Changing an answer selection was more likely to result in a negative outcome. The content subject was significant in relation to answer changes and time spent per item. This study provides a deeper understanding into which factors, such as item attributes, time, and performance of the student, showed statistically significant relationships to answer changing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brain dissection is typically an important part of teaching neuroscience in health professional programs. This results in the need to effectively remove brains, which is often performed in a gross anatomy laboratory in the same curriculum. The aim of this study was to determine the most effective method of brain removal based on the time required for removal, difficulty of removal, and preservation of key brain structures for educational purposes. Six different dissectors performed each of the three calvaria removal approaches and three different spinal cord transection methods rating them for difficulty and tracking the time required. The combination of calvaria and brainstem approaches and the order of completion was randomized to control for fatigue and previous individual experience. After all brains were removed, each was evaluated by neuroscience faculty for utility in education contexts. The study found little difference between the individual approaches for both calvaria removal and spinal cord transection in regards to quality of outcome. The use of a circumferential cut only proved to be the most time‐effective method for calvaria removal while a posterior cut between C1 and C2 was the most time‐effective and least difficult method for brainstem release. There was no one technique that proved to be most beneficial across all three measures. However, different approaches resulted in a different combination of benefits across the time, difficulty, and outcome ratings that should be considered in light of the individual needs of any program or researcher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]