Musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities.

Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101563288 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2045-2322 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 20452322 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Sci Rep Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : Nature Publishing Group, copyright 2011-

Anatomy/*education ; Education, Medical/*methods ; Education, Medical/*trends; Adolescent ; Curriculum ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate/methods ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate/trends ; Educational Measurement/methods ; Female ; Humans ; Learning ; Male ; Personal Satisfaction ; Students, Medical/psychology ; Students, Medical/statistics & numerical data ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Teaching/statistics & numerical data ; Teaching/trends ; Young Adult

Anatomy teaching has traditionally been based on dissection. However, alternative teaching modalities constantly emerge, the use of which along with a decrease in teaching hours has brought the anatomy knowledge of students and young doctors into question. In this way, the goal of the present study is to a. compare the efficacy of the most common teaching modalities and b. investigate students' perceptions on each modality. In total, 313 medical students were taught gross anatomy of the upper limb, using four different learning modalities: dissection (n = 80), prosections (n = 77), plastic models (n = 84) and 3D anatomy software (n = 72). Students' knowledge was examined by 100 multiple-choice and tag questions followed by an evaluation questionnaire. Regarding performance, the dissection and the 3D group outperformed the prosection and the plastic models group in total and multiple-choice questions. The performance of the 3D group in tag questions was also statistically significantly higher compared to the other three groups. In the evaluation questionnaire, dissection outperformed the rest three modalities in questions assessing students' satisfaction, but also fear or stress before the laboratory. Moreover, dissection and 3D software were considered more useful when preparing for clinical activities. In conclusion, dissection remains first in students' preferences and achieves higher knowledge acquisition. Contemporary, 3D anatomy software are considered equally important when preparing for clinical activities and mainly favor spatial knowledge acquisition. Prosections could be a valuable alternative when dissection is unavailable due to limited time or shortage of cadavers. Plastic models are less effective in knowledge acquisition but could be valuable when preparing for cadaveric laboratories. In conclusion, the targeted use of each learning modality is essential for a modern medical curriculum.

Clin Anat. 2018 Jan;31(1):122-133. (PMID: 28612403)
Anat Sci Educ. 2013 Jan-Feb;6(1):48-55. (PMID: 22851304)
Anat Sci Educ. 2011 May-Jun;4(3):119-25. (PMID: 21480538)
Clin Anat. 2005 Jul;18(5):380-4. (PMID: 15971223)
Anat Sci Educ. 2016 Jul 8;9(4):307-18. (PMID: 26632977)
Anat Rec. 2002 Apr 15;269(2):118-22. (PMID: 12001219)
Anat Sci Educ. 2015 Nov-Dec;8(6):493-501. (PMID: 25516150)
Anat Sci Educ. 2011 Sep-Oct;4(5):256-63. (PMID: 21744512)
Clin Anat. 2006 Mar;19(2):132-41. (PMID: 16302246)
Anat Sci Educ. 2009 Nov-Dec;2(6):253-9. (PMID: 19890982)
Anat Sci Educ. 2008 Jul-Aug;1(4):184-8. (PMID: 19177406)
Med Educ. 2007 Jan;41(1):15-22. (PMID: 17209888)
Anat Rec. 1998 Feb;253(1):28-31. (PMID: 9556023)
Anat Sci Educ. 2014 Jul-Aug;7(4):262-72. (PMID: 24249485)
Psychol Bull. 2002 Jul;128(4):612-37. (PMID: 12081085)
J Allied Health. 2012 Summer;41(2):53-62. (PMID: 22735817)
Acad Med. 2011 Jul;86(7):883-8. (PMID: 21617516)
Anat Sci Educ. 2014 Sep-Oct;7(5):331-9. (PMID: 24415563)
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016 Oct;21(4):883-95. (PMID: 26459329)
ANZ J Surg. 2010 Apr;80(4):212-6. (PMID: 20575945)
J Med Educ. 1978 Mar;53(3):198-205. (PMID: 344885)
Clin Anat. 2014 Apr;27(3):313-20. (PMID: 23661327)
Ann Anat. 2018 Jul;218:156-164. (PMID: 29669259)
J Med Educ. 1965 May;40:401-13. (PMID: 14279813)
Clin Anat. 2008 Oct;21(7):718-24. (PMID: 18773486)
J Pak Med Assoc. 2014 Sep;64(9):1021-4. (PMID: 25823181)
Ann Anat. 2018 Sep;219:44-50. (PMID: 29886123)
Med Educ. 2005 Mar;39(3):318-25. (PMID: 15733168)
Anat Rec B New Anat. 2004 Nov;281(1):6-8. (PMID: 15558779)
Anat Rec. 2002 Dec 15;269(6):242-8. (PMID: 12467081)
Clin Anat. 2000;13(2):150. (PMID: 10679860)
J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Jul;103(3):152-3. (PMID: 26213509)
Anat Sci Educ. 2012 Nov-Dec;5(6):354-66. (PMID: 22730175)
ScientificWorldJournal. 2013 Nov 07;2013:310348. (PMID: 24367240)
Clin Anat. 2011 May;24(4):489-97. (PMID: 20949485)
Surg Radiol Anat. 2002 Aug-Sep;24(3-4):137-9. (PMID: 12375064)
J Med Educ. 1980 Sep;55(9):794-6. (PMID: 7441700)
Clin Anat. 1999;12(2):110-4. (PMID: 10089036)
Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2015;56(1):321-4. (PMID: 25826524)
Anat Sci Educ. 2013 Jul-Aug;6(4):211-5. (PMID: 23509000)
Anat Sci Educ. 2008 Jan;1(1):27-40. (PMID: 19177376)
Anat Sci Educ. 2014 Jul-Aug;7(4):321-5. (PMID: 24895314)
Anat Rec B New Anat. 2004 Nov;281(1):12-4. (PMID: 15558780)
Med Educ. 1990 Jul;24(4):389-95. (PMID: 2395432)
Clin Anat. 1999;12(1):55-65. (PMID: 9890730)
J Med Educ. 1985 Aug;60(8):635-9. (PMID: 4020843)
Ann Anat. 2013 Oct;195(5):409-14. (PMID: 23706695)
Surg Radiol Anat. 2007 Mar;29(2):173-80. (PMID: 17318286)
Anat Sci Educ. 2020 Jul;13(4):436-444. (PMID: 31251473)

Date Created: 20210116 Date Completed: 20210915 Latest Revision: 20210915

20221213

PMC7810993

10.1038/s41598-020-80860-7

33452299