Does dissection influence weight bias among doctor of physical therapy students?

Anatomy with human dissection may help to develop respect for the human body and professionalism; however, dissection may worsen students' attitudes about body weight and adiposity. The purpose of this study was to measure weight bias among Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students enrolled in gross anatomy and determine if, and how the experience of dissection impacts weight bias. Ninety-seven DPT students (70 University of Colorado [CU], 27 Moravian University [MU]) were invited to complete a survey during the first and final weeks of their anatomy course. The survey included demographic items, two measures of weight bias-the Modified Weight Bias Internalized Scale (M-WBIS) and the Attitudes Towards Obese Persons (ATOP) Scale-and open-ended questions for the students who participated in dissection (CU students) that explored attitudes about body weight and adiposity. At baseline, there were no significant differences (p > 0.202) in ATOP, M-WBIS, or BMI between the two universities. The mean scores on both the ATOP and M-WBIS indicated a moderate degree of both internalized and externalized weight bias. There were no significant changes in ATOP (p = 0.566) or M-WBIS scores (p = 0.428). BMI had a low correlation with initial M-WBIS scores (⍴ = 0.294, p = 0.038) and a high correlation with change scores in CU students (⍴ = 0.530, p = 0.011). Future studies should utilize the same measures of weight bias in other healthcare trainees to facilitate comparison and incorporate larger populations of DPT students.

General Skills Amidst the Details: Alternative Learning Objectives and a Framework of Competencies for Human Anatomy.

The field of anatomy is often seen by non-anatomists as concerned primarily with the tasks of locating, naming, and describing structures; these tasks, in turn, are often assumed to require only lower-order cognitive skills (LOCS), i.e., the Knowledge or Comprehension levels of Bloom's taxonomy. Many non-anatomists may thus believe that studying anatomy does not develop transferable higher-order cognitive skills. Published lists of anatomy learning objectives (LOs) might reinforce this view by focusing attention on numerous details of specific structures and regions. To explore this issue further, we have analyzed the structure of published peer-reviewed LOs by characterizing their organization (single-tiered or multi-tiered), inclusion of function, use of action verbs, and dependence on or independence of context. Our results suggest that previously published LO lists, despite their value, may not fully showcase opportunities for students to develop higher-order skills. In the hope of stimulating further discussion and scholarship, we present here a two-tiered framework of human anatomy competencies, i.e., generalizable skills beyond straightforward recognition and memorization. This framework, which is intended to be both student-facing and faculty-facing, illustrates how anatomy courses may be reframed as opportunities to think critically and develop sophisticated, professionally relevant skills.

Confessions of a converted anatomist: teaching without anatomical donors.

In the field of anatomy education, the debate over the superiority of learning with or without human donors is decades long and ongoing. Arguments for or against the use of human donors in anatomy education vary, depending on the healthcare discipline. Physical therapy programs have been particularly resistant to the trend away from the use of human donors. In this personal view, I present my history of anatomy education and how my perspectives on teaching and learning anatomy have changed dramatically throughout my teaching experiences. The purpose of this article is to support instructors who are creating anatomy courses for all healthcare trainees without donors, inspire those teaching with donors to incorporate other methods of instruction and evaluation, challenge educators to examine their own biases surrounding anatomy education, and provide recommendations for developing an anatomy course without human donors. Included in this article is the perspective of a practicing physical therapist who learned through human dissection and has assisted me in the development and management of the human anatomy course in our physical therapy curriculum.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This article provides an overview of how to design an anatomy course without anatomical donors for doctor of physical therapy students and includes recommendations for instructors who need to reduce or eliminate anatomical donors from their anatomy curriculum.

How do practicing physical therapists perceive anatomy education?

The purpose of this investigation was to explore the perceptions of the sufficiency and relevancy of physical therapy anatomy education among early, mid, and late career physical therapists. A survey was distributed via email through clinical networks in the greater Mid-Atlantic region, the American Physical Therapy Association Pennsylvania chapter (APTA-PA), and the American Council of Academic Physical Therapy (ACAPT) Educational Research division. 194 physical therapists responded to the survey. The survey included questions regarding how anatomy was learned in physical therapy school and Likert scale questions investigating opinions of anatomy education. Frequencies were calculated to determine the methods of anatomy education and Likert scale responses. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the Likert scale responses from the groupings of survey participants. Respondents across all years of practice felt that their anatomy education was sufficient and relevant to their clinical practice and that schools dedicated enough time to teaching anatomy. Respondents who had a dissection component in their anatomy curriculum were more likely to view dissection as essential. Length of time in practice did not influence opinions on the sufficiency or relevancy of anatomy education. Dissection continues to be included in most physical therapy anatomy courses and perceived as essential for learning. Practicing physical therapists' anatomy education was viewed as sufficient and relevant with few recommendations for change. Perceptions of clinicians should be incorporated into curriculum design and reform and be gathered on an ongoing basis as more students from programs without anatomical donors graduate and enter clinical practice.

The freedom to teach (at the best).

Over the past decades, biomedical education has changed considerably, mostly by the introduction of novel didactic strategies, as well as the addition of technology. As a consequence, the centuries-old lecture-style presentation has come under criticism for providing only a one-directional transfer of information. However, the delivery of traditional lectures has also seen considerable changes such as the use of Microsoft PowerPoint slides which can be projected and serve as lecture handouts to learners. Electronic technologies and the internet now allow for the permanent recording of lectures and the distribution of video recordings to students who are unable or choose not to attend lectures in person. This off-site consumption of lecture presentations can either be synchronous or, if the recorded videos are made available online, asynchronous. At the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, most schools were forced to change all lecture-style instruction to an online format. With students returning to classroom teaching, schools, and educators have to make a decision whether to offer online lecture recordings permanently, reintroduce in-person lecture presentations, or compromise on a combination of both. Each solution has its own advantages and disadvantages, some of which are discussed in this article. However, there appears to be no single 'best solution' to serve all learners, educators, and educational needs.