89 - Health Professions Students’ Perceptions of Full-body Donation and Anatomical Dissection

Poster Board Number: 89
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Ryan Brennan - Student, Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University; Richard Feinn - Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University; Maureen Helgren - Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University

Abstract Body : Introduction and Objective

Anatomical dissection is a high impact practice for anatomy pedagogy for many healthcare programs, while also highlighting meaningful aspects of humanism. Despite educational benefits, medical professionals are underrepresented as anatomic donors. The objective of this study is to describe patterns in Medicine (MD), Physical Therapy (PT), Occupational Therapy (OT), Physician Associate (PA), and Pathologists’ Assistant (Path A) programs from the same university regarding their perception of full-body donation and anatomical dissection.



Materials and Methods

A 12-question survey was sent to students who completed a full-body anatomical dissection within 2 years. The questions utilized a 5-point Likert scale addressing personal consideration of whole-body donation (Q1), recommending anatomical donation to a family member (Q2), a friend (Q3), how completing a dissection impacted their decision (Q4), and the impact of dissection on their education (Q5). For statistical analysis, a MANOVA was performed.



Results

A total of 283 (108 OT, 74 MD, 57 PT, 37 PA, 7 Path A) students completed the survey. The average responses were Q1: 2.74 (SD 1.10), Q2: 2.93 (SD 1.03), Q3: 3.03 (SD 0.99), Q4: 3.71 (SD 1.08), and Q5: 4.80 (SD 0.52). The multivariate test was significant (p < 0.001). Programs did not differ on Q1 (p = 0.434) or Q3 (p = 0.178), but significantly differed on Q2 (p = 0.035), Q4 (p = 0.002), and Q5 (p < 0.001) where OT students gave the highest mean response and MD students the lowest. The multivariate test for age was significant (p < 0.001) such that older age groups gave higher ratings across all questions. There was a significant multivariate effect for religion (p = 0.002), driven by Q1 (p = 0.007), where non-religion gave higher responses than religiously affiliated students.



Conclusion

Students in all programs place a high value on anatomical dissection and showed an increased willingness to donate or recommend donation further away from the relationship to self. The trends were similar across disciplines with few significant differences between programs.



Significance/Implication

Schools utilizing anatomical dissection are declining despite students placing value on dissection. Potential reasons include institutional cost, availability of donors, and increased access to virtual resources. The perceptions of clinicians may impact the future of dissection opportunities for students and should thus be assessed in future studies.



Funding Source

None