147 - A Retrospective Analysis of Different Teaching Methods for Osteopathic Medical Students' Gross Anatomy Education

Poster Board Number: 147
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Nathan Thompson - New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine; Simone Hoffmann - New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine

Abstract Body : Medical schools are continually searching for the most effective method for teaching human gross anatomy. Cadaver dissection has been a pillar of medical school since its inception, but with cost, time, and space constraints, schools have shifted curricula to include other teaching modalities. This study investigates the effect of teaching modality on test performance in the gross anatomy laboratory at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM). In addition, we looked at the effect of independent small group learning compared to instructor-based presentations on student performance.

The gross anatomy teaching sessions at NYITCOM are set up into several component stations: instructor-led radiology, independent/instructor-led case-based learning, instructor-led prosection and self-directed dissection aided by instructors. Anatomy laboratory examinations consist of computer-based identification and multiple-choice questions, which correspond to content at either one type, or multiple types, of station. All 355 exam questions used during the 2022 academic year were coded by teaching modality used in the anatomy laboratory. Questions that were covered in multiple modalities, were classified as ‘mixed’. Data was collected from all first-year medical students taking anatomy at both NYITCOM campus sites (Arkansas and New York). Total performance (percent correct response) for all anatomy laboratory questions, as well as site-specific performance, were compiled. Performance among modalities was analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis test with a Dunn’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons. Case-based station performance by site was analyzed using a paired Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test.

Dissection-based questions performed the best on exams with a mean percentage correct of 83.4 and prosection performed the worst, with a score of 75.9. Performance on prosection-based questions was significantly worse than dissection (P< 0.05) or mixed-modality (P< 0.05). The case-based station data consisted of 24 questions that covered instructor-led content in Arkansas but student-led content in New York. Results indicate that case-based stations performed slightly better without an instructor present (80.2 v 77.5; P< 0.05).

This study showed that, although the performance differences were small, dissection is an effective method for teaching anatomy. This result comes at a critical time when COVID-19 has accelerated the shift away from dissection in favor for time and cost-effective methods. Our study also highlights the importance of student engagement in knowledge retention, with the student-led stations outperforming the instructor-led. More importantly, these findings can be implemented to improve any aspect of medical education.