Anat Cell Biol.  2015 Sep;48(3):205-212. 10.5115/acb.2015.48.3.205.

Role of cadaveric dissections in modern medical curricula: a study on student perceptions

• Dissabandara LO
• Nirthanan
• Khoo TK
• Tedman R

• KMID: 2424824
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5115/acb.2015.48.3.205

Abstract

The shift from traditional medical curricula to newer teaching and learning approaches such as problem-based learning has often resulted in omission or significant reduction of cadaveric dissections as a method of learning anatomy. The objective of this study was to evaluate students' perception of dissection in a graduate-entry, problem-based learning-based medical curriculum. At the end of the musculoskeletal dissection program in second year, a Likert-type questionnaire was used to explore medical student perceptions of the perceived advantages and challenges of cadaveric dissections in comparison with other anatomy teaching methods. Overall, a majority of students had a positive perception of dissections. Students who attended dissections regularly had significantly more positive perceptions about their experience and were in agreement with statements such as "dissections make learning more interesting" and "I would be disadvantaged if I did not attend dissection classes." Non-regular attendance was associated with statements about dissections such as "I do not like the smell," "time consuming," and "bored with the way it is carried-out." A follow-up study after completion of the medical program revealed a significant improvement of positive perception about dissection. Student perceptions appear to favour a role for cadaveric dissection in learning anatomy in modern medical curricula. However, optimal and effective integration of dissections is important, with consideration given to its structure and extent of content weighed against logistics and availability of resources; while addressing negative perceptions of dissection-based teaching.

Keyword

Dissection; Anatomy; Cadaver; Medical; Perception

MeSH Terms

Cadaver*
Curriculum*
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Learning
Organization and Administration
Problem-Based Learning
Students, Medical
Teaching
Vulnerable Populations

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 (A-C) Student perception about dissection.

• 

  Fig. 2 Student perception about dissection after the completion of medical course.

• 

  Fig. 3 Comparison of perception about dissection just after the dissection program and at the end of Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery program.

Reference

1. Willms JL, Schneiderman H, Algranati PS. Physical diagnosis: bedside evaluation of diagnosis and function. Baltimore, MD: William and Wilkins;1994.

2. Shaffer K. Teaching anatomy in the digital world. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351:1279–1281.

3. Heylings DJ. Anatomy 1999-2000: the curriculum, who teaches it and how? Med Educ. 2002; 36:702–710.

4. Rizzolo LJ, Stewart WB, O'Brien M, Haims A, Rando W, Abrahams J, Dunne S, Wang S, Aden M. Design principles for developing an efficient clinical anatomy course. Med Teach. 2006; 28:142–151.

5. Marks SC Jr. The role of three-dimensional information in health care and medical education: the implications for anatomy and dissection. Clin Anat. 2000; 13:448–452.

6. McNulty JA, Halama J, Espiritu B. Evaluation of computer-aided instruction in the medical gross anatomy curriculum. Clin Anat. 2004; 17:73–78.

7. Jastrow H, Vollrath L. Teaching and learning gross anatomy using modern electronic media based on the visible human project. Clin Anat. 2003; 16:44–54.

8. Craig S, Tait N, Boers D, McAndrew D. Review of anatomy education in Australian and New Zealand medical schools. ANZ J Surg. 2010; 80:212–216.

9. Weeks SE, Harris EE, Kinzey WG. Human gross anatomy: a crucial time to encourage respect and compassion in students. Clin Anat. 1995; 8:69–79.

10. Azer SA, Eizenberg N. Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students. Surg Radiol Anat. 2007; 29:173–180.

11. Cho MJ, Hwang YI. Students' perception of anatomy education at a Korean medical college with respect to time and contents. Anat Cell Biol. 2013; 46:157–162.

12. Finkelstein P, Mathers LH. Post-traumatic stress among medical students in the anatomy dissection laboratory. Clin Anat. 1990; 3:219–226.

13. Penney JC. Reactions of medical students to dissection. J Med Educ. 1985; 60:58–60.

14. Evans EJ, Fitzgibbon GH. The dissecting room: reactions of first year medical students. Clin Anat. 1992; 5:311–320.

15. Winkelmann A. Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Med Educ. 2007; 41:15–22.

16. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS statistics for windows. Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.;2012.

17. Zehra U, Athar Z, Hafeez A, Rizvi F. Is the use of PowerPoint presentations a better tool of understanding gross anatomy than cadaveric dissection? Ann Pak Inst Med Sci. 2012; 8:6–10.

18. Joughin G. A short guide to oral assessment. Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University;2010.

19. MacKenzie L. Occupational therapy students as peer assessors in viva examinations. Assess Eval High Educ. 2000; 25:135–147.

20. Silén C, Wirell S, Kvist J, Nylander E, Smedby O. Advanced 3D visualization in student-centred medical education. Med Teach. 2008; 30:e115–e124.

21. Granger NA. Dissection laboratory is vital to medical gross anatomy education. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2004; 281:6–8.

22. Schibeci RA, Riley JP 2nd. Influence of students' background and perceptions on science attitudes and achievement. J Res Sci Teach. 1986; 3:177–187.

23. Tedman RA, Alexander H, Massa H, Moses D. Student perception of a new integrated anatomy practical program: does students' prior learning make a difference? Clin Anat. 2011; 24:664–670.