123 - Clinician Use and Perceptions of Anatomical Eponyms

Poster Board Number: 123
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : Introduction/Objective
A common argument for the use of anatomical eponyms is that clinicians use them in clinical practice, therefore students must learn them in order to communicate in a clinical setting. However, few data beyond anecdotes describe clinician use or perceptions of eponyms. Therefore, this study sought to investigate clinicians’ use of eponyms in clinical practice and their perceptions regarding these terms.

Materials & Methods
An anonymous questionnaire was distributed via social media, email, and word of mouth to practicing clinicians (MD, DO, PA, & NP) in the U.S. It consisted of multiple choice and Likert-scale questions to gather demographics and perspectives on eponym use in the clinical setting. Principle Components Analysis (PCA) and Cronbach’s alpha were used to provide evidence of internal consistency. Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine how likely the relationship between variables was due to chance.

Results
Fifty-six (56) viable responses were collected. PCA confirmed five factors that explained 72.8% of data variation: instances of eponym use, communication with colleagues and trainees, controversial terminology, patient influence, and historical influence. Cronbach’s alpha for Likert-scale items was good (α=0.802). The majority of participants (78.6%) held MD degrees; 52% identified as male and 46% as female. Overall, 52% of respondents said they used eponyms and 70% agreed that medical trainees should be taught eponyms.

Specialty did not significantly influence whether clinicians used eponyms. However, it did influence their views regarding whether eponyms were important to their profession (p< 0.001) and made communication easier (p=0.020); surgeons and pathologists particularly felt this way.
A clinician’s gender did not influence whether they used eponyms but did significantly impact whether they felt their knowledge of controversial eponyms influenced their use (p=0.035). Women were 2.5 times more likely than men (69.2% vs. 27.5%) to agree that such knowledge influenced their use of eponyms. Interestingly, 67.9% of all respondents agreed that more knowledge of controversial eponyms would influence their use of eponyms. While 62% of respondents felt the history of medical terminology mattered to them, fewer respondents were familiar with anatomical eponym history (28%) or aware of controversial eponyms (54%).

Clinicians’ age or years in practice did not influence whether they used eponyms but did influence whether they felt the people and actions behind the eponyms should be considered when choosing whether to use them. Of respondents under 35 years, 86% agreed the history of eponyms should be considered compared to 64% of those over 55 (p=0.045). New clinicians (< 5 years of practice) were three times more likely to consider the people and actions behind the eponyms compared to senior counterparts (>21 years; p=0.022).

Conclusion
Clinicians agreed that they use eponyms in their interactions with colleagues and believed that these terms should be taught to trainees. However, few of them are aware of the history behind anatomical eponyms and the majority agreed that such knowledge would influence whether they would use eponyms. This was particularly true for women and younger clinicians.

Significance
These results indicate that more education on anatomical eponyms, particularly in medical education curricula, could improve dialogue amongst clinicians about the role and purpose of these terms, their controversy, and ethics.