130 - Exploring the Impacts of Anatomy Dissection versus Prosection Learning Experiences on Medical Student Confidence

Poster Board Number: 130
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : Introduction:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, institutions converted curricular materials to be delivered virtually. Anatomy dissection labs were particularly affected by social distancing modifications. Dissection learning has been associated with increased short term anatomy knowledge and self-reported student confidence in their knowledge, however there has been no direct comparison of professional development between students learning by different laboratory pedagogies. Thus, the purpose of our study was to examine the effect of laboratory pedagogical approaches on student confidence in preclinical anatomy skills and professional development.

Methods:
Two medical student cohorts were assessed using surveys distributed at the end of the anatomy course. One cohort (M24) completed cadaveric anatomy by viewing prosections and the other (M25) completed cadaveric anatomy by completing dissections. The content delivered in the course was the same for both cohorts. Anonymous surveys were used for assessment and allowed for responses at five levels, from 1 - “strongly disagree” to 5 - “strongly agree.” Surveys assessed student confidence in the following categories: imaging and diagnostic studies, performing physical exams, construction of differential diagnoses, technical skills with instrument use, professional development, skills for coping with death, and development of teamwork skills. Responses were compared using independent sample t-tests. This study was given Exempt Determination by the Tufts University/Tufts Medical Center IRB (protocol #1793).

Results:
54 students (27%) from the M24 cohort and 63 students (32%) from the M25 cohort responded. The M25 students felt significantly more confident in their development of technical skills (M25 3.79 ± 1.1, M24 1.94 ± 1.1, p < 0.0001), teamwork skills (M25 4.21 ± 0.8, M24 3.17 ± 1.1, p=0.00001), and skills to cope with death/dying (M25 3.46 ± 1.1, M24 2.7 ± 1.2, p=0.0005). The M25 students also felt significantly more confident in their professional development as a result of their lab experience (M25 4.27 ± 0.9, M24 3.61 ± 1.1, p = 0.0005) and their ability to contribute to the healthcare team during rotations (M25 3.90 ± 0.90, M24 3.26 ± 1.0, p = 0.0003). Differences between cohort responses for statements regarding imaging (p = 0.194), physical exam (p = 0.147), and differential diagnosis (p = 0.702) were not statistically significant.

Conclusion:
Our data suggests that dissection-based anatomy learning is important for the development of skills related to instrument use, teamwork, coping with death and dying, and professional development in a way that is not mirrored in prosection based learning. These clinical skills are essential for the development of future physicians. In contrast, the results showing that development of imaging, exam, and differential skills were not different based on the instruction method suggests that these skills are taught equally well between modalities, or that there are additional curricular programs that provide students with support in these areas. Further exploration would be valuable to determine how pedagogy affects medical student confidence before and after third year clinical learning, and to also see if these pedagogical approaches affect other aspects of students’ medical journeys, including specialty choice.