Anatomy Education Across the Health Professions: A Comparison of Student Perspectives on Body Donation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cadaver‐based learning provides students with the opportunity to not only acquire the visual and tactile experiences necessary to properly apply anatomical knowledge but more importantly, an opportunity for students to reflect upon fundamental values of humanism, such as respect, empathy and compassion. Differences in students' perspectives across the health professions on body donation and the use of body donors as a component of their education has not yet been explored. The goal of the study was to qualitatively analyze the commonalities and differences in student perspectives on body donation across varying health professional programs including nursing, physical and occupational therapy and medicine. One‐page reflections written by nursing (N=37), physical and occupational therapy (N=49) and medical students (N=66) regarding their experiences in the McGill University anatomy laboratory were collected and qualitatively analyzed by deductive coding methods using Atlas.ti software. All of the data were thematically coded using a deductive approach, by 2 independent coders, according to the themes and sub‐themes described by Stephens et al., 2019 (How does Donor Dissection Influence Medical Students’ Perceptions of Ethics? A Cross‐Sectional and Longitudinal Qualitative Study, ASE 2019). IRB# A06‐B42‐17A. Despite the students having different curricula, there were only a few differences in what the nursing, physical and occupational therapy and medical students discussed in their reflections about body donation and cadaveric‐based learning, suggesting that the anatomy laboratory had similar effects on the different users. The nursing students were not reflective about the idea that working with different body donors provided them with unique learning experiences in the anatomy laboratory. In addition, the physical and occupational therapy students did not discuss the idea of maintaining the body donors' privacy by keeping parts of their bodies covered during the anatomy lab. The majority of the students from all three healthcare profession groups have mentioned that, as a result of their positive anatomy lab experience, they would like to give future generations the same privilege they had by donating their bodies to science. However, there were two nursing students that have concluded that they have decided not to donate their bodies to science. This qualitative study is the first of its kind because it directly compares student perspectives on body donation and cadaveric‐based learning, amongst three different health profession groups: nursing, physical and occupational therapy and medicine. This new information can help design interprofessional activities, which require mutual respect of another profession’s perspective, such commemorative services. Support or Funding Information This work was generously supported by the McGill University Faculty of Medicine Research Bursary Program.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».