Examining the Impact of Cadaver‐Based Anatomy Laboratory Experiences on Medical Students Through a Thematic Analysis of their Written Reflections
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cadaver dissection has long been considered the gold standard pedagogical approach in anatomical education for its ability to teach students not only anatomy knowledge, but also non‐traditional discipline‐independent skills that are pertinent to professional training programs in healthcare. With the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic in 2020, many medical schools were forced to adopt remote or blended teaching formats, reducing students’ dissection time in the anatomy laboratory. Some have raised concerns about how having limited interaction with body donors in anatomical education may dehumanize medical students’ learning experiences and alter their learning outcomes, but there is a paucity of research in this area. To examine how reduced exposure to cadavers during the COVID‐19 pandemic may impact the student experience, a pre‐pandemic assessment must first be made. Halfway through the first year of medical school, McGill University medical students consider the meaning of their anatomy laboratory experience and how it has contributed to their future career through a written reflective assignment. The present study aimed to describe how students reflected on their laboratory experience and its importance in their training as both individuals and future healthcare professionals, prior to the onset of COVID‐19. Reflections written by the McGill University medical class of 2023, whose time in the anatomy laboratory was not limited by the pandemic, were analyzed through the six‐step framework to thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke (2006). Three undergraduate research students (BB, MR, IG) inductively coded students’ reflections (n = 134) using NVivo software to identify preliminary themes. Themes were reviewed, defined, and named through discussion with the entire research team (all listed authors). Three central themes were identified: (1) philosophical reflections, (2) perceived outcomes of the anatomy laboratory and (3) reflections on the body donor or body donation. Notable sub‐themes included: (1.1) reflections on the body and soul, (2.1) reflections on the current medical curriculum and (3.1) the dichotomy of objectification and personification during student‐donor interaction. The presence of these themes and example quotes drawn from the reflections confirm that donor‐dissection not only teaches students anatomical knowledge but enables them to realize the importance of dissection to the medical curriculum, consider the gift that is body donation, and explore philosophical ideas of life and death. A thematic analysis of the reflections written by McGill University’s 2024 medical class, who were subject to a blended learning format during the COVID‐19 pandemic, is currently underway to determine the degree to which decreased laboratory exposure influenced the students’ reflections on their laboratory experience.
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 | 0,015 | 0,038 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 ».