A comparison of student perspectives on body donation across healthcare professional programs: From prosection‐ to dissection‐based curricula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Donor-centered education offers students the opportunity to not only acquire visual and tactile experiences for applying anatomical knowledge but also a chance for students to reflect upon fundamental humanistic principles. The exploration of differences in students' viewpoints on body donation and the utilization of body donors in their education remains unexplored across various healthcare professional programs, which has an impact on student learning and experience. This study aimed to qualitatively examine the similarities and differences in student perspectives regarding body donation across three healthcare professional programs. One-page reflections from nursing (n = 37), physical and occupational therapy (n = 49), and medical students (n = 66) regarding their experiences in the anatomy laboratory at McGill University were collected and analyzed using a deductive approach based on themes and sub-themes outlined by Stephens et al. in 2019. Despite differences in their curricula, there were few discrepancies across the programs' reflections suggesting that donor-based learning had similar effects on each user group. Most students across the healthcare professional programs mentioned that their positive laboratory experiences motivated them to donate their bodies, extending the privilege they had to future generations. Nursing students did not reflect upon the notion that working with body donors provided unique learning experiences in the anatomy laboratory. Likewise, physical and occupational therapy (PT/OT) students did not address the importance of maintaining the privacy of body donors by covering certain body parts during lab. These findings show that prosection- and dissection-based exercises encourage reflective practices associated with these of medical ethics, highlighting an important advantage to including donor-based learning in anatomical education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".