Division of Anatomy, Department of Biomedical Education and Anatomy, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Department of Health and Sport Sciences, Otterbein University, Westerville, Ohio.
Anat Sci Educ. 2022 Jan;15(1):102-114. doi: 10.1002/ase.2037. Epub 2021 Feb 3.
The profession of physical therapy has undergone an evolution since its inception. Since the early 1900s it has grown from a technical training program to a doctorate level degree. Human anatomy courses remain a requirement for physical therapist educational curricula. However, changes in anatomy pedagogy have been trending within health profession educational models, leading to questions regarding which method is best for student learning. The objective of this study was to determine if anatomy instructional method used within physical therapist educational curricula impacted current anatomy knowledge. Licensed physical therapists were recruited to complete a demographic survey and a questionnaire to demonstrate their knowledge of anatomy topics. Anatomy topics included six regional components: (1) upper limb; (2) lower limb; (3) thorax and abdomen; (4) pelvis; (5) spine; and (6) head. Each regional component contained five questions regarding systemic subsets related to joints and osteology, muscles, nervous system, vasculature, and special areas (e.g., spatial orientations, structures within spaces, pathways of nerves). Within the thorax and abdominal region, data analysis indicated that the dissection instruction method, when compared to no laboratory instruction, led to statistically significant greater anatomical knowledge (P = 0.02). Dissection also showed greater means when compared to the no laboratory method (P = 0.02) and the prosection method in the head region (P = 0.01). However, the variance explained by instructional method was small. This study adds empirical evidence regarding current anatomy knowledge exhibited by physical therapists as the level of anatomical knowledge exhibited small differences based on instructional methods.
物理治疗职业自成立以来经历了演变。自 20 世纪初以来,它已经从一个技术培训计划发展到博士学位水平。人体解剖学课程仍然是物理治疗师教育课程的要求。然而,解剖学教学法的变化一直在健康职业教育模式中流行,这导致了关于哪种方法最适合学生学习的问题。本研究的目的是确定物理治疗师教育课程中使用的解剖学教学方法是否会影响当前的解剖学知识。招募了持照物理治疗师来完成人口统计调查和问卷调查,以展示他们对解剖学主题的知识。解剖学主题包括六个区域组成部分:(1)上肢;(2)下肢;(3)胸部和腹部;(4)骨盆;(5)脊柱;(6)头部。每个区域组成部分包含五个关于与关节和骨科学、肌肉、神经系统、脉管系统以及特殊区域(例如,空间方位、空间内的结构、神经通路)相关的系统子集的问题。在胸部和腹部区域,数据分析表明,与没有实验室指导相比,解剖指导方法导致统计学上显著更高的解剖学知识(P=0.02)。与没有实验室方法(P=0.02)和头部区域的剖面方法相比,解剖方法也显示出更大的平均值(P=0.01)。然而,教学方法解释的方差很小。本研究增加了关于物理治疗师所展示的当前解剖学知识的经验证据,因为基于教学方法,解剖学知识的水平显示出很小的差异。