Investigating Clinical-Relevant Learning in the Anatomy Curriculum: Perspectives and Effectiveness for Undergraduate Medical Students.
Mudan Zhang, Yan Yu, Baofei Sun, Chaolun Xiao, Jingxi Yang, Zijiang Yu, Dan Yang
Author Information
Mudan Zhang: Department of Medical Imaging, International Exemplary Cooperation Base of Precision Imaging for Diagnosis and Treatment, NHC Key Laboratory of Pulmonary Immune-related Diseases, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, P. R. China. ORCID
Yan Yu: Department of Human Anatomy, School of Basic Medicine, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang City, P. R. China.
Baofei Sun: Department of Human Anatomy, School of Basic Medicine, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang City, P. R. China.
Chaolun Xiao: Department of Human Anatomy, School of Basic Medicine, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang City, P. R. China.
Jingxi Yang: School of Overseas Education, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, P. R. China.
Zijiang Yu: Department of Medical Imaging, International Exemplary Cooperation Base of Precision Imaging for Diagnosis and Treatment, NHC Key Laboratory of Pulmonary Immune-related Diseases, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, P. R. China.
Dan Yang: Department of Medical Imaging, International Exemplary Cooperation Base of Precision Imaging for Diagnosis and Treatment, NHC Key Laboratory of Pulmonary Immune-related Diseases, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, P. R. China. ORCID
BACKGROUND: Traditional anatomical education often lacks clinical application. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of clinical-relevant education in the anatomy curriculum. METHODS: A total of 109 4th-year and 5th-year undergraduate medical students, including 8 international students, completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised 20 questions divided into 5 sections, resulting in 109 responses collected for all questions. Students enrolled in the 5-year program at Guizhou Medical University in 2019 (���=���27) and 2020 (���=���30) were included in the clinical-relevant education evaluation in the anatomy curriculum. RESULTS: The questionnaire return rate was 100%. Approximately 40.4% of undergraduate medical students expressed neutrality or dissatisfaction with the traditional anatomy teaching methods. Most students felt that the methodology overly emphasized theory while neglecting clinical experience. Over half had not taken advantage of clinical opportunities offered by the university, and only 58.7% felt adequately prepared with anatomical knowledge for clinical work. Forty-four percent had not systematically reviewed the dissection laboratory after starting clinical practice. However, the majority strongly supported the need for clinical experiential education, with abdominal surgical observation being the most preferred type. In the "Human Anatomy" course, average daily scores for students enrolled in 2019 and 2020 were 89.6��������1.4 and 90.9��������2.3 (<���.05), respectively. For "Regional Anatomy" averages were 88.8��������3.6 and 91.5��������0.7 (<���.001). The final scores for "Human Anatomy" were 67.7��������10.6 and 81.0��������7.6 (<���.0001), while "Regional Anatomy" scores were 92.4��������3.9 and 96.3��������3.0 (<���.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights students' dissatisfaction with their anatomical knowledge and the traditional anatomical education. Our reform demonstrates the positive impact of the clinical-relevant learning anatomy curriculum we are currently implementing.
