Anatomy in occupational therapy program curriculum: Practitioners' perspectives

Abstract

Anatomy education is undergoing significant transformation. It is unknown whether changes are in accordance with occupational therapy (OT) practice needs. The purpose of this pilot study was to survey OT clinicians to determine their perspectives on the value of anatomy in OT curricula, and anatomical knowledge required for practice. In addition to demographics, the survey asked questions on the value of a standalone anatomy course, integration of anatomical content in other coursework, practice areas requiring anatomy knowledge, course content, teaching media recommendations, and their opinions regarding whether graduates have adequate anatomy knowledge for competent practice. Surveys were distributed to OT practitioners in the state of Arizona (n = 107). Response rate was 51% on electronic surveys, 29% on mailed surveys. All respondents recommended an anatomy course in OT curricula; 97% as a standalone course with integration of course content throughout the curriculum. The most recommended teaching method was cadaver dissection. Content areas identified as important to cover included skeletal, muscular, and nervous systems. Regions recommended were the upper limb, thorax/trunk, head and neck, and lower limb. Practice areas requiring anatomy knowledge included joint range of motion and strengthening treatment interventions, goniometry, muscle strength testing, assessing muscle tone, wheelchair assessment/prescription, orthotics, physical agent modalities, and activity adaptation. Eighty-one percent felt that entry-level practitioners had adequate knowledge for competent practice. This study supports inclusion of a separate anatomy course in OT curricula, continued use of cadavers, and the importance of including input from practicing clinicians when determining anatomy course content.

Anatomy education in occupational therapy curricula: Perspectives of practitioners in the United States

“… Total number of respondents and percentage of total respondents are reported for each group; a Pilot data are based on survey of n = 50 participants (47% response rate) recruited from a list of 129 OT clinical rotation sites obtained from an entry‐level OT master's degree program in the southwestern United States (Schofield, ); AOTA, American Occupational Therapy Association; OT, Occupational Therapy.…”

“…A pilot study done several years ago highlighted OT practitioners' perspectives on use of anatomy in current practice, their opinions on anatomy in OT education programs, and perceived anatomy knowledge of entry level OT practitioners (Schofield, ). Results supported inclusion of a standalone anatomy course with cadaver dissection as the most favored teaching pedagogy in OT curricula.…”

“…These include reduction in the number of qualified teaching faculty, availability of cadavers and laboratory space, reduced time allotted to teaching anatomy, a rise in integrated anatomy curricula without a standalone course, use of technology in the classroom, and student needs and learning styles (Williams and Lau, 2004;Turney, 2007;Drake et al, 2009;DiLullo et al, 2011;Gabard et al, 2012;Fillmore et al, 2016;Leveritt et al, 2016). The majority of research on anatomy education and curricular content recommendations pertain to medical education; there is a paucity of published literature that addresses anatomy in OT education programs, and the knowledge necessary for entry level practice (Latman and Lanier, 2001;Schofield, 2013;Carroll and Lawson, 2014). Collectively, whether these factors have influenced anatomy knowledge of practicing occupational therapists, and impacted current clinical practice is unknown.…”

A meta‐analysis of anatomy laboratory pedagogies

“…(Haspel et al, 2014) b 27 of 71 (38%) Would you have preferred alternate methods other than dissecting the rat to learn human anatomy? (Schofield, 2014) 43 of 50 (86%) Recommendation for anatomy course in OT curricula; inclusion of cadaver dissection and/or prosection (Marom and Tarrasch, 2015) 457 of 666 (69%) Anatomy teaching should be dissection-based (versus image-based). TOTAL 1,978 of 3,471 (57%)…”

Emphasis on various subtopics in the anatomy curriculum for chiropractic training: An international survey of chiropractors and anatomists

“…2,[8][9][10] To our knowledge, despite its importance, there are no national guidelines regarding a core anatomy curriculum or appropriate minimum content for anatomy curricula for chiropractic or medical programs in Australia or other countries. 8,11 Therefore, the development of anatomy curricula is the responsibility of individual institutions, which may vary in pedagogical approach, time allocated to anatomy, resources available, and staff qualifications.…”