Development and assessment of an integrated anatomy mobile app

Abstract

Curricular hours for anatomical sub‐disciplines (gross anatomy, embryology, histology, and neuroanatomy) continue to decline, while medical schools are simultaneously transitioning to systems‐based, vertically integrated curricula. This requires students to learn and integrate all basic science content for a learning block prior to the summative assessment. Currently, no educational technology resource exists that integrates the four anatomical sub‐disciplines into a single resource to supplement integrated curricula. The objective of this study was to assess a novel integrated anatomical sciences mobile app for medical students. The 4natomy mobile app was developed to integrate the four sub‐disciplines for a single topic, the spinal cord. The app was distributed to first‐year medical students during the neurological disorders learning. Following the learning block, assessment of the student acceptance and experience with the app was conducted through a technology acceptance model (TAM) framework survey. The results indicated that students found the app to be useful (p < 0.001) and easy to use (p < 0.05), predicting continued future usage of the app. Students requested expanded anatomy content for the entire learning block, as well as more clinical correlations, videos, and animations. The integrated anatomy mobile app developed in this study was useful and easy to use, indicating continued use within an integrated medical curriculum. This was the first study to utilize the TAM as a conceptual framework for technology assessment in medical education, suggesting that future studies that develop new technologies should adapt the TAM for user testing.

Anatomi eğitiminde mobil öğrenmenin öğrencilerin öğrenme becerileri ve motivasyonuna etkisi: sistematik derleme

“…In 19 (63%) studies, the learning effectiveness of medical school students in anatomy education with mobile applications was investigated, and positive feedback was received from the students. In addition, students said that learning is more permanent and takes place in a shorter time (Bork et al, 2021;Chandrasekaran et al, 2021;Fernández-Alemán, Lopez-Gonzalez, et al, 2016;Gnanasegaram et al, 2020;Golenhofen et al, 2020;Harmon, Burgoon, & Kalmar, 2022;Jamali et al, 2015;Kurniawan & Witjaksono, 2018;Küçük et al, 2016;Lazarus et al, 2017;Mayfield, Ohara, & O'Sullivan, 2013;Mogali et al, 2019;Morris et al, 2016;Pickering, 2015;Raney, 2016;Stewart & Choudhury, 2015;Stirling & Birt, 2014;Traser et al, 2015;Wilkinson et al, 2020). However, in 6 (20%) studies, students stated that cadaveric education was easier, internet access outside the school was problematic, they had difficulty in downloading programs to their personal devices and they could not use the programs because they were paid.…”

“…In the other 2 (6%) studies, it was observed that the anatomy final exam results of the experimental groups were higher, but there was a decrease in their cognitive levels (Bork et al, 2021;Küçük et al, 2016). 8 (26%) of the studies included in the research are exploratory and consist of articles that are not compared (Golenhofen et al, 2020;Harmon et al, 2022;Havens et al, 2020;Jamali et al, 2015;Kurniawan & Witjaksono, 2018;Pickering, 2015;Stewart & Choudhury, 2015). These articles have made no direct comparison between mobile learning and other learning experiences and methodologies.…”

“…The research questions show that the focus is on the students' perspectives on technology, their participation, and their views on mobile learning. In several studies, multiple anatomy topics were examined simultaneously and researched on student engagement, flexible learning models, and the future usability of mobile tools with different mobile learning applications in the classroom (Harmon et al, 2022;Havens et al, 2020;Jamali et al, 2015;Pickering, 2015). These studies aim to document the potential and experience of mobile learning through qualitative and quantitative measurements.…”

“…These studies aim to document the potential and experience of mobile learning through qualitative and quantitative measurements. In these studies, there was no comparison made, and the measures used by the researchers, qualitative data such as observations and interviews, student scores, questionnaires, mobile usage, and participant satisfaction are included (Golenhofen et al, 2020;Harmon et al, 2022;Havens et al, 2020;Jamali et al, 2015;Kurniawan & Witjaksono, 2018;Pickering, 2015;Stewart & Choudhury, 2015). Wilkinson et al (2020) have seen that with gameplay in mobile learning, the learning of anatomy is reinforced, the information is repeated, the success rate is increased, and it makes learning fun by taking the lesson away from boring.…”

“…In 30 studies included in the study, questionnaires, pretestposttest, and evaluation tests were used to evaluate the learning outcomes of anatomy education. Of the 30 studies included in this systematic review, 16 were made with only a questionnaire, 6 were both pretest-posttest and questionnaire, 1 of them was both pretest-posttest and self-directed learning readiness scale (SDLRS), respectively 3 of them were only pretest-posttest, and 4 of them were evaluation tests (Bork et al, 2021;Chakraborty & Cooperstein, 2018;Fernández-Alemán, López-González, et al, 2016;Harmon et al, 2022;Havens et al, 2020;Jamali et al, 2015;Kurniawan & Witjaksono, 2018;Lazarus et al, 2017;Mansouri et al, 2020;Mayfield et al, 2013;Mendez-Lopez et al, 2022;A. J. Meyer, N. J. Stomski, S. I. Innes, et al, 2016;Mogali et al, 2019;Morris et al, 2016;Pickering, 2015;Raney, 2016;Stewart & Choudhury, 2015;Stirling & Birt, 2014;Traser et al, 2015;Wahyudi et al, 2019).…”