Instructional Approaches: Anatomy Education of Physical Therapists

Abstract

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.

The impact of modifications in cadaver dissection time on student learning outcomes in a doctor of physical therapy program

“…The results of a survey administered to physicians revealed that human anatomy was considered the most relevant course for clinical practice, specifically for physical examination and therapeutic procedures (Arráez-Aybar et al, 2010). Simons et al (2020) also determined that licensed physical therapists who learned the head and abdominal anatomy via dissection laboratories had more anatomical knowledge for those regions compared to those therapists who learned by other means (prosection, plastination, technology or no laboratory instruction). However, in the same paper, the authors found that instructional methods did not impact the knowledge of anatomy for the upper and lower extremities, pelvis and spine in licensed physical therapists (Simons et al, 2020).…”

Movement System Theory and Anatomical Competence: Threshold Concepts for Physical Therapist Anatomy Education

“…Further, no uniform international standard for entry-level PTE exists concerning the degree required, while the program types and lengths vary widely (WCPT, 2011;Moffat, 2012;Adam et al, 2013;FAP, 2016;Barradell, 2017;Shead et al, 2018). As a result, despite the long-standing history of including anatomy education within PTE, no consensus exists regarding how much is needed, what specific content should be included, or how anatomy should be taught (McKenzie and Gutierrez, 2007;Youdas et al, 2015;Shead et al, 2016Shead et al, , 2018Blum et al, 2020;Simons et al, 2022).…”

“…Since that time, the number of papers published that are specific to anatomy coursework or content as it relates to PTE or practice is negligible (Donovan, 1994;Armstrong and Rosser, 1996;Fiebert and Waggoner, 1996;Latman and Lanier, 2001;Reimer et al, 2013;Shead et al, 2016Shead et al, , 2018. Most often, the research studies survey anatomy educators in PTE programs or clinicians regarding faculty credentials, teaching modalities, student perceptions, or comparisons between other healthcare professions (Berube et al, 1999;Plack, 2000;Latman and Lanier, 2001;Hamilton et al, 2008;Livingston et al, 2014;Simons et al, 2022). To date, no prospective investigation regarding the integrity of anatomical competence needed for physical therapy practice has been conducted.…”

“…Anatomy knowledge has always been considered essential to physical therapy practice (Milacek and Pederson, 1967); it is part of the explicit curriculum and a theoretical foundation to clinical practice—even though the time allotted to teach anatomy has decreased (Hagelthorn, 1932; Hazenhyer, 1939; Hogue, 1974; Plack, 2000; McKenzie and Gutierrez, 2007; Gabard et al, 2012; Shead et al, 2018). Since introduced in PTE programs, anatomy training included cadaveric dissection (Beard, 1961), yet like many other healthcare programs, the time, availability, cost, and stakeholders influenced the inclusion of this modality (Mattingly and Barnes, 1994; Berube et al, 1999; Plack, 2000; Gabard et al, 2012; Simons et al, 2021). Even with these influences, the majority (71%–98.2%) of PTE programs surveyed in the 1990s used cadaveric materials (Mattingly and Barnes, 1994; Berube et al, 1999).…”

A core musculoskeletal anatomy syllabus for undergraduate physical therapy student education

“…A number of studies report on the instructional and/or assessment approaches in physical therapy courses (Green et al, 2014; Green & Whitburn, 2016; McDonald et al, 2021; Melguizo et al, 2007; Shead et al, 2018; Simons et al, 2022; Youdas et al, 2015) but not on the actual content that is taught. A scoping review of curricular and pedagogical features of anatomy teaching for undergraduate physical therapy courses identified that while there are many accounts of anatomy educational approaches, only three of the 54 included studies reported curriculum content (Shead et al, 2020).…”