Modelo pélvico sintético como uma ferramenta didática efetiva comparada à pelve cadavérica

Abstract

II Luciane Carias II PALAVRAS-CHAVE-Educação Médica.-Anatomia.-Modelo Anatômico.-Soalho Pélvico. -Anatomy. RESUMO A anatomia é considerada matéria essencial à educação médica. Aulas práticas com uso de componen Sessenta e sete estudantes receberam aula teórica após teste teórico preliminar (TTP). Foram randomizados em três grupos: G1 teve aula prática tradicional (APT); G2, aula prática com Masp (APM); e G3 não teve aula prática. Um teste final (TTF) foi aplicado a todos os grupos. G1 e G2 submeteram-se à avaliação do método (AM). A análise estatística foi realizada utilizando-se-Anatomical Model.-Pelvic Floor. ABSTRACT Anatomy is considered a fundamental subject of medical education. Practical classes which involve the use of manipulable anatomic components are essential to teaching and learning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the synthetic pelvic model (SPM) as a didactic tool, compared to the traditionally--used cadaveric pelvis (CP), as well as student satisfaction in relation to both methods. Sixty-seven students were given a theory class following the preliminary theoretical test (PTT). The study sample was randomized in three groups: G1 had a traditional practical class (TPC); G2 had a practical class with SPM (PCS); and G3 had no practical class. A final test (FTT) was applied to all the groups. G1and G2 were subjected to method evaluation (ME). Statistical analysis was conducted using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Mann-Whitney U test. In the FTT, G3 presented scores lower than G1 (p = 0.041) and G2 (p = 0.000). No statistically significant difference was found between G1 and G2 (p >0.05). G2 presented greater satisfaction with the method (p = 0.001). In conclusion, both CP and SPM proved to be effective didactic tools and student satisfaction was greater with G2.

Are Corpses the Best Method for Practical Anatomy Assessment, According to Health Course Students?

“…Disagreeing with the authors above, Falcão et al, 23 and Przybysz and Scolin 14 report that the manufactured material, for the most students, does not contribute effectively to the anatomical understanding, as expected. As the synthetic models results, they do not match the Portugal study, 31 in which the method fits with didactic potential, to allow the best anatomical teaching and learning.…”

“…Analyzing the means values of data, the industrialized synthetic material was well accepted by the participants (19%). They become they become dynamic, close to reality, providing specific and detailed characteristics as observed by Portugal et al, 31 when they compared synthetic models with cadaveric female pelvis, proving to be an effective tool for the study.…”

“…41 Although these have not been approached as one of the best methods, several studies point to it as a facilitator in the process of learning Human Anatomy, evaluation and good performance in future professional activities. 11,12,31…”

“…12,15 The study of certain anatomical contents is difficult to understand due to the complexity of the structures submerged to the overlapping of anatomical elements. 31 The difference between the atlases, the books and the pieces used, especially cadaveric. Because they are reliable generally.…”

Percepção De Escolares Da Rede Pública Sobre O Sistema Nervoso Central Após Atividade Lúdico-Educativa

“…Realizou-se um estudo descritivo desenvolvido a partir da vivência de monitores de anatomia, no período de maio de 2017 a abril de Seu estudo mostrou resultados similares ao comparar as duas formas de ensino, além da maior satisfação dos alunos com o uso do modelo sintético (PORTUGAL et al, 2011). Outras pesquisas também demonstram maior contentamento e aceitação dos alunos com modelos sintéticos quando comparados ao grupo controle (LATORRE et al, 2007).…”