There is increasing use of computer-based resources to teach anatomy, although no study has compared computer-based learning to traditional. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of three formats of anatomy learning: (1) a virtual reality (VR) computer-based module, (2) a static computer-based module providing Key Views (KV), (3) a plastic model. We conducted a controlled trial in which 60 undergraduate students had ten minutes to study the names of 20 different pelvic structures. The outcome measure was a 25 item short answer test consisting of 15 nominal and 10 functional questions, based on a cadaveric pelvis. All subjects also took a brief mental rotations test (MRT) as a measure of spatial ability, used as a covariate in the analysis. Data were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA. The group learning from the model performed significantly better than the other two groups on the nominal questions (Model 67%; KV 40%; VR 41%, Effect size 1.19 and 1.29, respectively). There was no difference between the KV and VR groups. There was no difference between the groups on the functional questions (Model 28%; KV, 23%, VR 25%). Computer-based learning resources appear to have significant disadvantages compared to traditional specimens in learning nominal anatomy. Consistent with previous research, virtual reality shows no advantage over static presentation of key views.

Anatomy education has been revolutionized through digital media, resulting in major advances in realism, portability, scalability, and user satisfaction. However, while such approaches may well be more portable, realistic, or satisfying than traditional photographic presentations, it is less clear that they have any superiority in terms of student learning. In this study, it was hypothesized that virtual and mixed reality presentations of pelvic anatomy will have an advantage over two-dimensional (2D) presentations and perform approximately equal to physical models and that this advantage over 2D presentations will be reduced when stereopsis is decreased by covering the non-dominant eye. Groups of 20 undergraduate students learned pelvic anatomy under seven conditions: physical model with and without stereo vision, mixed reality with and without stereo vision, virtual reality with and without stereo vision, and key views on a computer monitor. All were tested with a cadaveric pelvis and a 15-item, short-answer recognition test. Compared to the key views, the physical model had a 70% increase in accuracy in structure identification; the virtual reality a 25% increase, and the mixed reality a non-significant 2.5% change. Blocking stereopsis reduced performance on the physical model by 15%, on virtual reality by 60%, but by only 2.5% on the mixed reality technology. The data show that virtual and mixed reality technologies tested are inferior to physical models and that true stereopsis is critical in learning anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 13: 398-405.

Background Although several studies (Anat Sci Educ, 8 [6], 525, 2015) have shown that computer‐based anatomy programs (three‐dimensional visualisation technology [3DVT]) are inferior to ordinary physical models (PMs), the mechanism is not clear. In this study, we explored three mechanisms: haptic feedback, transfer‐appropriate processing and stereoscopic vision. Methods The test of these hypotheses required nine groups of 20 students: two from a previous study (Anat Sci Educ, 6 [4], 211, 2013) and seven new groups. (i) To explore haptic feedback from physical models, participants in one group were allowed to touch the model during learning; in the other group, they could not; (ii) to test ‘transfer‐appropriate processing’ (TAP), learning ( PM or 3DVT) was crossed with testing (cadaver or two‐dimensional display of cadaver); (iii) finally, to examine the role of stereo vision, we tested groups who had the non‐dominant eye covered during learning and testing, during learning, or not at all, on both PM and 3DVT. The test was a 15‐item short‐answer test requiring naming structures on a cadaver pelvis. A list of names was provided. Results The test of haptic feedback showed a large advantage of the PM over 3DVT regardless of whether or not participants had haptic feedback: 67% correct for the PM with haptic feedback, 69% for PM without haptic feedback, versus 41% for 3DVT (p < 0.0001). In the study of TAP, the PM had an average score of 74% versus 43% for 3DVT (p < 0.0001) regardless of two‐dimensional versus three‐dimensional test outcome. The third study showed that the large advantage of the PM over 3DVT (28%) with binocular vision nearly disappeared (5%) when the non‐dominant eye was covered for both learning and testing. Conclusions A physical model is superior to a computer projection, primarily as a consequence of stereoscopic vision with the PM. The results have implications for the use of digital technology in spatial learning.

Healthcare delivery is reliant on a team-based approach, and interprofessional education (IPE) provides a means by which such collaboration skills can be fostered prior to entering the workplace. IPE within healthcare programs has been associated with improved collaborative behavior, patient care and satisfaction, reduced clinical error, and diminished negative professional stereotypes. An intensive interprofessional gross anatomy dissection course was created in 2009 to facilitate IPE at McMaster University. Data were collected from five cohorts over five years to determine the influence of this IPE format on the attitudes and perceptions of students towards other health professions. Each year, 28 students from the medicine, midwifery, nursing, physician's assistant, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy programs were randomly assigned into interprofessional teams for 10 weeks. Sessions involved an anatomy and scope-of-practice presentation, a small-group case-based session, and a dissection. A before/after design measured changes in attitudes and perceptions, while focus group data elaborated on the student experience with the course. Pre- and postmatched data revealed significant improvements in positive professional identity, competency and autonomy, role clarity and attitudes toward other health professions. Qualitative analysis of intraprofessional focus group interviews revealed meaningful improvements in a number of areas including learning anatomy, role clarity, and attitudes towards other health professions.

Background Up to one-third of labouring women will experience painful 'back labour'. Sterile water injected lateral to the lumbosacral spine is a simple and well-researched approach to this pain.Objective To determine if sterile water injection for low back pain compared to placebo or alternative therapy increased or decreased the rate of Caesarean section.Search strategy We performed a literature search with no language restriction in four databases: the Cochrane library, EMBASE (1980), Ovid Medline (1950) and CINAHL (1982).Selection criteria We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of sterile water injection for labour pain that included outcomes of interest and original data.Data collection and analysis We compared Caesarean section rates among women who received sterile water injection in labour with those who received either placebo treatment or another nonpharmacological treatment modality. Other outcomes included pain scores, use of regional analgesia and women's assessment of treatment. We used Revman 5 for the meta-analysis. Data were entered by one reviewer and independently cross-checked. Pooled outcomes were reported as Relative Risk (RR) or Weighted Mean Difference using Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model except when the I 2 value >50% indicated significant heterogeneity in which case random-effects model was used.Main results We included eight RCTs. The Caesarean section rate was 4.6% in the sterile water injection group and 9.9% in the comparison group (n = 828) (RR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.87).Conclusion We believe that a large RCT should be mounted to validate our findings regarding the impact of sterile water injections on mode of delivery.