How human anatomy is being taught in entry‐level occupational therapy programs in the United States

Abstract

There has been a lack of empirical information regarding anatomy education for occupational therapists (OTs). Insufficient anatomy education can result in underprepared entry-level OTs, who may then produce increased practice errors and reduced patient care. The objective of this study was to investigate how human gross anatomy was taught in entry-level occupational therapy programs throughout the United States and evaluate faculty perspectives on its teaching. A mixed-methods survey was sent to the directors of entry-level occupational therapy programs in the United States. Survey responses were compiled to best represent the current occupational therapy education environment. Ten of sixty-eight participating programs did not teach anatomy as a part of their standard occupational therapy curriculum. Of the programs that featured entry-level occupational therapy anatomy courses, the majority were taught by either a non-clinician anatomist or an OT without specialized anatomy training in a region-based, standalone anatomy course during the first semester. In most programs, anatomy was taught to only occupational therapy students using lecture, models/plastination, and/or prosection. Teaching tools, methods, faculty, and programmatic factors were perceived as contributing to program strengths. The design, resources, and faculty involved in the occupational therapy anatomy course may negatively impact the perceived quality of an occupational therapy anatomy program and its students. Participants identified several consequences of insufficient anatomy preparedness, including academic, clinical reasoning, treatment skills, patient care, and professional identity concerns. Occupational therapy educators may want to be aware of the current climate of occupational therapy anatomy education in the United States when designing entry-level occupational therapy anatomy curricula.

Constructive alignment: Teaching introductory gross anatomy to sport science students

“…The next unit redesign will contemplate this issue, but it is likely that the introductory unit will not solve this issue on its own. Some form of “spiral curriculum” (Harden, 1999; Bergman, 2020) using a number of first year and later year units in functional kinesiology, resistance training and exercise prescription, will need to reinforce with students the importance of anatomy to the clinical and professional competencies that sport scientists require (Veazey & Robertson, 2023). Also, the use of other models or supports in student learning such as team teaching (McDonald et al, 2021), near‐peer teaching programs (Viana et al, 2019; Krause et al, 2020; Parmelee et al, 2020), reciprocal peer‐teaching (Krause et al, 2020; Parmelee et al, 2020) and more engaging practical components like body‐painting (Estai & Bunt, 2016; Krause et al, 2020) and case‐based learning (Mclean, 2016; Trelease, 2020) could drive even greater student engagement.…”

“…There is a large and expanding body of literature regarding the content of gross anatomy units, the decline in teaching time, the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of teaching and learning, new technological innovations in the field of gross anatomy education, and resource pressures on all of these things, when applied in the training of medical doctors (Regan de Bere & Mattick, 2010; Azer et al, 2013; Drake et al, 2014; Fillmore et al, 2015; Leveritt et al, 2016; McBride & Drake, 2018; McMenamin et al, 2018; Viana et al, 2019; Peeler, 2022). There is a smaller, but still growing literature, about these issues when dealing with the undergraduate training of other health‐based professionals, such as physiotherapists, nurses, dentists, and allied health professionals (Zimanyi et al, 2019; Carroll et al, 2022; Giuriato et al, 2022; Rutenberg et al, 2022; Veazey & Robertson, 2023). In contrast, there is little literature on dealing with decisions about content, teaching practices, and the use of technologies when teaching gross anatomy to undergraduate sport scientists and physical education teachers (Catena & Carbonneau, 2019; Viana et al, 2019; Rabattu et al, 2022) although some research (Chakraborty & Cooperstein, 2018; Green et al, 2018; Zimanyi et al, 2019; McDonald et al, 2021) deals with sport or exercise scientists doing a combined gross anatomy unit with other allied health professionals.…”

“…Regardless of delivery mode, the combination of complex language, dense content, and the desire to engage the learner in deeper analysis makes anatomy challenging for students (Chakraborty & Cooperstein, 2018; Tripodi et al, 2020). The aim of this unit re‐development was to retain the importance of the underpinning conceptual principles and language of anatomy while reducing some memorization by emphasizing the logic of the body and the relationship between structure and function (Regan de Bere & Mattick, 2010; Veazey & Robertson, 2023). In addition, it was intended that students would develop a growing understanding of the application of these conceptual principles by analyzing the structures that produce movement and stability in the human body (Miller et al, 2002).…”

“…In addition, it was intended that students would develop a growing understanding of the application of these conceptual principles by analyzing the structures that produce movement and stability in the human body (Miller et al, 2002). The hope was that in adopting a constructivist delivery approach and focusing the syllabus toward graduate outcomes for these cohorts, the labor‐intensive challenges in teaching and learning anatomy for teachers and students would be reduced (Regan de Bere & Mattick, 2010; Estai & Bunt, 2016; Krause et al, 2020; Smith et al, 2020; Veazey & Robertson, 2023).…”