How Do Physical Therapists Perceive Anatomy Education?

INTRODUCTION: There is a significant gap in the existing literature as to the long-term retention or sufficiency of anatomical knowledge learned in physical therapy school. The purpose of this investigation is to explore the perceptions of the sufficiency and relevancy of the anatomy education received in physical therapy school, with a specific focus on its sufficiency and relevancy for clinical practice among early, mid, and late-career physical therapists. Similar studies have been conducted among medical doctors and medical students (Ahmed et al., 2010; Rowland et al., 2011), but to our knowledge, there have been no studies surveying physical therapists in the United States focused on post-graduate outcomes.

METHODS: This survey was approved by the Moravian University IRB, #20-0061. The survey was distributed via email through multiple clinical networks in the greater Mid-Atlantic region, through the American Physical Therapy Association Pennsylvania chapter (APTA-PA) and through the American Council of Academic Physical Therapy (ACAPT) Educational Research division. The survey included demographic questions, questions regarding how the survey respondents learned anatomy in physical therapy school, and a series of Likert scale questions to investigate their opinions about the sufficiency and relevancy of their anatomy education. Participants who were teaching or previously taught anatomy were not asked to participate in the study. Descriptive statistics were performed on the demographic variables and frequencies were calculated to determine the methods of anatomy education and Likert scale responses. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the Likert scale responses from the groupings of survey participants. Participants were classified by their year of licensure: early-career (2015-2021), mid-career (2005-2014), and late-career (2004 and earlier).

RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of respondents participated in dissection in their anatomy courses and 62.4% studied from prosected materials. Surface anatomy/palpation was included in 76.3% of anatomy courses. Less than 7% of respondents utilized newer methods such as a virtual cadaver table, augmented reality headsets, clay modeling, and body painting. There were no significant differences in Likert scale responses among early, mid and late-career physical therapists. Respondents all agreed that dissection helps to develop practical clinical skills, is superior to prosection, and that the use of cadavers for anatomy education is essential (4.37, 4.13, and 4.32 on a 5-point Likert scale, respectively).

CONCLUSION: Physical therapists' perceptions should be a key component in the development of standard learning objectives for physical therapy (PT) anatomy education. In this investigation, length of time in practice did not influence the opinions on the sufficiency or relevancy of anatomy education. Dissection continues to be included in most physical therapy anatomy courses and perceived to be essential for learning. We intend to further this research by conducting focus groups and by examining the relationship between methods of learning anatomy, PT specialty, and opinions of anatomy education.