A Global Perspective of Muscular System Coverage in Undergraduate Human Anatomy and Anatomy & Physiology Courses: Part 2 ‐ Comparisons between U.S and International Institutions

Abstract

What instructors value as essential knowledge for their students to learn in anatomy can vary in terms of breadth and depth. While a previous study by Saladin (2008) assessed variation in muscular system coverage between university instructors via listservs, the sample was only 20 instructors located within the United States. A larger, more representative sample was required to be able to assess variation between differing demographics such as geographical divisions within the U.S, and countries outside of the U.S. In order to obtain a more global understanding of content taught in undergraduate anatomy courses, a comprehensive survey where A&P (or human Anatomy) faculty could report the extent to which they cover the muscular system was constructed. The online survey was developed by the authors and administered via Qualtrics. The skeletal muscles listed in the survey were those detailed in Human Anatomy, 5th edition textbook by McKinley, O'Loughlin, and Pennefather‐O'Brien (2017). Participants were recruited via a poster presentation at the Human Anatomy and Physiology Society (HAPS) 2018 annual meeting and recruitment emails sent out through AAA, HAPS and AACA listservs. Currently, we have complete data for 227 U.S instructors and 31 international instructors The study was deemed exempt by Indiana University IRB ‐ Protocol # 1805378498. All data was de‐identified prior to analysis. General instructional trends indicate that non‐U.S countries are just as likely to assess specific muscles and compartments across broad muscular regions (e.g. upper limb, lower limb). However, the U.S is less likely to teach specific muscles of the hand, foot, and pelvis than their international counterparts. Chi‐square tests for each of these three aforementioned regions (i.e. hand, foot, pelvis) revealed these differences to be statistically significant. These instructional trends can increase our understanding of the anatomical education undergraduate students are receiving around the world. Furthermore, it may encourage critical conversations to develop between instructors about content development and curriculum, elucidating reasons why particular muscular system regions and content differ between the U.S and international countries. Our methodology could then lead to the construction of similar surveys assessing variation in how other anatomical systems or regions are taught, such as the nervous system and microscopic anatomy (histology).This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.