The Interaction Between First‐Year Medical Students’ Religious Beliefs and Performance in an Anatomy Course Using Cadaveric Dissection

Abstract

Gross anatomy courses that incorporate the use of cadaveric specimens feature the concepts of death and mortality in addition to structures of the human body. Although death is often a poignant topic for various religious traditions, the concept of religion is seldom considered in anatomy courses. In fact, a number of religious traditions consider the dead with the utmost respect and deem dissection practices to be somewhat disrespectful or taboo. Since the Liaison Committee on Medical Education Standards require medical students to acquire cultural competence in belief systems during their education, religious diversity and inclusion are important concepts to consider in medical curricula, especially in anatomy. This study aimed to determine the effects of first‐year medical students’ religious beliefs on their performance on several outcomes measures (e.g., exams, quizzes, final grade) in an anatomy course using cadaveric dissection. This study also aimed to determine if students noted any cultural insensitive practices among the faculty, teaching assistants, or fellow students and whether those practices might have impacted their overall anatomy experience. This study was deemed exempt by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Internal Review Board. The student volunteers (n=151) were administered a survey inquiring about their dissection and course experiences as well as interactions with their cadavers. The survey also inquired about students’ demographic information, including their religious or secular beliefs and practices, and their views on religious or secular diversity, cultural sensitivity, and other forms of sensitivity. Most students identified with Protestant Christianity (n=62) while others identified with Catholic Christianity (n=10), other forms of Christianity (n=24), Agnosticism (n=19), Atheism (n=14), non‐religious spirituality (n=10), Hinduism (n=4), Buddhism (n=3), and Islam (n=2). Several students (n=3) preferred not to answer. A majority of the students (n=82) felt that religious or secular diversity is important to consider and that they (n=120) engaged in culturally sensitive practices in regards to respect for various religious or secular beliefs during the dissection experience in the gross anatomy lab. Only a minority of students (n=57) thought other forms of sensitivity (e.g., gender sensitivity, disability sensitivity, etc.) were important to consider in an anatomy course. Further analyses will determine whether the students’ religious or secular beliefs and practices influenced their performance on their quizzes, exams, and final grade in the gross anatomy course and whether the students who felt like they did not engage in cultural sensitive practices had a negative experience overall. A discussion of cultural competence and of topics such as religious or spiritual diversity and gender sensitivity might be critical to implement in a gross anatomy course. A more inclusive environment in which all individual characteristics are considered and valued might foster improved learning and experiential outcomes.