G E Mattingly1, C E Barnes. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Scranton, PA 18510-4586.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine how human anatomy was being taught in physical therapy programs in the United States. SUBJECTS: Faculty in 103 physical therapy programs participated in the study. METHODS: A six-page questionnaire, which was mailed to 145 physical therapy programs, contained five sections: demographics, human gross anatomy--present and future, administration/cost, human anatomy textbooks, and human gross anatomy content areas. RESULTS: Anatomy was a laboratory-intensive course, with dissection being the primary laboratory teaching method. Use of prosected specimens, various audiovisuals, and computer-assisted instruction was also documented. Half of those teaching anatomy had a degree in physical therapy, and 65.6% of these educators were doctorally prepared. When comparing anatomy courses taught by physical therapy faculty and non-physical therapy faculty, differences existed between the two groups with respect to course content and clinical applicability. The most significant difference in content area emphasis was noted in the thoracic area. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Differences noted in course-content emphasis demonstrate the necessity for physical therapy faculty to communicate with non-physical therapy faculty teaching human anatomy about course content. Although the survey results have indicated that numerous texts are in use, the value placed on clinical applicability remains a significant consideration.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine how human anatomy was being taught in physical therapy programs in the United States. SUBJECTS: Faculty in 103 physical therapy programs participated in the study. METHODS: A six-page questionnaire, which was mailed to 145 physical therapy programs, contained five sections: demographics, human gross anatomy--present and future, administration/cost, human anatomy textbooks, and human gross anatomy content areas. RESULTS: Anatomy was a laboratory-intensive course, with dissection being the primary laboratory teaching method. Use of prosected specimens, various audiovisuals, and computer-assisted instruction was also documented. Half of those teaching anatomy had a degree in physical therapy, and 65.6% of these educators were doctorally prepared. When comparing anatomy courses taught by physical therapy faculty and non-physical therapy faculty, differences existed between the two groups with respect to course content and clinical applicability. The most significant difference in content area emphasis was noted in the thoracic area. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Differences noted in course-content emphasis demonstrate the necessity for physical therapy faculty to communicate with non-physical therapy faculty teaching human anatomy about course content. Although the survey results have indicated that numerous texts are in use, the value placed on clinical applicability remains a significant consideration.