- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Lufler, Rebecca S."
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Breaking barriers: The landscape of human and veterinary medical anatomy education and the potential for collaboration(American Association for Anatomy, 2021-07) McNulty, Margaret A.; Mussell, Jason C.; Lufler, Rebecca S.; Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of MedicineDespite human (HUM) and veterinary (VET) medical institutions sharing the goal of educating future clinicians, there is little collaboration between them regarding curricular and pedagogical practices during the preclinical/basic science training years. This may be, at least in part, due to a lack of understanding of each type of curriculum. This study presents data about curricula, student populations, pedagogical methodologies applied, and anatomy educators' training at both HUM and VET institutions. Preclinical curricula, admissions criteria, and student demographics were analyzed for 21 institutions in the United States having both HUM and VET schools. This dataset was augmented by a questionnaire sent to anatomists internationally, detailing anatomy curricula, pedagogies applied, and anatomy educators' training. Many curricular similarities between both training programs were identified, including anatomy education experiences. However, VET programs were found to include more preclinical coursework than HUM programs. Students who matriculate to VET or HUM schools have similar academic records, including prerequisite coursework and grade point average. Median HUM class size was significantly larger, and the percentage of women enrolled in VET institutions was significantly higher. Training of anatomy educators was identical with one exception: VET educators are far more likely to hold a clinical degree. This study elucidates the substantial similarities between VET and HUM programs, particularly in anatomy education, underscoring the potential for collaboration between both types of programs in areas such as interprofessional education, bioethics, zoonotic disease management, and postgraduate training.Item Correlating Spatial Ability With Anatomy Assessment Performance: A Meta-Analysis(Wiley, 2021) Roach, Victoria A.; Mi, Misa; Mussell, Jason; Van Nuland, Sonya E.; Lufler, Rebecca S.; DeVeau, Kathryn M.; Dunham, Stacey M.; Husmann, Polly; Herriott, Hannah L.; Edwards, Danielle N.; Doubleday, Alison F.; Wilson, Brittany M.; Wilson, Adam B.; Anatomy, Cell Biology and Physiology, School of MedicineInterest in spatial ability has grown over the past few decades following the emergence of correlational evidence associating spatial aptitude with educational performance in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The research field at large and the anatomy education literature on this topic are mixed. In an attempt to generate consensus, a meta-analysis was performed to objectively summarize the effects of spatial ability on anatomy assessment performance across multiple studies and populations. Relevant studies published within the past 50 years (1969-2019) were retrieved from eight databases. Study eligibility screening was followed by a full-text review and data extraction. Use of the Mental Rotations Test (MRT) was required for study inclusion. Out of 2,450 screened records, 15 studies were meta-analyzed. Seventy-three percent of studies (11 of 15) were from the United States and Canada, and the majority (9 of 15) studied professional students. Across 15 studies and 1,245 participants, spatial ability was weakly associated with anatomy performance (rpooled = 0.240; CI at 95% = 0.09, 0.38; P = 0.002). Performance on spatial and relationship-based assessments (i.e., practical assessments and drawing tasks) was correlated with spatial ability, while performance on assessments utilizing non-spatial multiple-choice items was not correlated with spatial ability. A significant sex difference was also observed, wherein males outperformed females on spatial ability tasks. Given the role of spatial reasoning in learning anatomy, educators are encouraged to consider curriculum delivery modifications and a comprehensive assessment strategy so as not to disadvantage individuals with low spatial ability.Item The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States(Taylor & Francis, 2022) Lufler, Rebecca S.; McNulty, Margaret A.; Anatomy, Cell Biology and Physiology, School of MedicineThe inequities faced by women in academic Medicine before the COVID-19 pandemic are well established. However, there is little formal data regarding exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty. This cross-sectional study investigated the impact of the pandemic on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. In February 2021, an online questionnaire was broadly distributed to academic medicine faculty. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, mental health, and how the pandemic has influenced these. Respondents were also asked to document what their institution(s) can do to help faculty through the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via Pearson's chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Women faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (70%, p = 0.014), and the impact was negative, especially for early career faculty (p = 0.019). Productivity in research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted, with women feeling this in clinical practice (p = 0.005), increased teaching load (p = 0.042), and inadequate work environment (p = 0.013). In the areas of self-care and mental health, women (p < 0.001), early career-faculty (p < 0.001), and clinical faculty (p = 0.029) were more negatively impacted. Early-career women were more likely to fear retribution. Five themes emerged, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. Pre-pandemic stress and burnout were rampant, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty are still suffering. It is the authors' hope that administrations can utilize these data to make informed decisions regarding policies enacted to assist populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic.Item The Glass Ceiling Thickens: How The COVID‐19 Pandemic Negatively Impacted Academic Medicine Faculty(Wiley, 2022) McNulty, Margaret A.; Lufler, Rebecca S.; Anatomy, Cell Biology and Physiology, School of MedicineINTRODUCTION: Inequities faced by women in academic medicine before the COVID‐19 pandemic are well‐known, yet there are little formal data on exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty, particularly in academic medicine. The purpose of this cross‐sectional study was to elucidate the impact of the pandemic on faculty in academic medicine and identify whether it is disproportionately affecting populations, focusing specifically on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed in February 2021 to faculty at academic medicine centers. This questionnaire asked respondents to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, and indicate whether and how the pandemic has affected both. Respondents were also asked questions on self‐care and mental health and to document how their institution(s) can assist faculty in mitigating struggles associated with the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via quantitative (Pearson’s chi‐square tests) and qualitative (thematic analysis) means. RESULTS: Women, mid‐, and early‐career faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (p=0.014), and the impact of the pandemic on caring for others was negative, especially for early career faculty (p=0.019). Research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted by the pandemic, with women feeling this more severely in clinical practice (p=0.003), as a result of an increased teaching load (p=0.042), and inadequate work environment (p=0.013). Women (p<0.01), early career‐faculty (p<0.01), and clinical faculty (p=0.029) were also more negatively impacted by the pandemic in the areas of self‐care and mental health. While there was no significant difference in who requested a leave of absence or tenure clock extension, early‐career and women faculty were more likely to fear retribution for such requests. Faculty provided actionable suggestions to combat these negative effects under five themes, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. CONCLUSION: Pre‐pandemic stress and burnout among faculty in academic medicine has been well documented, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty, particularly women and early‐career faculty, continue to feel additional burdens secondary to the COVID‐19 pandemic. These data can be utilized by administrations and future studies to make informed decisions regarding policies and programs created to assist those populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic. SIGNIFICANCE: To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to provide both quantitative and qualitative data demonstrating a negative impact of the COVID pandemic on academic medicine faculty, particularly women and early career faculty. These data are necessary to create change to improve recruitment and retention of quality faculty.