Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39215247›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Haptic experience to significantly motivate anatomy learning in medical students.

Martha Manrique, Iván F Mondragón, Leonardo Flórez-Valencia, Luisa Montoya, Ananías García, Carmen Alicia Mera, Angelika Kuhlmann, Fabricio Guillén, Michelle Cortés, María Lucía Gutiérrez Gómez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Martha ManriqueIndustrial Engineering Department, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia.
Iván F MondragónDepartment of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.
Leonardo Flórez-ValenciaDepartment of Systems Engineering, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.
Luisa MontoyaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.
Ananías GarcíaDepartment of Morphological Sciences, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.
Carmen Alicia MeraDepartment of Morphological Sciences, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.
Angelika KuhlmannDepartment of Morphological Sciences, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.
Fabricio GuillénDepartment of Morphological Sciences, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.
Michelle CortésDepartment of Morphological Sciences, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.
María Lucía Gutiérrez GómezDepartment of Morphological Sciences, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia. mlgutierrez@javeriana.edu.co.

Funding

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana 8259
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, multiple tools exist to teach and learn anatomy, but finding an adequate activity is challenging. However, it can be achieved through haptic experiences, where motivation is the means of a significant learning process. This study aimed to evaluate a haptic experience to determine if a tactile and painting with color marker interactive experience, established a better learning process in comparison to the traditional 2D workshop on printed paper with photographs.

methodsPlaster bone models of the scapulae, humerus and clavicle were elaborated from a computerized scan tomography. Second year undergraduate medical students were invited to participate, where subjects were randomly assigned to the traditional 2D method or the 3D plaster bone model. A third group decided not to join any workshop. Following, all three groups were evaluated on bone landmarks and view, laterality, muscle insertions and functions. 2D and 3D workshop students were asked their opinion in a focus group and answered a survey regarding the overall perception and learning experience. Evaluation grades are presented as mean ± standard deviation, and answers from the survey are presented as percentages.

resultsThe survey demonstrated the students in the 3D model graded the experience as outstanding, and in five out of the six questions, answers were very good or excellent. In contrast, for students participating in the 2D workshop the most common answers were fair or good. The exception was the answer regarding the quiz, where both groups considered it good, despite the average among all groups not being a passing grade.

conclusionsTo learn the anatomy of the shoulder, the conventional methodology was compared with a haptic experience, where plaster bone models were used, enabling students to touch and paint on them. Based on the focus group and survey this study revealed the 3D workshop was an interactive experience where, the sense of touch and painting greatly contributed to their learning process. Even though this activity was useful in terms of learning bone landmarks, view muscle insertions, and establish relations, further activities must be developed to increase their understanding regarding their function, and its relevance in a clinical setting.

Indexed as

AnatomyEducation, Medical, UndergraduateMotivationStudents, MedicalEducational MeasurementFemaleHumansLearningMaleModels, Anatomic3D bone modelsIntegrationPaintingSignificant learning

Identifiers

PMID39215247
PMCPMC11363654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.