View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Spending Wisely: The Role of Cost and Value Research in the Pursuit of Advancing Anatomical Sciences Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Spending Wisely: The Role of Cost and Value Research in the Pursuit of Advancing Anatomical Sciences Education
Language: English
Authors: Maloney, Stephen (ORCID 0000-0003-2612-5162), Pather, Nalini (ORCID 0000-0001-5288-7713), Foo, Jonathan (ORCID 0000-0003-4533-8307), Lazarus, Michelle D. (ORCID 0000-0003-0996-4386)
Source: Anatomical Sciences Education. Mar-Apr 2021 14(2):263-269.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Opinion Papers
Descriptors: Medical Education, Anatomy, Educational Finance, Costs, Cost Effectiveness, Input Output Analysis, Donors, Laboratory Procedures, Educational Benefits, Skill Development, Evidence Based Practice, Economics
DOI: 10.1002/ase.2027
ISSN: 1935-9772
Abstract: Studies of "cost and value" in anatomical sciences education examine not only what works, but at what cost, thus evaluating the inputs and outputs of education. This research provides insights into how to use available resources (e.g., academic time, budgets, infrastructure) as a mechanism to obtaining the maximum outcomes available. The purpose of this viewpoint article is to expand on the application of cost and value concepts to anatomical sciences education, contextualizing these concepts through a deeper dive into the more costly educational approaches of human donor dissection. In doing so, both questions and opportunities are raised for the discipline of anatomical sciences going forward. Educational decisions, inclusive of cost and value appraisals, consider the range of outcomes for which the activity is designed to achieve, and the activity's integration with the philosophy of the educational program it is contributing to; these decisions, thus, evaluate more than just cost alone. Healthcare students' engagement with human donor dissection pedagogy offers an array of reported non-economic benefits, including non-traditional discipline-independent skill (NDIS) development (e.g., professionalism, teamwork skills). These skills are often harder to measure, but are no less important to the final pedagogical decision-making process. The goal of cost and value research is to create an evidence-base toward education that delivers maximum value for a given spend. Anatomy educators, researchers, and decision makers who embrace cost and value dialogue, and interpret and apply findings from studies of educational costs, are best positioned to improve the educational value for their learners and provide effective outputs for all stakeholders.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1287827
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGHOqZqUalyj9D000XJQE7tAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPXPONk8I7DhwRaUsAIBEICBmrQ-i2rbixgc2Qhln29O_yQ0TDR4eXADoXwmb5_b7rOJ5qKzZMjOUxEfAOsyatV4q-ee6zbyd4UZVvfbOmI5NQYrGL6ID1f7dvZjNToqew5cwU1Wwmx1b0jqrppLLCRztOdFbbcitNmaCab5dEVf5xm3DUhX38aATuUFrzoFw_BT5qzTp5-z5ghwECezOlE5dmqf_TJ2tU-KG7g=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0149077248;[8z8k]01mar.21;2021Mar06.03:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0149077248-1">Spending Wisely: The Role of Cost and Value Research in the Pursuit of Advancing Anatomical Sciences Education </title> <p>Studies of "cost and value" in anatomical sciences education examine not only what works, but at what cost, thus evaluating the inputs and outputs of education. This research provides insights into how to use available resources (e.g., academic time, budgets, infrastructure) as a mechanism to obtaining the maximum outcomes available. The purpose of this viewpoint article is to expand on the application of cost and value concepts to anatomical sciences education, contextualizing these concepts through a deeper dive into the more costly educational approaches of human donor dissection. In doing so, both questions and opportunities are raised for the discipline of anatomical sciences going forward. Educational decisions, inclusive of cost and value appraisals, consider the range of outcomes for which the activity is designed to achieve, and the activity's integration with the philosophy of the educational program it is contributing to; these decisions, thus, evaluate more than just cost alone. Healthcare students' engagement with human donor dissection pedagogy offers an array of reported non‐economic benefits, including non‐traditional discipline‐independent skill (NDIS) development (e.g., professionalism, teamwork skills). These skills are often harder to measure, but are no less important to the final pedagogical decision‐making process. The goal of cost and value research is to create an evidence‐base toward education that delivers maximum value for a given spend. Anatomy educators, researchers, and decision makers who embrace cost and value dialogue, and interpret and apply findings from studies of educational costs, are best positioned to improve the educational value for their learners and provide effective outputs for all stakeholders.</p> <p>Keywords: Gross anatomy education; medical education; Cost and Cost Analysis; Value; Economics</p> <hd id="AN0149077248-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149077248-3">What Is It All About?</hd> <p>Cost‐effectiveness studies evaluating business practices, health economics, and health services decision‐making processes are plentiful. The growth of cost and value studies across the continuum of medical education (Maloney et al., 2017; Tolsgaard and Cook, 2017; Maloney et al., 2018; Foo et al., 2019) is increasingly evident; from career choices (Rivers et al., 2015; Scanlan et al., 2018) and selection processes (Schreurs et al., 2020; Foo et al., 2020), to teaching approaches (Maloney et al., 2015; Foo and Maloney, 2018) and assessment (Brown et al., 2015). Anatomy education is a unique medical science discipline for exploring cost‐effectiveness analysis, given its foundational and historical place in medical education (Davis et al., 2014), the array of pedagogical approaches available (Chan and Pawlina, 2015), the increasing plethora of digital anatomy resources (Chan and Pawlina, 2015; Erolin, 2019; Bork et al., 2019; Birbara et al., 2020; Birbara and Pather, 2021), and the ongoing debate around the role of human donor dissection (Azer et al., 2007; Sugand et al., 2010; Pather, 2015; Fernandes et al., 2015; McMenamin et al., 2018; Bogomolova et al., 2020; Jones, 2020). Adding to this age‐old discussion is the decision‐making power and relevance of the cost‐effectiveness analysis found in the article by Chumbley et al. (2021).</p> <p>So, what is cost and value research? <emph>Cost</emph> refers to everything relinquished for the given activity to occur. Cost extends past the simple accumulation of financial transactions to include all types of cost "ingredients," such as academic time, use of facilities, volunteers, and in‐kind support (McEwan, 2012). <emph>Value,</emph> moreover, can be defined as the "outcomes per dollar spent" (Mattick and Baumfield, 2016), thus a clear understanding of the intended/desired outcomes is a necessity of this work. Studies of "<emph>cost and value"</emph> are undertaken using economic concepts and methods applied to the field in question and examine not only what works, but at what cost (Gale and Grant, 2010); this research evaluates both the inputs to education as well as the outputs. This, in turn, provides insights on how to use available resources (e.g., academic time, budgets, infrastructure) to obtain the maximum outcomes possible (Forman, 2001; Maloney, 2017).</p> <p>An example of the importance of cost and value is seen through observing the impacts of the Covid‐19 pandemic on higher education. These types of disruptive events alter educational funding, societal expectations, and/or the global state of affairs. In this way, the pandemic produced immediate and extensive disruption to anatomy education programs, taking many existing face‐to‐face (F2F) approaches urgently online (Longhurst et al., 2020; Pather et al., 2020; Srinivasan, 2020). The impact of this global health emergency on anatomy teaching approaches will likely continue for several years (beyond the discreet event) through a myriad of influences including decreased budgets, reduced student revenue, decreased staffing, and an increased requirement for protective equipment and infrastructure costs (ICEF Monitor, 2020). Furthermore, a consequence of the pandemic is possibly a society more accepting of education‐related social change, more tolerant of remote online education, and more skeptical of teaching approaches requiring close social proximity without being significantly more effective in achieving learning outcomes (Dhawan, 2020; HBPE, 2020). Collective accountability of anatomical sciences education practices will be critical if the predicted budgetary constraints are realized (Duffy, 2020; Kurth, 2020). In these times, being able to defend each anatomy education program element as providing value for money can become increasingly important, and in turn, so does the application of cost and value research to anatomical sciences education.</p> <p>When deciding between education approaches, the options can be visualized on the cost‐effectiveness plane. As illustrated in Figure 1, compared to a baseline education approach (located intercept of the two axes), all alternatives fall into one of four categories (quadrants) relating to the factors along the axis. Options in the north‐west quadrant provide less value, as they are costlier and less effective, and would not typically be used unless driven by non‐economic factors. Conversely, options in the south‐east quadrant provide more value, as these are less costly and more effective, supporting adoption. More commonly, however, educational choices are a trade‐off between spending more for a greater effect (north‐east) or accepting a lesser effect to save money (south‐west). A case of the latter is provided by Chumbley et al. (2021). Herein the authors demonstrate that compared to simulation, using plastic models are less costly and less effective. Decisions on trade‐offs, therefore, will be driven by institution‐specific factors (Maloney et al., 2019). For example, an institution seeking to build a reputation based on educational quality may select more effective educational approaches even if this choice results in higher costs, whereas the same trade‐off may not be appropriate for a program in a low‐income country. It remains to be seen how disruptive educational events, such as Covid‐19 related budgetary constraints and teaching innovations, can impact cost and value, and thus, quadrant localization at different institutions. Cost and value are not about "cost‐cutting" but more about making informed choices about how resources are best spent within the context in which they are explored.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/8Z8K/01mar21/ase2027-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ase2027-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 A cost‐effectiveness plane illustrates the relationship between cost and effectiveness, with the north‐west and south‐east quadrants representing dominant options where one alternative is clearly more cost‐effective than the other, whereas the north‐east and south‐west quadrants indicate that a trade‐off between cost and effectiveness is likely." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The purpose of this viewpoint article is to expand on the application of cost and value concepts to anatomical sciences education, contextualize these concepts through a deeper dive into one of the more expensive educational approaches of human donor dissection, and raise questions and opportunities for anatomical sciences education research and practices going forward.</p> <hd id="AN0149077248-5">DESCRIPTION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149077248-6">Why is Anatomical Sciences Education a Fertile Ground for Cost and Value Research?</hd> <p>Anatomical sciences education, with human donor dissection, encapsulates several core elements that contribute to medical education expenses (McLachlan et al., 2004; Chumbley et al., 2021). This approach features high fixed costs (costs that occur regardless of the number of students) due to required specialized infrastructure, sourcing of carefully controlled materials, skilled technical expertise, and bespoke maintenance and curation (Cornwall and Stringer, 2009). For example, using the data from Chumbley et al. (2021), the upfront costs for human donor dissection were calculated as being over 77,000 GBP (using Great British Pounds [GBP/£] as the currency) compared to 30,000 GBP for the plastic model modality, and 3,000 GBP for the computer‐assisted learning approach. Human donor dissection also includes high variable costs (costs that change with the number of learners), due to its requirement of small group learning and its impact on academic workload. The costs involved in anatomy program delivery, the large student numbers in the medicine, nursing, and allied health programs serviced, and the presence of low‐cost alternatives being marketed makes anatomy education a fertile ground for significant efficiency gains through cost and value research.</p> <hd id="AN0149077248-7">Value Matters More Than Cost Alone</hd> <p>When exploring educational practice inputs and outputs there are a number of non‐financial benefits to consider. These are often harder to measure or quantify, but are no less important to the final pedagogical decision‐making process. Decisions should not be based on cost alone, but also include the consideration of the range of outcomes for which the activity is designed to achieve, and its integration with the philosophy of the educational program it is contributing to. So how does this concept apply to anatomical sciences education, and to human donor dissection, in particular?</p> <p>In addition to knowledge acquisition, human donor dissection provides opportunities for the development of a number of other psychosocial and non‐traditional discipline independent skills (NTDIS), unique educational experiences, and perceptions of quality of a given anatomy program (Evans and Pawlina, 2015). Students' choice of medical schools may be impacted by opportunities for donor dissection. (Bertman and Marks, 1985; Tough, 2020), especially when considering recent evidence that student experience appears to improve when modern technologies are additive to existing approaches (Wilson et al., 2018a). Healthcare students' engagement with donor dissection pedagogy seems to positively impact a wide array of psychosocial skills including: Professionalism (Escobar‐Poni and Poni, 2006; Sbayeh et al., 2016; Ghosh, 2017; Ghosh and Kumar, 2019; Goss et al., 2019) teamwork (O'Connell and Pascoe, 2004; Nieder et al., 2005; Vasan et al., 2008; Lerner et al., 2009; Hafferty et al., 2013; Krupat et al., 2016; Laakkonen and Muukkonen, 2019), communication (Evans, 2013), medical ethics (Hildebrandt, 2016; Sbayeh et al., 2016; Stephens et al., 2019), clinical and spatial reasoning (Elizondo‐Omaña et al., 2008; Elizondo‐Omaña et al., 2010; Evans et al., 2018; Langlois et al., 2020) and tolerance of uncertainty (Stephens et al., 2020). While Chumbley et al. (2021) elegantly illustrate that computer‐aided instruction, plastic models, and virtual dissection tables are projected to be the least costly, these anatomy education teaching modalities are rarely (if ever) tied to the development of these "other" skills. While students may gain these psychosocial skills through other non‐anatomy disciplines or units of study, these courses may not have the same student investment or provide as early an exposure. This unique experience of engaging with their "first patient" (Hasselblatt et al., 2018) or "first teacher" (Winkelmann and Güldner, 2004; Bohl et al., 2011; Štrkalj and Pather, 2017) enables students to challenge their own perceptions of death and dying, and may aid students in managing the emotional anxiety of dealing with patients' in the healthcare setting (Arráez‐Aybar et al., 2008; Boeckers et al., 2010; Štrkalj and Pather, 2017; Goss et al., 2019). The value of this experience in the learning equation and the role in the development of the health professional persona may not be realized by measuring the knowledge outcomes of the anatomy education program alone (Pather et al., 2020; Grosser et al., 2021; McDaniel et al., 2021).</p> <p>Notwithstanding the above, there is a range of ways in which human donor bodies are engaged in anatomy education programs and student learning, each of these affects the cost‐value estimate. Prosection‐based courses, for example, are demonstrated to be focused, contextual, and cost and time efficient (Nnodim et al., 1996; Drake, 2007; Turney, 2007; Drake et al., 2009; Pather, 2015). This anatomy resource (prosections) in particular, lends itself to the Chumbley et al. (2021) description of "shared costs" resources that inevitably save cost by enabling use by multiple student cohorts. Furthermore, the dissection experience also plays a vital role in developing the expertise of early career educators as well as surgical skills for future healthcare providers. Given the growing concern related to a global shortage of anatomy educators (Kramer et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2020) and the discussed link between dissection and adequate anatomy for safe healthcare practice (Ahmed et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2015), dissection may be an important (while also financially expensive) pedagogy. Thus, while at face value, anatomy education costs appear straightforward, a given healthcare education context may find benefit in evaluating a specific discipline (i.e., anatomy) within the framework of the broader healthcare program to ensure that decisions made about financial cost are not indirectly impacting programmatic competencies.</p> <hd id="AN0149077248-8">Value to Whom?</hd> <p>Cost and value research can be viewed from multiple stakeholder perspectives (Walsh et al., 2013; Maloney et al., 2017; Rivers et al., 2017). Benefits to an educational institution stakeholder might include decreased costs per student educated, decreased student failure and attrition rates, freeing up of academic time for other tasks, and/or improvements in utilizing limited physical space (Foo et al., 2018). A student perspective might include an emphasis on the time to achieve educational outcomes, the learning experience, motivation to study, preparedness for future work, or decreased risk of failure and its associated consequence on learning fees (Foo et al., 2017).</p> <p>In the case of anatomy education, there are multiple relevant stakeholders. Students may form their professional identity through dissection experiences (McLean et al., 2012; Fernandes et al., 2015). Health services may be most interested in the impact on student clinical placement performance, given potential impacts on service delivery (Worley and Kitto, 2001). A government perspective might include changes in attrition or clinical education fees based on students' competency achievements (Foo et al., 2018). A societal perspective might include change in patient outcomes or improved public expenditure accountability. Although patient outcomes are arguably the most important perspective to consider (Cahill et al., 2000; Prince et al., 2005; Ahmed et al., 2010; Yardley and Dornan, 2012), there are significant limitations to measuring cost and value from the patient perspective given the potentially long timeframes between anatomy education and independent practice as well as concurrent educational experiences (Cahill et al., 2000; Ahmed et al., 2010; Foo and Maloney, 2017).</p> <p>The primary stakeholder perspectives explored within any study is influenced by the research question investigated. Given that there is likely to be cost‐sharing between stakeholders (e.g., poor university anatomy education resulting in later additional costs to the health service delivering clinical education), it is not uncommon to examine multiple stakeholder perspectives within a single study (Foo et al., 2018). Further complicating this cost and benefit analysis, is that human donor dissection may not be an "<emph>all or none</emph>" pedagogy, with a stakeholder question being not <emph>if</emph> dissection is necessary for healthcare students, <emph>but how much, when</emph>, and <emph>by whom?</emph> (Older, 2004; McMenamin et al., 2016; Yiasemidou et al., 2018) A yet unanswered, but related question, remains: How do these differing pedagogies impact students' future choice of specialization?</p> <hd id="AN0149077248-9">DISCUSSION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149077248-10">What are the Future Research Directions?</hd> <p>Within the study by Chumbley et al. (2021) singular teaching modalities were examined in isolation. Although it is not uncommon for educational studies to focus on a combination of teaching methods and outputs (Losco et al., 2017; Wilson et al, 2018b), the challenge now is to weave these multi‐modal approaches into cost‐benefit analyses to give insights into their programmatic outputs in the context of the resources that they consume. For example, recognition of the less tangible aspects of donor dissection, such as the aforementioned psychosocial development and student professional identity development, will likely be considered within a dose‐response relationship: <emph>How much exposure to high‐cost human dissection is required, before we see diminishing returns on its NTDIS benefits</emph>?</p> <p>This viewpoint advocates for the use of meaningful comparators within head‐to‐head studies, and also for the inclusion of low‐cost alternatives (i.e., dissection compared to commercial computer‐aided education (CAI), compared to free‐ware CAI, and the hardware required for these to be optimized). A more challenging task would be to evaluate cost value of a blended learning delivery of the anatomy program wherein a bouquet of anatomy education tools is implemented at a time when they will have the most effect. Evaluations should move beyond the apparent observation of costs, to include research that facilitates the understanding of the <emph>drivers</emph> of value. From the point of view of choosing primary analyses' stakeholder perspectives, future research is anticipated to move beyond examining detectable short‐term student knowledge changes toward more long‐term impacts related to anatomy knowledge, metacognition, and clinical consequences or patient outcomes. Cost and value research should be conducted in parallel to studies evaluating the educational effect and the student experience, whether they be quantitative or qualitative in nature, to enhance our understanding of these important datasets (Foo et al., 2019).</p> <p>Robust cost‐value estimation should consider not just the tools of anatomy education (e.g., human body donors, digital resources, models) but also the pedagogical approach, design, and implementation of the learning program, including the fundamental influencers of students' effective learning and applications of knowledge. In practice, this means that the anatomical tools included in the Chumbley et al. (2021) cost value estimates could be further analyzed on whether they are best for active or passive learning, for teacher‐centered or student‐centered learning, for transitions to practice, etc. Learning design affects learning outcomes, and this should be considered in future modeling of cost‐value.</p> <p>Teaching and learning in a post‐Covid‐19 era will also raise unique opportunities and challenges from an economic research standpoint. The need to rapidly transition to a pandemic‐restricted online learning environment has subsequently seen many students and educators gain the first‐hand experience of a variety of eLearning approaches that they may not have necessarily experienced otherwise (Goh et al., 2020). This experience provides learners and educators with a more holistic understanding of online learning, their personal eLearning preferences, and their perception of educational value. While these online teaching and learning experiences occur in the context of related pandemic limitations, there are likely lessons and learnings applicable beyond this setting which will facilitate more meaningful and accurate contributions to research data concerning cost and value studies of alternative approaches to anatomical sciences education (Simon, 1955). In this way, the Covid‐19 impacts on cost and value research related to anatomy education approaches, while in its infancy, appears to be a rich and dynamic area to explore in future years.</p> <hd id="AN0149077248-11">Limitation of the Study</hd> <p>This viewpoint has approached cost and value through an economic lens, containing the implicit assumption that we should seek to maximize educational outputs for a given financial spend. In reality, most choices will also hinge on what decision makers believe to be important (Gilead, 2014; Maloney et al., 2019), which in education may include factors such as supporting learners with a diverse range of learning needs, providing choice to meet individual learner preferences, and developing desired non‐traditional discipline independent skills. These non‐economic factors are highly context‐dependent, highlighting that decision making is more about individual or institutional subjective value judgments rather than broadly applicable objective values themselves (Maloney et al., 2019). In this sense, economic cost and value data are just one additional data point to aid educational choice. Nonetheless, economics is a primary driver for many organizations and decisions because resources are limited, particularly in a climate of decreasing government funding for higher education (Youngclaus et al., 2017; Bolton, 2019; Australian Government, 2020) and concerns about rising levels of student debt (Youngclaus et al., 2017; Pisaniello et al., 2019; Asch et al., 2020). Even the worth of human life can be considered under an economic lens; for example, the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) applies a 20,000 to 30,000 GBP per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year (QALY) threshold for funding publicly funded health interventions. Thus, while some might find a focus on cost and value research, as it relates to economics, distasteful – this approach appears to be of ubiquitous presence at multiple levels across the healthcare sector.</p> <hd id="AN0149077248-12">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>The goal of cost and value research is to create an evidence base toward education that delivers maximum value for a given spend. Anatomy educators, researchers, and decision makers who embrace a dialog about cost and value, and interpret and apply findings from studies of educational costs, are best positioned to improve the value of the education to their learners and provide effective outputs for all stakeholders.</p> <hd id="AN0149077248-13">NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS</hd> <p>STEPHEN MALONEY, B.Physio, M.P.H., Ph.D., M.B.A, (Exec.), F.A.N.Z.A.H.P.E., is a professor and Deputy Head of the School of Primary and Allied Health Care in the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. His research interests are in the field of cost and value – applying economic evaluations to health professions education to enhance educational design and outcomes. He is also Chair of the Society for Cost and Value in Health Professions Education (SCVHPE).</p> <p>NALINI PATHER, M.Med.Sci. (Clin. Anat.), Ph.D., is a professor and the Chair of Anatomy at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Medicine, Sydney, Australia. She teaches anatomy across multiple programs including medicine, allied health, medical sciences, and biomedical engineering students. Her research group focuses on the applications of anatomy, visualization, and immersive technologies to clinical, and imaging specialties, and on medical education.</p> <p>JONATHAN FOO, B.Physiother. (Hons.), is a graduate (Ph.D.) student in the School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. His research focuses on enhancing the efficiency and accountability of health professional education and training through the application of economic methods. He is also a practicing physiotherapist.</p> <p>MICHELLE D. LAZARUS, Ph.D., is an associate professor and Deputy Head (Education) of the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. She is also the Director of the Center for Human Anatomy Education at Monash University. Her primary teaching role is in the medical program and her research focuses on exploring anatomy education curricular impacts on medical student professional identity and role formation.</p> <ref id="AN0149077248-14"> <title> LITERATURE CITED </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmed K, Rowland S, Patel V, Khan RS, Ashrafian H, Davies DC, Darzi A, Athanasiou T, Paraskeva PA. 2010. Is the structure of the anatomy curriculum adequate for safe medical practice? Surgeon 8 : 318 – 324.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arráez‐Aybar LA, Castaño‐Collado G, Casado‐Morales MI. 2008. Dissection as a modulator of emotional attitudes and reactions of future health professionals. Med Educ 42 : 563 – 571.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Asch DA, Grischkan J, Nicholson S. 2020. The cost, price, and debt of medical education. N Engl J Med 383 : 6 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government. 2020. Job‐ready Graduates Higher Education Reform Package 2020. 1 st Ed. Canberra, Australia : Department of Education, Skills and Employment. 37 p. URL: https://<ulink href="http://www.dese.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/job%5fready%5fgraduates%5fdiscussion%5fpaper%5f2.pdf">www.dese.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/job%5fready%5fgraduates%5fdiscussion%5fpaper%5f2.pdf</ulink> [accessed 5 October 2020].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Azer SA, Eizenberg N. 2007. Do we need dissection in an integrated problem‐based learning medical course? Perceptions of first‐ and second‐year students. Surg Radiol Anat 29 : 173 – 180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bertman SL, Marks SC Jr. 1985. Humanities in medical education: Rationale and resources for the dissection laboratory. Med Educ 19 : 374 – 381.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Birbara NS, Pather N. 2021. Real or not real: The impact of physical fidelity of virtual learning resources on learning anatomy. Anat Sci Educ (in press; https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2022).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Birbara NS, Sammut C, Pather N. 2020. Virtual reality in anatomy: A pilot study evaluating different delivery modalities. Anat Sci Educ 13 : 445 – 457.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Boeckers A, Brinkmann A, Jerg‐Bretzke L, Lamp C, Traue HC, Boeckers TM. 2010. How can we deal with mental distress in the dissection room? ‐ An evaluation of the need for psychological support. Ann Anat 192 : 366 – 372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bogomolova K, Hierck BP, van der Hage JA, Hovius SE. 2020. Anatomy dissection course improves the initially lower levels of visual‐spatial abilities of medical undergraduates. Anat Sci Educ 13 : 333 – 342.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bohl M, Bosch P, Hildebrandt S. 2011. Medical students' perceptions of the body donor as a "first patient" or "teacher": A pilot study. Anat Sci Educ 4 : 208 – 213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bolton P. 2019. Briefing Paper 7393: Higher Education Funding in England. 1 st Ed. London, UK : House of Commons Library. 20 p. URL: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//33702/1/CBP‐7973.pdf [accessed 5 October 2020].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bork F, Stratmann L, Enssle S, Eck U, Navab N, Waschke J, Kugelmann D. 2019. The benefits of an augmented reality magic mirror system for integrated radiology teaching in gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 12 : 585 – 598.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown C, Ross S, Cleland J, Walsh K. 2015. Money makes the (medical assessment) world go round: The cost of components of a summative final year objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Med Teach 37 : 653 – 659.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cahill DR, Leonard RJ, Marks SC Jr. 2000. Standards in healthcare and medical education. Clin Anat 13 : 150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan LK, Pawlina W (Editors). 2015. Teaching Anatomy: A Practical Guide. 1 st Ed. New York, NY : Springer International Publishing. 404 p.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chumbley SD, Devaraj VS, Mattick K. 2021. An approach to economic evaluation in undergraduate anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ 14:171–183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornwall J, Stringer MD. 2009. The wider importance of cadavers: Educational and research diversity from a body bequest program. Anat Sci Educ 2 : 234 – 237.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis CR, Bates AS, Elllis H, Roberts AM. 2014. Human anatomy: Let the students tell us how to teach. Anat Sci Educ 7 : 262 – 272.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhawan S. 2020. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID‐19 crisis. J Educ Technol Syst 49 : 5 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drake RL. 2007. A unique, innovative, and clinically oriented approach to anatomy education. Acad Med 82 : 475 – 478.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. 2009. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: The winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ 2 : 253 – 259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duffy C. 2020. Academics in talks to take pay cuts to save thousands of university jobs during coronavirus pandemic. ABC News, 13 May 2020. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. URL: https://<ulink href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020‐05‐13/universities‐and‐union‐negotiate‐pay‐cuts‐save‐jobs‐coronavirus/12239448">www.abc.net.au/news/2020‐05‐13/universities‐and‐union‐negotiate‐pay‐cuts‐save‐jobs‐coronavirus/12239448</ulink> [accessed 15 May 2020].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elizondo‐Omaña RE, López SG. 2008. The development of clinical reasoning skills: A major objective of the anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 1 : 267 – 268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elizondo‐Omaña RE, Morales‐Gómez JA, Morquecho‐Espinoza O, Hinojosa‐Amaya JM, Villarreal‐Silva EE, García‐Rodríguez Mde L, Guzmán‐López S. 2010. Teaching skills to promote clinical reasoning in early basic science courses. Anat Sci Educ 3 : 267 – 271.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erolin C. 2019. Interactive 3D digital models for anatomy and medical education. Adv Exp Med Biol 1138 : 1 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Escobar‐Poni B, Poni ES. 2006. The role of gross anatomy in promoting professionalism: A neglected opportunity! Clin Anat 19 : 461 – 467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans DJ. 2013. Connecting with different audiences: The anatomy of communication is essential. Anat Sci Educ 6 : 134 – 137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans DJ, Pawlina W. 2015. The role of the anatomist in teaching of nontraditional discipline‐independent skills. In: Chan LK, Pawlina W (Editors). Teaching Anatomy: A Practical Guide. 1 st Ed. New York, NY : Springer International Publishing. p 319 – 329.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans DJ, Pawlina W, Lachman N. 2018. Human skills for human[istic] anatomy: An emphasis on nontraditional discipline‐independent skills. Anat Sci Educ 11 : 221 – 224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernandes AR, Palombella A, Salfi J, Wainman B. 2015. Dissecting through barriers: A mixed‐methods study on the effect of interprofessional education in a dissection course with healthcare professional students. Anat Sci Educ 8 : 305 – 316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foo J, Cook DA, Walsh K, Golub R, Abdalla ME, Ilic D, Maloney S. 2019. Cost evaluations in health professions education: A systematic review of methods and reporting quality. Med Educ 53 : 1196 – 1208.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foo J, Ilic D, Rivers G, Evans DJ, Walsh K, Haines TP, Paynter S, Morgan P, Maloney S. 2018. Using cost‐analyses to inform health professions education ‐ The economic cost of pre‐clinical failure. Med Teach 40 : 1221 – 1230.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foo J, Maloney S. 2017. Reply to Theilen et al 2017: Economic evaluations of clinician training – Make your research meaningful to decision makers. Resuscitation 119 : e1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foo J, Maloney S. 2018. Embracing a dialogue about cost in physiotherapy education. OpenPhysio 15 : 1 – 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foo J, Rivers G, Allen L, Ilic D, Maloney S, Hay M. 2020. The economic costs of selecting medical students: An Australian case study. Med Educ 54 : 643 – 651.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foo J, Rivers G, Ilic D, Evans DJ, Walsh K, Haines T, Paynter S, Morgan P, Lincke K, Lambrou H, Nethercote A, Maloney S. 2017. The economic cost of failure in clinical education: A multi‐perspective analysis. Med Educ 51 : 740 – 754.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forman HP. 2001. Cost, value, and price: What is the difference and why care? Radiol 218 : 25 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gale R, Grant J. 2010. Cost‐benefit analysis of curriculum design for medicine. In: Walsh K (Editor). Cost Effectiveness in Medical Education. 1 st Ed. Abingdon, Oxon, UK : Radcliffe Publishing Ltd. p 81 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghosh SK. 2017. Cadaveric dissection as an educational tool for anatomical sciences in the 21st century. Anat Sci Educ 10 : 286 – 299.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghosh SK, Kumar A. 2019. Building professionalism in human dissection room as component of hidden curriculum delivery: A review of good practices. Anat Sci Educ 12 : 210 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilead T. 2014. Education and the rationale of cost–benefit analysis. Br J Educ Stud 62 : 373 – 391.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh PS, Sandars J. 2020. A vision of the use of technology in medical education after the COVID‐19 pandemic. MedEdPublish 9 : 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goss AL, Viswanathan VB, DeLisser HM. 2019. Not just a specimen: A qualitative study of emotion, morality and professionalism in one medical school gross anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ 12 : 349 – 359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grosser J, Bientzle M, Shiozawa T, Hirt B, Kimmerle J. 2021. Observing interprofessional collaboration: Impact on attitude and knowledge acquisition. Anat Sci Educ (in press; https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2007).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hafferty FW, Castellani B, Hafferty PK, Pawlina W. 2013. Anatomy and histology as socially networked learning environments: Some preliminary findings. Acad Med 88 : 1315 – 1323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hasselblatt F, Messerer DAC, Keis O, Böckers TM, Böckers A. 2018. Anonymous body or first patient? A status report and needs assessment regarding the personalization of donors in dissection courses in German, Austrian, and Swiss Medical Schools. Anat Sci Educ 11 : 282 – 293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> HBPE. 2020. Harvard Business Publishing Education. Online Learning Report. Covid‐19 Pulse Survey. 1 st Ed. Brighton, MA : Harvard Business School Publishing. 19 p. URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/he‐product‐images/docs/Higher%5fEducation%5fOnline%5fLearning%5fReport%5fAug2020.pdf [accessed 5 October 2020].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hildebrandt S. 2016. Practical core elements of an ethical anatomical education. Clin Anat 29 : 37 – 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ICEF Monitor. 2020. Measuring COVID‐19's impact on higher education. ICEF GmbH, Bonn, Germany. URL: https://monitor.icef.com/2020/04/measuring‐covid‐19s‐impact‐on‐higher‐education/ [accessed 5 October 2020].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones DG. 2020. Ethical responses to the Covid‐19 pandemic: Implications for the ethos and practice of anatomy as a health science discipline. Anat Sci Educ 13 : 549 – 555.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kramer B, Hartmann C, du Toit F, Hutchinson E, Pather N. 2020. Supporting early career anatomists: An international challenge. Ann Anat 231 : 151520.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krupat E, Richards JB, Sullivan AM, Fleenor TJ Jr, Schwartzstein RM. 2016. Assessing the effectiveness of case‐based collaborative learning via randomized controlled trial. Acad Med 91 : 723 – 729.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurth C. 2020. A way to make COVID‐19 college furloughs more fair. The Conversation (US Edition), 12 May 2020. The Conversation US, Inc., Boston, MA. URL: https://theconversation.com/a‐way‐to‐make‐covid‐19‐college‐furloughs‐more‐fair‐137577 [accessed 15 May 2020].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laakkonen J, Muukkonen H. 2019. Fostering students' collaborative learning competencies and professional conduct in the context of two gross anatomy courses in veterinary medicine. Anat Sci Educ 12 : 154 – 163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langlois J, Bellemare C, Toulouse J, Wells GA. 2020. Spatial abilities training in anatomy education: A systematic review. Anat Sci Educ 13 : 71 – 79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerner S, Magrane D, Friedman E. 2009. Teaching teamwork in medical education. Mt Sinai J Med 76 : 318 – 329.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longhurst GJ, Stone DM, Dulohery K, Scully D, Campbell T, Smith CF. 2020. Strength, weakness, opportunity, threat (SWOT) analysis of the adaptations to anatomical education in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland in response to the Covid‐19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ 13 : 298 – 308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Losco CD, Grant WD, Armson A, Meyer AJ, Walker BF. 2017. Effective methods of teaching and learning in anatomy as a basic science: A BEME systematic review: BEME guide no. 44. Med Teach 39 : 234 – 243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maloney S. 2017. When I say ... cost and value. Med Educ 51 : 246 – 247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maloney S, Cook DA, Golub R, Foo J, Cleland J, Rivers G, Tolsgaard MG, Evans D, Abdalla ME, Walsh K. 2019. AMEE Guide No. 123 ‐ How to read studies of educational costs. Med Teach 41 : 497 – 504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maloney S, Foo J, Cook D, Walsh K. 2018. Cost, value, and the sustainability of our choices concerning simulation. Acad Med 93 : 342 – 343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maloney S, Nicklen P, Rivers G, Foo J, Ooi YY, Reeves S, Walsh K, Ilic D. 2015. A cost‐effectiveness analysis of blended versus face‐to‐face delivery of evidence‐based medicine to medical students. J Med Internet Res 17 : e182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maloney S, Reeves S, Rivers G, Ilic D, Foo J, Walsh K. 2017. The Prato statement on cost and value in professional and interprofessional education. J Interprof Care 31 : 1 – 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mattick K, Baumfield V. 2016. From cost to value in medical education. Med Teach 38 : 533.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDaniel KG, Brown T, Radford CC, McDermott CH, van Houten T, Katz ME, Stearns DA, Hildebrandt S. 2021. Anatomy as a model environment for acquiring professional competencies in medicine: Experiences at Harvard Medical School. Anat Sci Educ 14:241–251.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McEwan PJ. 2012. Cost‐effectiveness analysis of education and health interventions in developing countries. J Dev Effect 4 : 189 – 213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. 2004. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ 38 : 418 – 424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLean M, Johnson P, Sargeant SJ. 2012. Medical student professional identity formation. Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia. URL: https://research.bond.edu.au/en/datasets/medical‐student‐professional‐identity‐formation [accessed 15 May 2020].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMenamin PG, Eizenberg N, Buzzard A, Fogg Q, Lazarus M. 2016. A broad perspective on anatomy education: Celebrating teaching diversity and innovations. Med J Aust 204 : 57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMenamin PG, McLachlan J, Wilson A, McBride JM, Pickering J, Evans DJR, Winkelmann A. 2018. Do we really need cadavers anymore to learn anatomy in undergraduate medicine? Med Teach 40 : 1020 – 1029.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nieder GL, Parmelee DX, Stolfi A, Hudes PD. 2005. Team‐based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat 18 : 56 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nnodim JO, Ohanaka EC, Osuji CU. 1996. A follow‐up comparative study of two modes of learning human anatomy: By dissection and from prosections. Clin Anat 9 : 258 – 262.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connell MT, Pascoe JM. 2004. Undergraduate medical education for the 21st century: Leadership and teamwork. Fam Med 36 : S51 – S56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Older J. 2004. Anatomy: A must for teaching the next generation. Surgeon 2 : 79 – 90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pather N. 2015. Teaching anatomy: Prosections and dissections. In: Chan LK, Pawlina W (Editors). Teaching Anatomy: A Practical Guide. 1 st Ed. New York, NY : Springer International Publishing. p 213 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pather N, Blyth P, Chapman JA, Dayal MR, Flack NA, Fogg QA, Green RA, Hulme AK, Johnson IP, Meyer AJ, Morley JW, Shortland PJ, Štrkalj G, Štrkalj M, Valter K, Webb AL, Woodley SJ, Lazarus MD. 2020. Forced disruption of anatomy education in Australia and New Zealand: An acute response to the Covid‐19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ 13 : 284 – 297.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pisaniello MS, Asahina AT, Bacchi S, Wagner M, Perry SW, Wong M, Licinio J. 2019. Effect of medical student debt on mental health, academic performance and specialty choice: A systematic review. BMJ Open 9 : e029980.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince KJ, Scherpbier AJ, van Mameren H, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP. 2005. Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy? Med Educ 39 : 326 – 332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivers G, Foo J, Ilic D, Nicklen P, Reeves S, Walsh K, Maloney S. 2015. The economic value of an investment in physiotherapy education: A net present value analysis. J Physiother 61 : 148 – 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivers G, Reeves S, Ilic D, Foo J, Walsh K, Maloney S. 2017. The Prato method: A guide to the application of economic evaluations in health professions education research. J Contin Educ Health Prof 37 : 230 – 238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sbayeh A, Qaedi Choo MA, Quane KA, Finucane P, McGrath D, O'Flynn S, O'Mahony SM, O'Tuathaigh CM. 2016. Relevance of anatomy to medical education and clinical practice: Perspectives of medical students, clinicians, and educators. Perspect Med Educ 5 : 338 – 346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scanlan GM, Cleland J, Johnston P, Walker K, Krucien N, Skåtun D, NHS Education for Scotland. 2018. What factors are critical to attracting NHS foundation doctors into specialty or core training? A discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open 8 : e019911.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreurs S, Cleland J, Muijtjens AM, oude Egbrink MG, Cleutjens K. 2018. Does selection pay off? A cost–benefit comparison of medical school selection and lottery systems. Med Educ 52 : 1240 – 1248.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simon HA. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69 : 99 – 118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh R, Tubbs RS, Gupta K, Singh M, Jones DG, Kumar R. 2015. Is the decline of human anatomy hazardous to medical education/profession?—A review. Surg Radiol Anat 37 : 1257 – 1265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Srinivasan DK. 2020. Medical students' perceptions and an anatomy teacher's personal experience using an e‐learning platform for tutorials during the Covid‐19 crisis. Anat Sci Educ 13 : 315 – 316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephens GC, Rees CE, Lazarus MD. 2019. How does donor dissection influence medical students' perceptions of ethics? A cross‐sectional and longitudinal qualitative study. Anat Sci Educ 14 : 332 – 348.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephens GC, Rees CE, Lazarus MD. 2020. Exploring the impact of education on preclinical medical students' tolerance of uncertainty: A qualitative longitudinal study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 26:53–77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Štrkalj G, Pather N. 2017. Introduction. In: Štrkalj G, Pather N (Editors). Commemorations and Memorials: Exploring the Human Face of Anatomy. 1 st Ed. Singapore, Singapore : World Scientific Publishing Co., Pty. Ltd. p 1 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. 2010. The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 3 : 83 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolsgaard MG, Cook DA. 2017. New roles for cost as an outcome: Opportunities and challenges. Med Educ 51 : 680 – 682.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tough H. 2020. Anatomy teaching in medical schools and its influence on speciality choice. MedEdPublish 9 : 126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turney BW. 2007. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 89 : 104 – 107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Holland BK. 2008. Modified use of team‐based learning for effective delivery of medical gross anatomy and embryology. Anat Sci Educ 1 : 3 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh K, Levin H, Jaye P, Gazzard J. 2013. Cost analyses approaches in medical education: There are no simple solutions. Med Educ 47 : 962 – 968.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson AB, Miller CH, Klein BA, Taylor MA, Goodwin M, Boyle EK, Brown K, Hoppe C, Lazarus M. 2018a. A meta‐analysis of anatomy laboratory pedagogies. Clin Anat 31 : 122 – 133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson AB, Notebaert AJ, Schaefer AF, Moxham BJ, Stephens S, Mueller C, Lazarus MD, Katrikh AZ, Brooks WS. 2020. A look at the anatomy educator job market: Anatomists remain in short supply. Anat Sci Educ 13 : 91 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson JS, Alvarez J, Davis BC, Duerinckx AJ. 2018b. Cost‐effective teaching of radiology with preclinical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 11 : 196 – 206.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winkelmann A, Güldner FH. 2004. Cadavers as teachers: The dissecting room experience in Thailand. BMJ 329 : 1455 – 1457.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Worley PS, Kitto P. 2001. Hypothetical model of the financial impact of student attachments on rural general practices. Rural Remote Health 1 : 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yardley S, Dornan T. 2012. Kirkpatrick's levels and education 'evidence'. Med Educ 46 : 97 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yiasemidou M, Gkaragkani E, Glassman D, Biyani CS. 2018. Cadaveric simulation: A review of reviews. Ir J Med Sci 187 : 827 – 833.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Youngclaus J, Bunton SA, Fresne J. 2017. An updated look at attendance cost and medical student debt at U.S. medical schools. Association of American Medical Colleges Analysis in Brief. 17 : 163. URL: https://<ulink href="http://www.aamc.org/system/files/reports/1/august2017anupdatedlookatattendancecostandmedicalstudentdebtatu.pdf">www.aamc.org/system/files/reports/1/august2017anupdatedlookatattendancecostandmedicalstudentdebtatu.pdf</ulink> [accessed 1 October 2020].</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Stephen Maloney; Nalini Pather; Jonathan Foo and Michelle D. Lazarus</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1287827
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Spending Wisely: The Role of Cost and Value Research in the Pursuit of Advancing Anatomical Sciences Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maloney%2C+Stephen%22">Maloney, Stephen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2612-5162">0000-0003-2612-5162</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pather%2C+Nalini%22">Pather, Nalini</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5288-7713">0000-0001-5288-7713</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Foo%2C+Jonathan%22">Foo, Jonathan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4533-8307">0000-0003-4533-8307</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lazarus%2C+Michelle+D%2E%22">Lazarus, Michelle D.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0996-4386">0000-0003-0996-4386</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Anatomical+Sciences+Education%22"><i>Anatomical Sciences Education</i></searchLink>. Mar-Apr 2021 14(2):263-269.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative<br />Opinion Papers
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anatomy%22">Anatomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Finance%22">Educational Finance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Costs%22">Costs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cost+Effectiveness%22">Cost Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Input+Output+Analysis%22">Input Output Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Donors%22">Donors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Laboratory+Procedures%22">Laboratory Procedures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Benefits%22">Educational Benefits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Economics%22">Economics</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/ase.2027
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1935-9772
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Studies of "cost and value" in anatomical sciences education examine not only what works, but at what cost, thus evaluating the inputs and outputs of education. This research provides insights into how to use available resources (e.g., academic time, budgets, infrastructure) as a mechanism to obtaining the maximum outcomes available. The purpose of this viewpoint article is to expand on the application of cost and value concepts to anatomical sciences education, contextualizing these concepts through a deeper dive into the more costly educational approaches of human donor dissection. In doing so, both questions and opportunities are raised for the discipline of anatomical sciences going forward. Educational decisions, inclusive of cost and value appraisals, consider the range of outcomes for which the activity is designed to achieve, and the activity's integration with the philosophy of the educational program it is contributing to; these decisions, thus, evaluate more than just cost alone. Healthcare students' engagement with human donor dissection pedagogy offers an array of reported non-economic benefits, including non-traditional discipline-independent skill (NDIS) development (e.g., professionalism, teamwork skills). These skills are often harder to measure, but are no less important to the final pedagogical decision-making process. The goal of cost and value research is to create an evidence-base toward education that delivers maximum value for a given spend. Anatomy educators, researchers, and decision makers who embrace cost and value dialogue, and interpret and apply findings from studies of educational costs, are best positioned to improve the educational value for their learners and provide effective outputs for all stakeholders.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1287827
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1287827
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/ase.2027
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 263
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Medical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anatomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Finance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Costs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cost Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Input Output Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Donors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Laboratory Procedures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Benefits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Economics
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Spending Wisely: The Role of Cost and Value Research in the Pursuit of Advancing Anatomical Sciences Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maloney, Stephen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pather, Nalini
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Foo, Jonathan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lazarus, Michelle D.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1935-9772
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 14
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Anatomical Sciences Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1