Back

Stress from Cadaver Dissection Linked to Learning Conditions: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa

Nnaka, J. A.; Ezeike, V. U.; Thompson, K.; Okafor, I. A.

2024-07-10 medical education Community evaluation
10.1101/2024.07.09.24310166 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveThis study examined the relationship between students perceptions of cadaver dissection (CD) and some learning conditions during CD. MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study involving 2968 medical students and graduates exposed to CD at nine countries systematically and proportionally selected from Sub-Saharan African countries based on their ranking on the four World Bank indices of development and education: population, literacy, human capital index (HCI), and human development index (HDI). A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect relevant data on learning conditions during CD experience of the participants, using online channels, including email, Whatsapp, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. ResultsAbout half (48.76%) of the participants perceived CD as stressful, while 51.24% thought otherwise. However, 57% of participants from institutions where a CD session lasts three hours described their experience as stressful, whereas 69.67% of participants whose institution spent one hour in a single CD session agreed that CD is not stressful. Similarly, 60.63% of participants from institutions with a student-donor ratio between 5 to 10 students per cadaver described their experience as not stressful. In comparison, 57.51% of participants from institutions with a student-donor ratio of 10-20 students per donor and 53.80% of participants from institutions with over 20 students per donor described their experience as stressful. ConclusionsStudents from institutions with CD instructors, shorter CD sessions, and a smaller student-donor ratio are more likely to perceive CD as stress-free. Providing more support for students during CD and reducing time for CD may be an antidote to CD-related stress.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.