Interprofessional Education in Anatomy: Using Q Methodology to Determine Student Perceptions

Interprofessional education (IPE) is critical for preparing healthcare students for the collaborative components of their future careers. Anatomic dissection is an ideal IPE activity because all healthcare professionals require anatomy training and dissection demands extensive student interaction in a sensitive environment. The purpose of this study was to determine which aspects healthcare students perceived to contribute to the development of their (individual) interprofessional skillset within the context of McMaster University's 10‐week IPE gross anatomy dissection course. We used Q‐methodology to identify the students' common viewpoints regarding the course. A total of 26 students from the Medical, Nursing, Midwifery, Physician Assistants, Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy programs participated in this study. Students were asked to sort a Q‐sample of 43 statements based on their viewpoints regarding the IPE dissection course. The 43 statements were developed from interviews with students who had previously completed the course. Using the centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation, three salient factors (groups) emerged. The groups were named based on distinguishing statements as follows: 1) Anatomy IPE Enthusiasts; 2) Practical IPE Advocates; 3) Skeptical IPE Anatomists. The Anatomy IPE Enthusiasts believed that students from different disciplines brought unique anatomical knowledge and each group member guided others through difficult material. The Practical IPE Advocates expressed that they would be much stronger advocates for interprofessional teams in the future as a result of taking the course. The Skeptical IPE Anatomists strongly disagree that learning with students from different disciplines helped them gain a solid understanding of their roles in the context of other healthcare professionals, and felt that there was not much benefit from the IPE program compared to other non‐interdisciplinary programs. It is critical to understand student perceptions of IPE programs in order to best prepare these students for their future collaborative careers. These findings can help the course developers make further adjustments in the course structure, content and delivery to address some of the issues highlighted by the students, and to further emphasize the topics that were well‐received by the students. Finally, we hope that these results will be helpful to other interprofessional educators, especially those whose program has an anatomy framework.