A survey of teaching undergraduate neuroanatomy in the United Kingdom and Ireland

Abstract

Background

Medical students’ perception of neuroanatomy as a challenging topic has implications for referrals and interaction with specialists in the clinical neurosciences. Given plans to introduce a standardised Medical Licensing Assessment by 2023, it is important to understand the current framework of neuroanatomy education. This study aims to describe how neuroanatomy is taught and assessed in the UK and Ireland.

Methods

A structured questionnaire capturing data about the timing, methods, materials, assessment and content of the 2019/2020 neuroanatomy curriculum in the UK and Ireland medical schools.

Results

We received 24/34 responses. Lectures (96%) were the most widely used teaching method, followed by prosection (80%), e-learning (75%), tutorials/seminars (67%), problem-based learning (50%), case-based learning (38%), and dissection (30%). The mean amount of core neuroanatomy teaching was 29.3 hours. The most common formats of assessing neuroanatomical knowledge were multiple-choice exams, spot tests, and objective structured clinical exams. Only 37.5% schools required demonstration of core clinical competency relating to neuroanatomy.

Conclusions

Our survey demonstrates variability in how undergraduate neuroanatomy is taught and assessed across the UK and Ireland. There is a role for development and standardisation of national undergraduate neuroanatomy curricula in order to improve confidence and attainment.

Keywords:

• Undergraduate
• neuroanatomy
• teaching
• curriculum

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (University of Manchester) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author contributions

AEB, HK and DF contributed to the conception and design of the study. HK, AEB, GS, AV, AAG and DF contributed to the design of the questionnaire. Data collection was overseen by GS, and contributed to by AB, EB, GHTL and collaborators from the group NANSIG (Collaborators from this group and details of their contribution are contained in Supplementary Appendix 2). AEB, HK, AB, EB and GHTL contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data. AEB and HK contributed to the drafting of the manuscript and preparation of the figures. All authors reviewed and revised the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank NANSIG as an organisation for their support and for providing the organisational framework to complete this project. The authors would also like to thank all participating medical schools.

Disclosure statement

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript