Background: Medical education has changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been a shift from face to face learning to virtual classes using online learning platforms such as Canvas. These virtual and online alternative methods to medical education brought up concerns about the preparedness of medical students in studying Histology. This study addresses the student’s preference and attitude on the learning of histology using light microscopy vs virtual microscopy. Objectives: The specific objectives of the study are to determine students’ preference, attitudes, and overall satisfaction on the use of light microscopy vs virtual microscopy using a Likert scale. Methods: An enhancement program was conducted by the Department of Anatomy, UP College of Medicine from June 13 to June 17, 2022 among first year medical students. The students were exposed to prosected cadavers, models, specimens, histologic glass slides, and electronic images. During the activity, the second and third floor of Calderon Hall was divided into several stations, each with its own learning outcomes.This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. In all the learning stations, both virtual and light microscopy learning modalities were made available to the students. The student was at liberty to select virtual microscopy, light microscopy or both. In one of the stations, allocated to OS 205 (The study of the anatomy and histology of the thorax), students were randomized to one learning modality (light vs virtual microscopy) and made to identify one predetermined structure. Students answered a short questionnaire that allowed them to express their preference for the modality that was assigned. The questionnaire survey included questions on students’ preference for either light microscopy (LM) or virtual microscopy (VM), ease of use, and satisfaction. A total of five statements were included in the survey questionnaire. All questions in the survey were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (5: strongly disagree, 4: disagree, 3: neutral, 2: agree, and 1: strongly agree). A comments section was also included in the survey to explore students’ experiences of the two learning methods. Results: A total of 160 students participated in the study. Seventy-nine (79) students were randomized to the light microscopy group and 81 one students were randomized to the virtual microscopy group. There were no differences in the demographic characteristics between those randomized to virtual vs light microscopy.There were no differences in the net ratings between those randomised to virtual vs light microscopy in the following domains: 1) ease in looking for structures, 2) ability to identify the structure correctly, 3) method enhancing learning, and 4) overall satisfaction. There was a difference in the net rating between those randomized to virtual vs light microscopy in the domain on quality of the image being easily adjusted (58% vs 97.5%). Conclusion Medical students who used light microscopes demonstrated a more positive attitude towards its ability to enhance learning and showed greater satisfaction in using this method. Ease in manipulating image quality was better in the light microscopy group. However, the accuracy of identification of histological structures using either platform did not differ. Both virtual and light microscopy are effective learning methods.
Microscopy ; Education, Medical ; Histology ; Teaching

Background and Objective: The University of the Philippines Manila (UPM) subcommittee on students in distress was convened during the COVID-19 pandemic to develop “plans, programs and mechanisms” to deal with students experiencing distress and mental health concerns. This study was conducted as one of the activities of the Subcommittee to inform policy to address the following research objective: to describe the experiences, perceptions, and knowledge of both students and faculty members of UP Manila regarding distress. Methods: An online survey tool was created using the results from seven online focus group discussions among 20 faculty of UP Manila. The survey was conducted for one month among faculty and students sampled from the seven colleges of UP Manila and the three extension campuses of the Schools of Health Sciences. The different categories which were consistently perceived as important by both faculty and students as well as those with disparity in the perceptions between faculty and students were described and discussed. Results: A total of 136 faculty (F) and 290 students (S) participated in the study, representing 39% vs 98% (F vs S) of the target sample, respectively. Results showed that among the effects of stressors for students, avoidance of schoolwork (F79 vs S70.3%) and sleep disturbance (F79.4 vs S72.4%), were perceived by both faculty and students as the most frequently perceived response of students to stress.Among the causes of stress, unclear boundaries between school and home (F73.5 vs S63.1%), family duties (F76.5 vs S50.7%), lack of socialization (F89 vs S57.6%), limited recreational activity (F76.5 vs S64.8%), adapting to new ways of socialization (F67.6 vs S53.8%), and internet signal (F99.3 vs S88.3%) were perceived by both faculty and students as the most frequently perceived causes of stress. Among the coping mechanisms, connecting with friends online (F86.8 vs S69.7%), listening to music (F72.8 vs S78.3%), browsing social media (F82.4 vs S81%), viewing movies (F84.6 vs S74.5%), and sleeping or resting (F67.6 vs S84.1%) were perceived by both faculty and students as the most employed by students to cope with stress.Results also show that there were marked disparities in the perceptions of faculty and students. Among the effects of stressors, the largest disparities were in non-performance in academics (F86 vs S51.7%) and academic failure (F76.5 vs S53.8%). Of the causative factors, the largest disparities were in the areas of death (F94.1 vs S14.5%) or sickness in the family (F66.9 vs S0%), family issues (F82.4 vs S24.5%), financial concerns (F89 vs S36.9%), absence of physical connectedness and interaction, (F94.9 vs S23.8%) lack of socialization (F89 vs S57.6%), owning a gadget (F73.5 vs S22.1%), and lack of funds for the internet (F79.4 vs S22.4%).Among the support systems available in the university (psychosocial, academic and wellness activities of the colleges), 70% of the faculty perceived that the students were aware of the support process offered by the university. In contrast, 28% of students were aware of the support services offered to them. Conclusion This study shows that UP Manila faculty and students perceived stress due to the effects of COVID-19 on teaching, learning, and everyday living. Distress among student respondents was commonly perceived to be caused by family concerns, environmental restrictions, connectivity issues, and experiencing a sense of lack. While support services and mental health programs have been in place within the university, only 28% of students perceive that students in distress were aware of the process in receiving support.
Adaptation, Psychological ; Mental Health ; COVID-19 ; Education

Background and Objective: The pandemic acted as an accelerator for the development of online teaching formats in anatomy and histology worldwide. The authors introduce a bridging program that reinforces the knowledge and understanding of gross and correlative anatomy and histology acquired in a virtual environment in preparation for its future clinical application. The study aims to evaluate the Learning Enhancement in Anatomy Program (LEAP) conducted among first-year medical students at the College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study aims to determine the initial experience of implementing a learning enhancement program and assess areas for its improvement. An internally validated questionnaire was given to students after the program to gauge students’ reactions (Kirkpatrick Level 1 evaluation). Pre- and post-tests were administered to evaluate knowledge acquisition (Kirkpatrick Level 2 evaluation). Short-term behavioral peer evaluation (Kirkpatrick Level 3 evaluation) was also instituted. Results: One hundred fifty-two (152) students participated in the study. General reactions from students to the LEAP were consistently positive, with a steady majority of the students rating ‘5’ or a ‘Strongly Agree’ to positive statements regarding the program. Higher ratings for more traditional teaching methods, such as cadavers, formalinized specimens, and bones, compared to virtual systems were apparent. However, inter-student variation in preference for teaching modalities was observed. All stations of the LEAP were evaluated satisfactorily, with most gross anatomy stations rated higher than histology stations. A significant increase was noted in the total post-test scores compared to pre-test scores. This improvement in test scores was observed in the anatomy and histology subcategories and in six of the seven organ system modules. Perceived behavioral outcomes were also generally positive. Conclusion The LEAP is a worthwhile endeavor, garnering overwhelmingly positive reactions and a significant improvement in test scores. Future studies are necessary to fine-tune teaching and training in a blended learning environment.
Anatomy ; COVID-19 ; Education, Medical ; Program Evaluation