Students' perspectives on the use of social media in anatomy medical education: A survey study

Abstract

Medical students are increasingly engaging with digital technologies for anatomy learning. However, investigations of students' perceptions of anatomy social media content are lacking. This study aims to explore medical students' perspectives of anatomy social media content and its self‐reported value as a learning resource. A cross‐sectional study was conducted to survey first‐year medical students enrolled in Gross Anatomy. An online survey instrument was developed for this study and administered via Qualtrics. The 12‐item survey collected information on demographics, general social media use, and perspectives on anatomy social media content. Of 171 students, 139 (81% response rate) completed the survey, and 124 (124/139, 89%) who actively used social media were included in subsequent analyses. Most participants spent at least 60 min per day on social media (66/124, 53%), with Instagram and TikTok being the most used platforms. These platforms were also identified as the primary sources of anatomy‐related content (Instagram: 55/124, 44%; TikTok: 40/124, 32%). The majority (64/98, 65%) indicated they always or most of the time read or watch anatomy content on social media without further engagement (p < 0.001). Medical students engage with anatomy content on social media primarily through passive, incidental exposure rather than intentional learning strategies. Instagram and TikTok serve as the primary platforms for content exposure. While students reported interest in this content, these findings reflect subjective perceptions rather than objective learning outcomes. This exploratory study provides a foundation for future work evaluating the role of social media in anatomy medical education.

INTRODUCTION

The rapid evolution of technology has transformed medical education and enhanced student learning through the implementation of numerous digital tools, particularly in gross anatomy. This shift stems from a new generation of learners who prefer to engage with education through digital technology rather than traditional modalities. ¹ Additionally, the COVID‐19 pandemic necessitated the rapid implementation of new teaching technologies to create flexibility in the learning environment. ² , ³ Currently, educators are exploring the integration of digital tools in medical curricula, including online lecture delivery, educational videos, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence. ⁴ The successful implementation of these tools in other areas of medical training—such as clinical examination skills and surgical techniques—demonstrates their potential to enhance academic performance in the anatomical sciences. ⁵ , ⁶ , ⁷ These cross‐disciplinary positive outcomes provide a clear rationale for exploring additional digital tools as valuable supplementary learning resources specifically for anatomy medical education.

Beyond institutional resources, medical students often use informal learning resources to supplement their learning. Data from the 2022 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Year 2 Questionnaire revealed a high reliance on external study aids, with approximately 70% of students using non‐institution‐provided educational online videos or content at least once per week. ⁸ Qualitative evidence suggests that this reliance on supplemental learning resources is driven by perceived improvements in learning efficiency, clarity, and concision compared to in‐house resources. ⁹ These studies show that informal supplemental resources have become an accessory component of modern medical education, altering how students navigate their educational training.

The integration of digital tools into anatomy education aligns with the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) as described by Mayer. ¹⁰ This framework suggests that learners process information more effectively when it is presented through combined visual and verbal channels. This concept is further supported by the modality principle, which argues that students learn better from spoken messages rather than from graphics with redundant written text that may overwhelm the learner's cognitive capacity. ¹¹ In the context of learning anatomy, these principles suggest that narrated digital resources may be more cognitively efficient for students than traditional, text‐heavy institutional modalities.

Social media as a supplemental learning tool

Social media has been identified as a potential learning tool to supplement traditional anatomy medical education. ¹² Given that 89%–95% of medical students use social media, ¹³ , ¹⁴ , ¹⁵ , ¹⁶ these platforms may provide educators with a unique opportunity to reach a large number of students. As such, educators have begun exploring the role of social media in learning, with reported benefits including improved collaboration and connectivism. ¹⁷ , ¹⁸ , ¹⁹ These reported advantages in medical education may be explained by the connectivism theory of learning, which has been identified as a prominent framework for electronic learning environments. ¹⁸ According to Goldie, ¹⁸ the theory of connectivism describes knowledge as a dynamic process composed of connections formed between individuals and technology. Based on this framework, social media platforms may serve as digital environments that enhance students' opportunities to share and acquire knowledge by linking them to peers, experts, and multimedia resources. Consistent with these theoretical benefits, a 2016 study found that implementing Twitter (now X) hashtags into neuroanatomy coursework fostered peer communication, lowered anxiety, and increased student morale. ²⁰ Of note, this study found no correlation between hashtag use frequency and test scores. ²⁰ Researchers have also explored using a faculty‐administered Facebook page to supplement anatomy education, with the majority of students perceiving the page as a positive contribution to their learning experience. ²¹ Similarly, other studies have specifically examined the use of YouTube as a supplementary tool for anatomy learning, with students perceiving content to enhance their understanding of anatomical concepts and aid in memorization. ²² , ²³

Outside of these studies, the existing body of literature investigating the use of social media in anatomy medical education remains limited, with few recent investigations. A narrative review by Chytas identified only nine studies correlating social media use and anatomy medical education in the existing literature as of 2016. ²⁴ Since this 2016 review, the social media landscape has shifted from text‐heavy platforms to short‐form video and algorithmic content curation, necessitating updated investigations of student engagement patterns. Given the rapid evolution of social media platforms and shifting student preferences, this study was designed to investigate current medical students' usage patterns and perspectives on anatomy social media content. This exploratory work characterizes platform‐specific preferences and examines how students engage with anatomy content within these environments. Rather than advocating for curricular change, it provides a baseline description of how students independently navigate these platforms as informal learning environments. By examining the intersection of platform preferences and content perceptions, this study contributes to medical education literature by exploring the role these informal digital spaces play within modern anatomy education.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study design

This study used a cross‐sectional design to evaluate the perspectives of first‐year osteopathic medical students on anatomy social media content. A cross‐sectional design was ideal to capture current perspectives and gather necessary data without long‐term follow‐up. The study used a single‐measure data collection process and was conducted from November 2024 to May 2025. The A.T. Still University‐Kirksville Institutional Review Board categorized the study as exempt (no. GP20241121‐001). Participants provided informed consent by selecting “Yes” on the first question of the survey after reading the study disclosure and terms. Study participation was quasi‐voluntary and had no effect on student academic performance; no incentives were provided. Responses to the electronic survey were collected anonymously, and data were stored on a password‐protected computer that was only accessible to study researchers.

Participants

This study used a convenience sampling approach, with eligibility restricted to first‐year medical students at A.T. Still University's Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine who were currently enrolled in gross anatomy. Participants had to be aged 18 years or older and use at least one of the following four social media platforms: Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, or X. Students who exclusively used other social media platforms were excluded from study participation because they could not provide relevant, informed responses regarding the content the study aimed to evaluate. Social media nonusers were excluded to ensure that all collected data reflected informed perspectives on the usage and reliability of current anatomy content. These exclusion criteria were essential to ensure the validity and relevance of the data collected.

Survey design and distribution

An original online survey instrument S1 was developed specifically for the current study and was hosted on the Qualtrics platform (Seattle, WA). The survey was designed to address the study's primary research question: “What are first‐year medical students' perspectives on the use and reliability of anatomy social media content as a learning tool?” Based on this question, 12 survey items were developed through a systematic process, including identification of research objectives, preliminary drafting, and expert review by the university's anatomy department faculty. To ensure face and content validity, the initial draft was reviewed by a panel of four experienced anatomical educators who evaluated items for clarity, technical accuracy, and relevance. Preliminary review suggested improving clarity of wording and adding survey settings to require responses for questions. Additionally, pretesting was completed by members of the research team to identify potential problems in survey flow. While a formal pilot study with the target population was not conducted due to time‐sensitive data collection windows, the survey instrument's content validity was established through departmental expert review and internal pretesting.

The survey contained 12 items; the first question confirmed informed consent. The next seven questions were categorical and asked for basic demographic information (age, gender), confirmation of social media usage on one of the four platforms, general social media use patterns (time spent on social media per day, platform they spent the most time on), opinions toward social media (platform with the greatest volume of anatomy content), and reasons for social media use. All multiple‐choice questions were single‐select items, with the exception of question eight, which allowed participants to select multiple reasons for their social media use.

The remaining five survey questions evaluated students' opinions and perspectives on social media anatomy educational content, and their preferences for future anatomy social media content. Question nine used a 5‐point Likert‐type scale (one point = never and five points = always) and asked about the frequency of engagement with anatomy social media content (read/watch, like/comment, save/screenshot, share/send to friends, follow account, scroll past/ignore). Question 10 was a single‐select categorical question that asked about which of the four platforms had the most reliable anatomy content. Question 11 used a 5‐point Likert scale (one point = strongly disagree and five points = strongly agree) to evaluate perspectives on anatomy social media content. Lastly, question 12 was a multiple‐select item assessing students' preferences for future anatomy social media content (practice question and answers, donor body identification images, video explanations, illustrated diagrams, learning mnemonics, tips and tricks, none of the above).

The online survey used branching logic and forced‐choice options via Qualtrics. Branching logic was used to confirm the inclusion criteria and ensure responses were from participants who used anatomy social media content on the four platforms. Specifically, if participants indicated they did not use one of the four listed platforms on question four, they were sent to the end of the survey and excluded from further participation. For the survey question that asked participants about which social media platform had the most volume of anatomy educational content, those who selected “None of the above” were excluded from answering question nine, which asked about their frequency of engagement with anatomy social media content. Instead, those students were advanced to question 10. Forced‐choice options were used on all questions, except for questions nine and 12. The survey took about 5 min to complete.

The survey was distributed electronically by email to every first‐year medical student enrolled in gross anatomy. The email invited students to take a short online survey investigating trends of social media usage and their attitudes toward anatomy social media content. The survey link and a completion due date were also provided in the email. Inclusion criteria were not included in the invitation email but were confirmed in the survey through branching logic questions. Students were informed in question one that they provided their informed consent by submitting the survey; selecting “Yes” to this question allowed them to continue the survey. Students could access the survey link in the email for 10 days, and an additional reminder email was sent seven days after the initial email. To minimize bias and prevent multiple submissions, we enabled the Qualtrics setting that placed a cookie on each participant's browser after survey completion. Anonymity and confidentiality were maintained by not collecting the names or email addresses of the participants.

Statistical analysis

Upon completion of data collection, all survey responses were exported to SPSS for analysis. The dataset was reviewed to identify incomplete surveys and missing data points. For question nine, missing data were identified for 29 participants, as shown in Table 2. Due to the high overall response rate and large sample size for this question, incomplete responses were not removed to minimize potential selection bias from excluding otherwise complete participant data. This resulted in a variable sample size across different analyses.

TABLE 2.

Frequency of engagement with anatomy social media content among participants.

Response options	n/N (%)					Median (IQR)	p value
	Never	Sometimes	About half the time	Most of the time	Always
Read/watch (N = 98)	1/98 (1)	17/98 (17)	16/98 (16)	46/98 (47)	18/98 (18)	4.0 (1.0–4.0)	<0.001
Ignore/scroll past (N = 97)	14/97 (14)	72/97 (74)	7/97 (7)	4/97 (4)	0/97 (0)	2.0 (2.0–2.0)	<0.001
Share/send to friends (N = 95)	24/95 (25)	42/95 (44)	18/95 (19)	10/95 (11)	1/95 (1)	2.0 (1.0–3.0)	<0.001
Save/screenshot (N = 97)	27/97 (28)	42/97 (43)	15/97 (16)	12/97 (12)	1/97 (1)	2.0 (1.0–3.0)	<0.001
Follow account (N = 97)	27/97 (28)	53/97 (55)	13/97 (13)	3/97 (3)	1/97 (1)	2.0 (1.0–2.0)	<0.001
Like/comment (N = 98)	35/98 (36)	31/98 (32)	24/98 (25)	7/98 (7)	1/98 (1)	2.0 (1.0–3.0)	<0.001

Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range.

Survey responses were summarized using frequency and percentage. Likert and Likert‐type survey responses were converted to a 5‐point scale and summarized using median and interquartile range (IQR). A Fisher's exact test was used to compare responses for age, gender, and time spent on social media with the platform on which they spent the most time. A Fisher's exact test was also used to compare the platform they spent the most time on and the platform perceived to have the most reliable anatomy content. Because the Likert and Likert‐type survey responses were not normally distributed, nonparametric tests were used for comparisons of this data. A 1‐sample Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used to compare the distribution of all Likert and Likert‐type questions to a neutral median value of three, where a value less than three indicated disagreement and a value greater than three indicated agreement. All Likert questions were also compared by gender, age, and time spent on social media. A Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare agreement with Likert scale questions with participant age and time spent on social media, and a Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare agreement with Likert scale questions with gender. A p < 0.05 was considered significant. All analyses were conducted using Qualtrics and SPSS statistical software version 30.0.0.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

RESULTS

Demographic information and general social media use patterns

Of 171 email invitations, 139 first‐year medical students responded to the survey (139/171, 81% response rate). Of these, responses from 15 students were excluded because they reported no social media use on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, or X; responses from the remaining 124 students (124/139, 89% relative response rate) were included in subsequent analyses. The majority of participants were women (71/124, 57%) and aged 20–25 years (87/124, 70%) (Table 1). Most participants (78/124, 63%) reported spending between 30 and 90 min on social media sites per day; Instagram (60/124, 48%) and TikTok (44/124, 36%) were the platforms on which participants spent the most time. Instagram (55/124, 44%) and TikTok (40/124, 32%) were selected as the platforms having the most anatomy content. Regarding reasons for social media use, most participants selected leisure (118/124, 95%) and communication (90/124, 73%), whereas less than half (58/124, 47%) reported using platforms for knowledge acquisition.

TABLE 1.

Basic demographics and social media use patterns among participants (N = 124).

Survey question	n/N (%)
Age, years
20–25	87/124 (70)
26–30	33/124 (27)
30–35	2/124 (2)
36–40	1/124 (1)
40+	1/124 (1)
Gender
Male	53/124 (43)
Female	71/124 (57)
Nonbinary	0/124 (0)
Time spent on social media, min
0–30	22/124 (18)
30–60	36/124 (29)
60–90	42/124 (34)
90–120	17/124 (14)
120+	7/124 (6)
Platform spent the most time on
Instagram	60/124 (48)
Facebook	7/124 (6)
TikTok	44/124 (36)
X	8/124 (7)
None of the above	5/124 (4)
Platform with the most anatomy content
Instagram	55/124 (44)
Facebook	1/124 (1)
TikTok	40/124 (32)
X	2/124 (2)
None of the above	26/124 (21)
Reasons for social media use a
Communication	90/124 (73)
Leisure	118/124 (95)
Knowledge	58/124 (47)
Professional development	13/124 (11)
Platform with the most reliable anatomy content
Instagram	40/124 (32)
Facebook	2/124 (2)
TikTok	37/124 (30)
X	5/124 (4)
None of the above	40/124 (32)

^a Respondents were permitted to select multiple answers; therefore, percentages exceed 100%.

When comparing demographic and general social media use patterns, the platform on which participants spent the most time differed by gender (p = 0.02); men were more likely to select Facebook or X, while women were more likely to select Instagram and TikTok. No difference was found between age groups and the platform on which participants spent the most time (p = 0.16). Those who spent the most time on Instagram were more likely to spend more than 60 min per day on social media (p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in time spent on social media per day between men and women (p = 0.76).

Usage patterns and perspectives of social media anatomy content

Survey responses regarding participant engagement with social media anatomy content are presented in Table 2. The majority (64/98, 65%) indicated they always or most of the time read or watch anatomy content on social media without further engagement (p < 0.001). Nearly half reported sometimes saving/screenshotting (42/97, 43%, p < 0.001) or sharing/sending to friends (42/95, 44%, p < 0.001). Regarding their perspectives on anatomy content, participants selected Instagram (40/124, 32%) and TikTok (37/124, 30%) as having the most reliable anatomy content (Table 1). Nearly one‐third (40/124, 32%) indicated that none of the included platforms had reliable anatomy content.

The majority (79/123, 64%) of participants agreed or strongly agreed that anatomy social media content increased their interest in anatomy (median [IQR] = 4.0 [3.0–4.0], p < 0.001) (Table 3). Of participants, 8% (10/123) agreed or strongly agreed that they did not want to see anatomy content on social media platforms (median [IQR] = 2.0 [1.0–3.0], p < 0.001). Over one‐third (48/123, 39%) agreed or strongly agreed that anatomy social media content provided a valuable channel for peer discussions (median [IQR] = 3.0 [3.0–4.0], p = 0.002). A total of 12% (15/123) of participants agreed or strongly agreed that anatomy social media content decreased their self‐confidence in learning (median [IQR] = 2.0 [1.0–3.0] p < 0.001). When participants were asked if they would use anatomy social media content if it came from a trusted academic institution, the majority of participants (107/123, 87%) agreed or strongly agreed (median [IQR] = 4.0 [4.0–5.0], p < 0.001).

TABLE 3.

Participant perspectives of anatomy social media content from Likert scale survey questions (N = 123).

Survey question	n/N (%)					Median (IQR)	p value
	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
Would utilize it from a trusted academic institution	3/123 (2)	4/123 (3)	7/123 (6)	55/123 (45)	52/123 (42)	4.0 (4.0–5.0)	<0.001
Does not focus on the same topics as my anatomy curriculum	6/123 (5)	6/123 (5)	48/123 (39)	30/123 (24)	8/123 (7)	3.0 (2.0–4.0)	0.78
Increases my interest in anatomy	7/123 (6)	10/123 (8)	27/123 (22)	74/123 (60)	5/123 (4)	4.0 (3.0–4.0)	<0.001
Quality of content is high	7/123 (6)	19/123 (15)	63/123 (52)	31/123 (25)	3/123 (2)	3.0 (3.0–4.0)	0.68
Provides a valuable channel for peer discussions	9/123 (7)	12/123 (10)	41/123 (33)	41/123 (33)	7/123 (6)	3.0 (3.0–4.0)	0.002
Increases my study motivation	12/123 (10)	23/123 (19)	45/123 (37)	36/123 (29)	7/123 (6)	3.0 (2.0–4.0)	0.80
Contributes to my learning of anatomy	16/123 (13)	19/123 (15)	40/123 (33)	44/123 (36)	4/123 (3)	3.0 (2.0–4.0)	0.93
Decreases my self‐confidence in learning	41/123 (33)	37/123 (30)	30/123 (24)	13/123 (11)	2/123 (2)	2.0 (1.0–3.0)	<0.001
Do not want to see anatomy content on these platforms	46/123 (37)	42/123 (31)	25/123 (20)	8/123 (7)	2/123 (2)	2.0 (1.0–3.0)	<0.001

Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range.

Regarding the survey question about future anatomy social media content, participants indicated the most interest in interacting with the following content: practice question and answer posts (101/123, 82%), learning mnemonics (96/123, 78%), and donor body identification images (94/123, 76%). A majority indicated they would also interact with content related to tips and tricks (93/123, 76%) and video explanations (89/123, 72%), and they expressed the least interest in using illustrated anatomy diagrams (72/123, 59%). Few participants selected none of the above (4/123, 3%).

Comparisons of survey responses

When comparing participants' most used platforms with their perceptions of content reliability, participants reporting the highest usage of TikTok and Instagram were more likely to identify those same platforms as having the most reliable anatomy content (all p < 0.001) (Table 4). Of those who reported TikTok as their most used platform, 57% (25/44) also selected TikTok as having the most reliable anatomy content (p < 0.001). Similarly, 47% (28/60) of those who spent the most time on Instagram also rated it as having the most reliable anatomy content (p < 0.001).

TABLE 4.

Agreement of survey responses for the most used social media platform and the platform with the most reliable anatomy content.

Platform with the most reliable anatomy content	Platform spent the most time on, n/N (%)
	None of the above (N = 5)	TikTok (N = 44)	Instagram (N = 60)	X (N = 8)	Facebook (N = 7)
None of the above	4/5 (80)	9/44 (21)	21/60 (35)	1/8 (13)	5/7 (71)
TikTok	0/5 (0)	25/44 (57)	9/60 (15)	3/8 (38)	0/7 (0)
Instagram	1/5 (20)	10/44 (23)	28/60 (47)	1/8 (13)	0/7 (0)
X	0/5 (0)	0/44 (0)	2/60 (3)	3/8 (38)	0/7 (0)
Facebook	0/5 (0)	0/44 (0)	0/60 (0)	0/8 (0)	2/7 (29)

Responses to Likert survey questions were also compared with age, gender, and time spent on social media. Participants aged 20–25 years were more likely to agree that anatomy social media content increased their interest in anatomy than those in other age groups (p = 0.01). When comparing Likert responses with time spent on social media, participants who spent 30–60 min on social media per day were more likely to agree that anatomy social media content increased their study motivation than those who spent more or less time on social media (p = 0.01). No other comparisons were significant (all p > 0.08).

DISCUSSION

This study evaluated medical students' perspectives of anatomy social media content and its subjective influence on learning. A central finding is that medical students engage with anatomy content on social media primarily through passive, incidental exposure rather than intentional learning behaviors. Although students frequently encounter anatomy‐related content and report increased interest, their engagement patterns suggest that these platforms function more as environments for opportunistic reinforcement rather than structured study. This distinction between passive exposure and intentional engagement represents the central contribution of this exploratory work. All findings reflect self‐reported student perceptions of social media use and should be interpreted as exploratory rather than validated measures of learning outcomes.

Students reported spending the most time on Instagram and TikTok, which also served as the primary platforms where they encountered anatomical content. The observed preference for these platforms reflects broader generational trends in social media use among younger adults. While previous literature identified Facebook as the preferred platform among medical students, ²⁵ participants in this study spent the most time on Instagram and TikTok, aligning with broader trends across the United States where adults under 30 years of age increasingly prefer these platforms over Facebook. ²⁶ , ²⁷ This suggests that Instagram and TikTok may represent commonly used channels for anatomy content exposure, although their role in structured learning remains unclear.

In parallel, students reported high daily social media use, with most spending more than 60 min per day on social media platforms, consistent with prior literature indicating that medical student usage often exceeds 90 min daily. ¹² , ²⁸ However, this time was largely disconnected from intentional learning. The vast majority of students reported using social media for leisure, while less than half identified ‘knowledge’ as a reason for use. Furthermore, 65% of participants (64/98) reported ‘passive’ consumption, such as viewing anatomy content without further active engagement.

Despite limited intentional educational use, most students reported that exposure to anatomy content increased their interest in learning anatomy. From the perspective of the CMTL, this may reflect dual‐channel processing and reduced extraneous cognitive load, which facilitate comprehension of complex anatomical structures. ¹⁰ , ¹¹ Specifically, visually rich and narrated content may enable more efficient processing than traditional text‐heavy resources, increasing perceived accessibility and engagement without requiring structured study behavior.

Students also expressed a strong interest in seeing anatomy content on social media, perceiving that it enhances their interest in learning anatomy. These findings align with previous studies reporting high student interest in anatomy social media content. ¹² , ²⁰ , ²² , ²⁹ For example, medical students in Turkey and India similarly reported increased self‐motivation and enhanced learning experiences when encountering free, accessible anatomy information on social media. ¹² , ²⁹ Ortadeveci and Ozden ¹² also reported that students considered immediate feedback as an additional advantage to learning anatomy on social media. However, these findings, including those in the present study, are based on self‐reported student perspectives, which limit conclusions regarding educational effectiveness.

There is a limited body of literature examining the measurable effects of social media on educational outcomes. In a study by Ashraf et al., social media use in medical education among medical students in China had a significant positive impact on academic performance by increasing communication and knowledge exchange between learners. ³⁰ Similarly, a Vietnamese study found a positive association between grade point average and frequency of active engagement with educational content. ³¹ These benefits were associated with high levels of active participation, a factor largely absent in the present cohort. This suggests that educational value may depend on depth of engagement rather than exposure alone.

Although students expressed a preference for institutional anatomy content on social media, this interest must be balanced against practical academic constraints. For time‐constrained educators, the effort required to produce high‐quality anatomy content may represent an inefficient use of departmental resources. While institutional presence on social media may enhance visibility and perceived credibility, sustainability depends on alignment with departmental priorities and educational objectives. These considerations underscore the importance of carefully evaluating the educational return on investment when integrating social media into formal anatomy teaching strategies.

Participants also reported valuing social media as a space for peer discussion and interaction. These findings align with social learning theory, which describes learning as a socially‐mediated process occurring through observation and interaction with peers and mentors. While this theory is well‐established in traditional anatomy education through donor dissection and student‐led learning, ³² , ³³ its application to social media in anatomical medical education remains exploratory. Social media may extend these principles by increasing exposure to peer‐generated content and informal interactions with educators. ³⁴ , ³⁵ These findings also align with the theory of connectivism, which emphasizes the role of digital networks in facilitating knowledge acquisition and sharing. ¹⁸ In this context, social media may provide access to distributed sources of anatomical information and peer perspectives, shaped primarily by platform accessibility and convenience.

Participants perceived Instagram and TikTok as offering the greatest volume and reliability of anatomy content. This positive association may be explained by the availability heuristic, whereby familiarity with a platform influences perceptions of content quality. Although this reflects how digital habits shape subjective judgments, nearly one‐third of participants also expressed concerns regarding information reliability. This skepticism likely reflects the unregulated nature of social media, where content may be produced without expertise or verification. ³⁶ , ³⁷ Despite frequent use of preferred platforms, students remain aware of the potential for inaccurate information, highlighting a complex relationship between convenience and trust.

To address concerns regarding accuracy, it is worth noting that most participants indicated a preference for anatomy social media content from trusted academic institutions. While institutional credibility is valued, these perceptions do not necessarily translate into improved academic performance. As reported by Brown, ³⁸ George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences implemented an Instagram account in 2017 as a supplemental tool to enhance anatomy learning, providing students with content review along with a sense of community. ³⁸ However, the resource investment required for similar initiatives may not yield a proportional educational return given the engagement patterns observed in this study.

Participants expressed a strong preference for interactive anatomy social media content, specifically question‐and‐answer posts, learning mnemonics, and donor body identification images. These preferences align with evidence that immediate feedback can enhance motivation and self‐regulated learning among medical students. ³⁹ Translating these preferences into effective educational design on social media will require further investigation into methods that shift behavior to active learning.

Three‐quarters of participants expressed interest in donor body identification images on social media. However, this raises significant ethical concerns. While earlier discussions suggested a lack of consensus regarding the use of donor body images online, ⁴⁰ the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists (IFAA) recommends that images of human tissues from anatomical donors should not be shared on social media or other non‐password‐protected platforms. ⁴¹ Additionally, informed consent must explicitly address capturing and distributing images for academic purposes. ⁴¹ Although such content may exist online, it is essential to prioritize donor privacy and ensure that usage aligns with the intent of donation. Therefore, the use of donor images on social media is not recommended. To balance student interest with ethical responsibility, educators may instead consider implementing image‐based materials within secure institutional platforms, such as Learning Management Systems (LMS) or password‐protected resources.

Overall, this study demonstrates that medical students frequently engage with anatomy content on social media. For educators, these findings suggest that social media may function best as an informal supplementary exposure tool rather than a structured learning environment. Additionally, caution is warranted in promoting social media as an educational tool. Prior studies have identified technostress, reduced focus, and exhaustion associated with academic use of social media. ²⁸ , ⁴² Integrating educational content into platforms primarily used for leisure may increase cognitive load and require frequent task switching, potentially offsetting educational benefits. These factors should be considered when evaluating the role of social media in anatomy education.

Limitations

The primary limitation of this study was its reliance on self‐reported perceived benefits of anatomy social media content, rather than the use of measurable academic outcomes. The results of this study provide valuable insight into self‐reported student attitudes; however, they do not establish a direct link between anatomy social media content and student success. Several demographic and subgroup comparisons were exploratory in nature and are reported for descriptive context rather than to support primary study conclusions. Future studies should use performance‐based metrics to determine if the subjective benefits translate into measurable improvements in student success.

As a quantitative survey, reliance on predetermined multiple‐choice selections likely limited understanding of the breadth of students' perspectives. Using forced‐choice may have required some subjects to choose an option that does not completely align with their perspectives, potentially skewing the results. Force‐choice answers in future studies should include a “none of the above” option to address this. Additionally, we only evaluated social media use on four social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and X) based on their popularity at the time of data collection and their shared functions and interaction styles. Other popular platforms, such as YouTube, Snapchat, or Reddit, were not included in the study due to inherent differences in platform structure and content presentation.

This study may be subject to selection bias due to several factors. Students using other platforms not included in this study may have unrepresented perspectives. Furthermore, the voluntary nature of this study may have created a self‐selection bias. The high response rate likely came from students who are already digitally engaged and may not reflect the preferences of the entire cohort. This self‐selection bias may have resulted in more positive perspectives.

Since this study was completed at a single academic institution, these results may not be generalizable to the broader population of medical students with different demographics or institutional cultures. The anonymous nature of the survey prevented a comparison of demographics between respondents and non‐respondents. The extent to which the participating sample accurately represented the target population could not be determined, and non‐response bias could not be formally assessed. To address these limitations, future studies are necessary to validate sample representativeness and confirm the generalizability of results across other institutions.

The survey instrument used in this study was developed specifically for this investigation and did not undergo a formal validation process before distribution. Due to time constraints in the data collection phase, a pilot study was not performed; however, the instrument was reviewed by the research team and the anatomy department to ensure face and content validity. We recognize this as a key limitation of our study, as utilizing a pilot survey could have further refined the instrument's clarity. Without formal psychometric validation methods such as factor analysis, there is no empirical evidence that the survey accurately reflects the respondents' true perceptions of the educational effects and reliability of anatomy social media content. Therefore, the results should be cautiously interpreted and seen as exploratory insights rather than definitive conclusions.

Future direction

Based on the results of this exploratory study, our institution plans to launch an internal anatomy social media account to investigate whether institutional content can facilitate a shift from passive consumption to active student engagement. By surveying students before and after the activation of this account in a controlled environment, we aim to determine if a dedicated institutional social media account can bridge the gap between subjective student interest and measurable educational utility. This research is necessary to determine if faculty‐led social media accounts are a valuable use of educator resources or if these platforms are better suited to remain as incidental learning spaces. We invite medical educators at other institutions to conduct similar investigations to determine if these initial observations regarding engagement patterns and platform preference are generalizable across diverse medical student populations.

Future research should be conceptualized as a broader research program examining (1) how different content types influence student engagement, (2) whether institutional content can shift behavior from passive to active learning, and (3) whether engagement on social media translates into measurable educational outcomes such as knowledge retention and academic performance. Until evidence is established, the efficacy of using social media as a supplemental learning tool remains unverified. While our findings highlight a potential opportunity for social media use, the development of formal implementation guidelines or best practices must be preceded by evidence of their educational effectiveness and a careful consideration of the resource burden on faculty.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that first‐year medical students engage with anatomy content on social media primarily through passive, incidental exposure rather than intentional learning behaviors. A significant shift in platform preference was also observed, with TikTok and Instagram emerging as the dominant platforms for both overall use and exposure to anatomy social media content. Although students reported positive perceptions of anatomy social media content and its influence on their interest in anatomy, these findings reflect self‐reported perspectives rather than objective performance metrics. As such, the educational efficacy of social media as a supplemental learning tool remains unverified, and institutional implementation should be guided by future research linking engagement and perceived interest to measurable academic outcomes such as knowledge retention and exam performance. Overall, these findings provide an exploratory foundation for anatomy educators considering the evolving role of social media in medical education.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Grace Powderly: Conceptualization; methodology; investigation; project administration; data curation; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Sara Funk: Methodology; resources; supervision. Andrew Marble: Data curation; formal analysis; resources; software; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Morgan Loy: Conceptualization; investigation; methodology; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Trevor Diepenbrock: Conceptualization; investigation; methodology; visualization; writing – review and editing. Travis Hansen: Conceptualization; methodology; investigation; visualization; writing – review and editing.

FUNDING INFORMATION

The current study was not funded.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report.

ETHICS APPROVAL STATEMENT

The current study was considered exempt by the A.T. Still University‐Kirksville Institutional Review Board (approval no. GP20241121‐001).

Supporting information

Data S1: Social Media in Anatomy Medical Education.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.