Medical student’s perceptions of modern educational technologies in anatomy at VinUniversity, Vietnam: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Modern digital tools are increasingly used in anatomy education, yet evidence from low- and middle-income settings on how students perceive the usefulness of these resources remains limited. Guided by the Technology Acceptance Model, this study explored medical students’ perceptions of the usefulness of high investment, technology enhanced tools versus standard anatomy teaching tools and examined how socioeconomic and educational backgrounds relate to these perceptions. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed methods survey was conducted among three cohorts of medical students who had completed a two-semester anatomy course at VinUniversity, Hanoi, Vietnam. A self-designed questionnaire asked students to rate the perceived usefulness of four high investment tools (3D anatomy application, plastinated models, virtual dissection table, advanced plastic models) and four standard tools (atlases and textbooks, Canvas platform, laboratory printouts, online resources) on a 5-point Likert scale. Demographic and academic variables included cohort, gender, hometown, high school type, grade point average, family income, and intended surgical versus non-surgical career. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and appropriate parametric or non-parametric tests with p < 0.05. Open ended responses were analyzed through qualitative descriptive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Out of 144 invited students, 131 responded (91% response rate). The analysis revealed that high investment educational tools, particularly the 3D Anatomy App (4.39 ± 0.84) and plastinated models (3.91 ± 1.03), received high satisfaction ratings. Urban students and those from prestigious high schools rated these tools significantly higher (p = 0.045). The virtual dissection table had mixed reviews (2.92 ± 1.15), with better reception in later cohorts (p = 0.058). Family income influenced perceptions, with higher income groups rating the 3D Anatomy App (p = 0.006) and the virtual dissection table (p = 0.039) more favorably. Qualitative feedback highlighted the need for interactive tools, practical resources, clinical integration, better labeling, and language support. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students perceived selected modern anatomy tools, particularly the 3D anatomy application and plastinated models, as especially useful in supporting their learning, but these perceptions varied systematically by socioeconomic background and career intentions. The findings support targeted investment in high value tools, coupled with faculty development, better labeling and localization of resources, and more explicit clinical integration, in order to promote both educational quality and equity. Longitudinal and multi-institutional studies, together with cost effectiveness analyses, are needed to determine how these implementation strategies influence long term learning outcomes and guide future resource allocation in similar settings.