Maureen Helgren
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Maureen Helgren has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Heidi Reis
Laupus Health Sciences Library East Carolina University Greenville North Carolina USA
1 shared publication - Jenna Hagerty
Department of Medical Education Thomas Jefferson University Sidney Kimmel Medical College Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
1 shared publication - Kerry Sewell
Research Librarian for the Health Sciences Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University Greenville North Carolina USA
1 shared publication - Malli Barremkala
Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, Michigan
1 shared publication - Marisa Langton
Drexel University College of Medicine Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
1 shared publication - Rebecca L. Pearl
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 4 November 2025
- Published by Wiley in Anatomical Sciences Education
- Vol. 19 (1) , 85-92
Body habitus considerations in US anatomical body donation programs—Perspectives and practices from program guidelines
Many US body donation programs impose restrictions on donations based on body size. To examine the body habitus criteria related to body weight, height, proportion, and other size factors in United States body donation programs (USBDP), 127 USBDP publicly available websites listed by the University of Florida were reviewed. Since this study focuses on publicly available website information, it may not capture the characteristics of all programs. Eleven percent of the USBDP websites with public‐facing criteria exclusively listed numeric restrictions, while 24.4% included both descriptive and quantitative (numeric) terminology. The majority of websites with public‐facing criteria (90.6%) imposed a weight‐related restriction, with 55.1% providing descriptive (i.e., non‐numeric) terms. The most common body mass index (BMI) cutoff (30 kg/m 2 ) could disqualify some U.S. adults from donating, as the average BMI in the United States for adult females is 29.8 and for adult males is 29.4. Fourteen programs offered explanations of their descriptive or numeric weight/BMI restrictions. As language evolves to better describe and reflect body habitus, keeping up to date with best practice and community preferences may help when designing donor criteria. Public‐facing information about body habitus criteria for donation may limit the representativeness of body habitus used in anatomical education and research. The implications of this on anatomical education and weight bias in students require more research.
- 4 November 2025
- Published by Wiley in Anatomical Sciences Education
- Vol. 19 (1) , 85-92
Open AccessBody habitus considerations in US anatomical body donation programs—Perspectives and practices from program guidelines
Many US body donation programs impose restrictions on donations based on body size. To examine the body habitus criteria related to body weight, height, proportion, and other size factors in United States body donation programs (USBDP), 127 USBDP publicly available websites listed by the University of Florida were reviewed. Since this study focuses on publicly available website information, it may not capture the characteristics of all programs. Eleven percent of the USBDP websites with public‐facing criteria exclusively listed numeric restrictions, while 24.4% included both descriptive and quantitative (numeric) terminology. The majority of websites with public‐facing criteria (90.6%) imposed a weight‐related restriction, with 55.1% providing descriptive (i.e., non‐numeric) terms. The most common body mass index (BMI) cutoff (30 kg/m 2 ) could disqualify some U.S. adults from donating, as the average BMI in the United States for adult females is 29.8 and for adult males is 29.4. Fourteen programs offered explanations of their descriptive or numeric weight/BMI restrictions. As language evolves to better describe and reflect body habitus, keeping up to date with best practice and community preferences may help when designing donor criteria. Public‐facing information about body habitus criteria for donation may limit the representativeness of body habitus used in anatomical education and research. The implications of this on anatomical education and weight bias in students require more research.