BMC medical education · 2026
Evaluating the pediatric neurology training curriculum in SCFHS-accredited programs: a multi-institutional survey study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bamaga Ahmed K, Qashqari Hebah F, Alyazidi Anas S, Jan Mohammed M S, Albaradie Raidah S, Hundallah Khalid J, Al-Otaibi Ali, Al Rumayyan Ahmed R, Bashiri Fahad A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pediatric neurology training must evolve to meet increasing clinical complexity and rapid advances in neuroscience while maintaining high standards of family-centered care. In Saudi Arabia, structured residency programs have expanded under national accreditation frameworks; however, systematic evaluations of curriculum adequacy from the faculty perspective remain limited. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the pediatric neurology training curriculum within the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS)-accredited training system (including programs in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates [UAE]) from the faculty perspective, identifying strengths, gaps, and differences between program directors (PDs) and non-director faculty.
METHODS: We conducted a multi-institutional cross-sectional study between September and December 2025 targeting pediatric neurology faculty, including PDs, deputy directors, core faculty, and clinical staff involved in resident education. A validated 47-item questionnaire assessed satisfaction across six core curriculum components (educational resources, graduate autonomy and safety, clinical knowledge, clinical-academic balance, research opportunities, and professionalism), identified priority training gaps, and collected qualitative recommendations. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, non-parametric comparisons, correlation analysis, and exploratory multivariable linear regression. Open-ended responses underwent inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Forty-three consultants participated, including nine PDs. Overall satisfaction was moderate, with the highest ratings for resident professionalism (mean 3.8/5) and the lowest for clinical-academic balance (2.8/5) and research opportunities (2.9/5). Genetics and hereditary diseases (74%), neuroimmunology (70%), and neurodevelopmental disorders (63%) were the most frequently cited domains requiring greater emphasis. PDs reported significantly lower overall satisfaction than non-directors (β = -0.37, p = 0.02), particularly regarding academic time and research infrastructure. Satisfaction with educational resources strongly correlated with perceived research opportunities (ρ = 0.58, p < 0.001). Qualitative themes highlighted excessive service demands, insufficient protected academic time, limited research mentorship, and the need for structured training in rapidly evolving subspecialties.
CONCLUSION: Pediatric neurology training in the region demonstrates strong clinical and professional foundations but is constrained by systemic challenges in academic balance, research support, and subspecialty preparedness. These perception-based findings suggest that PDs' heightened concerns may inform future curriculum development. Potential areas for consideration include protected academic time, enhanced research infrastructure, and nationally coordinated curricula in high-priority domains. However, these are exploratory implications requiring further evaluation before implementation.
METHODS: We conducted a multi-institutional cross-sectional study between September and December 2025 targeting pediatric neurology faculty, including PDs, deputy directors, core faculty, and clinical staff involved in resident education. A validated 47-item questionnaire assessed satisfaction across six core curriculum components (educational resources, graduate autonomy and safety, clinical knowledge, clinical-academic balance, research opportunities, and professionalism), identified priority training gaps, and collected qualitative recommendations. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, non-parametric comparisons, correlation analysis, and exploratory multivariable linear regression. Open-ended responses underwent inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Forty-three consultants participated, including nine PDs. Overall satisfaction was moderate, with the highest ratings for resident professionalism (mean 3.8/5) and the lowest for clinical-academic balance (2.8/5) and research opportunities (2.9/5). Genetics and hereditary diseases (74%), neuroimmunology (70%), and neurodevelopmental disorders (63%) were the most frequently cited domains requiring greater emphasis. PDs reported significantly lower overall satisfaction than non-directors (β = -0.37, p = 0.02), particularly regarding academic time and research infrastructure. Satisfaction with educational resources strongly correlated with perceived research opportunities (ρ = 0.58, p < 0.001). Qualitative themes highlighted excessive service demands, insufficient protected academic time, limited research mentorship, and the need for structured training in rapidly evolving subspecialties.
CONCLUSION: Pediatric neurology training in the region demonstrates strong clinical and professional foundations but is constrained by systemic challenges in academic balance, research support, and subspecialty preparedness. These perception-based findings suggest that PDs' heightened concerns may inform future curriculum development. Potential areas for consideration include protected academic time, enhanced research infrastructure, and nationally coordinated curricula in high-priority domains. However, these are exploratory implications requiring further evaluation before implementation.