Scholarlink

Background <p>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.</p> Methods <p>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.</p> Results <p>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, <i>p</i> = 0.02), particularly regarding academic time and research infrastructure. Satisfaction with educational resources strongly correlated with perceived research opportunities (ρ = 0.58, <i>p</i> &lt; 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.</p> Conclusion <p>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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluating the pediatric neurology training curriculum in SCFHS-accredited programs: a multi-institutional survey study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月17日

查看全文
  • Ahmed K. Bamaga,
  • Hebah F. Qashqari,
  • Anas S. Alyazidi,
  • Mohammed M.S. Jan,
  • Raidah S. Albaradie,
  • Khalid J. Hundallah,
  • Ali Al-Otaibi,
  • Ahmed R. Al Rumayyan,
  • Fahad A. Bashiri

摘要

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.