ArticleBMC medical education2026
Evaluating the pediatric neurology training curriculum in SCFHS-accredited programs: a multi-institutional survey study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPediatric 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsForty-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.
conclusionPediatric 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.