Assessing child protection training: A cross-sectional study among pediatric residents in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child abuse is a pervasive global issue with far-reaching consequences for individuals and communities. This study aimed to evaluate the experience of pediatric residents in identifying and managing child abuse cases in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The study was conducted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; participants were residents in years 1–4 of the Saudi pediatric residency program. This is a cross-sectional study. A validated questionnaire was used to collect the data from February–September 2023. Descriptive analysis was done using STATA. Out of 426 surveys sent, 251 responded (response rate: 58.92 %), of them, 239 complete responses were analyzed. Respondents were predominantly single 69.46 % and in various stages of residency. Most institutions had child protection specialists 80.75 %, and 83.26 % had a dedicated team. Nearly half of all pediatric residents (47.28 %) surveyed are unsatisfied with training in child protection. Despite that, in Riyadh, few institutions offer appropriate training as part of their residency programs. When assessing the competency in evaluating various child abuse forms, residents felt not competent in sexual 64.01 % and emotional abuse 55.65 %. While 57.56 % felt competent in evaluating failure to thrive cases. The majority of residents (76.15 %) anticipate dealing with child abuse cases as practicing pediatricians. The results revealed a need for improvement, particularly in the competency of evaluating child abuse cases. Despite the presence of child protection teams in most institutions, responding to residents' unmet need for child protection training requires curriculum reform and training that hones the practical skills essential for recognizing and managing child abuse cases. • Nearly half of all residents (47.28 %) in a Saudi pediatric residents programme see training for the management of child abuse cases insufficient. • Most residents (89.12 %) indicate that they want more training in the management of children experiencing sexual and emotional abuse. • A large proportion (76.15 %) of residents expecting to see child abuse cases during their career, taking steps to bolster training and provide certification is important.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".