Parental perspectives on pediatric emergency department use in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to examine the factors influencing parental decision-making in pediatric emergency department (ED) visits for non-urgent conditions, identify gaps in primary healthcare centers (PHCs) utilization, and assess opportunities to redirect care toward more appropriate settings. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2023 and April 2024 among parents or guardians of pediatric patients presenting at the Pediatric ED of King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for non-urgent conditions. Urgent cases were defined as those triaged as Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) system levels 1-2, while non-urgent cases corresponded to CTAS levels 3-4. Results: Out of a total of 1,040 participants, most children were aged 1-5 years (n = 456, 43.89%), followed by 6-10 years (n = 236, 22.71%). Fever was the main reason for presentation to the ED (n = 524, 50.43%), followed by gastrointestinal symptoms (n = 186, 17.9%). The most common frequency of ED visits in the preceding year was two visits (n = 327, 31.44%). Most participants (n = 698, 67.08%) did not visit a PHC to address their current conditions. Further, 67% did not seek PHC, and 69% lacked a regular pediatrician. The primary driver was perceived to have a shorter wait time (36%). Findings highlight barriers to PHC access and underscore the need for targeted interventions. Conclusion: This study highlighted the factors driving pediatric ED use in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Limited access to primary care services, along with a lack of trust and awareness, emerged as significant barriers to appropriate service utilization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".