Purpose: This study aimed to identify influencing factors on the stress of employees in large corporations by examining relationships between self-esteem, emotional intelligence, and mindfulness. Methods: A hundred and sixty four employees from large corporations completed self-reporting questionnaires during November and December, 2019. The collected data were analyzed with SPSS/WIN 22.0 using descriptive statistics, the t-test, ANOVA, correlation, and multiple regression analysis. Results: The scores were 2.96±0.40 for “self-esteem”, 3.56±0.61 for “emotional intelligence”, 4.01±0.04 for “mindfulness”, and 2.21±0.79 for “stress response”. A regression analysis identifying factors affecting the stress response of employees in large corporations showed that “mindfulness” was the most significant factor (β=-.58, p<.001), followed by “emotional intelligence” (β=-.21, p=.005) and “self-esteem” (β=-.16, p=.009). The explanatory power of these variables for the stress response of employees in large corporations was 48%. Conclusion Our findings suggest that self-esteem, emotional intelligence, and mindfulness are significantly related to employees’ stress response in large corporations. Therefore, stress response management programs should be developed to improve self-esteem, emotional intelligence, and mindfulness.

Purpose: Following the withdrawal of propacetamol in Europe owing to safety issues, the regulatory authority of South Korea requested a post-marketing surveillance study to investigate its safety profile. Materials and Methods: We conducted nested case-control and case-time-control (CTC) analyses of cases and controls identified for outcomes of interest, including anaphylaxis, thrombosis, and Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS), using the claims database of South Korea, 2010–2019. Risk-set sampling was used to match each case with up to 10 controls for age, sex, cohort entry date, and follow-up duration. Exposure to anaphylaxis, thrombosis, and SJS was assessed within 7, 90, and 30 days of the index date, respectively. We calculated odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using conditional logistic regression to assess the risk of outcomes associated with propacetamol. Results: We identified cases of anaphylaxis (n=61), thrombosis (n=95), and SJS (n=1) and matched them to controls (173, 268, and 4, respectively). In the nested case-control analysis, the ORs for anaphylaxis and SJS were inestimable given the small number of propacetamol users during the risk period; meanwhile, the OR for thrombosis was 1.60 (95% CI 0.71–3.62). In the CTC design, the effect estimate was only estimated for thrombosis (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09–3.47). Conclusion In both nested case-control and CTC analyses, propacetamol was not associated with an increased risk of anaphylaxis, thrombosis, or SJS. The findings from this study, which used routinely collected clinical data, provide reassuring real-world evidence regarding the safety of propacetamol in a nationwide population to support regulatory decision-making.