PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to develop an evaluation tool for operation of food safety and nutrition education projects for middle class elderly using the concept of the balanced score card. METHODS: After the draft of the evaluation tool for the elderly training projects was completed, it was revised into the questionnaire and the validity of the indicators was tested by the Delphi group. The validity of the indicators was rated using a 5-point scale. The Delphi group consisted of 26 experts in the education sector, 16 government officials, and 24 professionals of the related area in communities. The first round test was conducted from July 9 to July 17, 2012, and 45 persons responded. The second round test was conducted from July 18 to July 25 and 32 persons responded. RESULTS: The indicators, which were answered by more than 75 percent of the experts as 'agree' (4 points), 'strongly agree' (5 point) were included as the final indicators for the evaluation tool: 28 items out of 36 in outcome perspectives, 9 items out of 12 in process perspectives, and 17 out of 20 items in structure perspectives. The score was allocated as 50 points for outcome indicators, 20 points for process indicators, and 30 points for structure indicators. CONCLUSION: Completion of the evaluation tool is a prerequisite to determine whether the program is effectively implemented. The monitoring tool developed in the study could be applied for identification of the most optimal delivery path for the food safety and nutrition education program, for the spread of the food safety and nutrition education program for middle class elderly.
Aged* ; Education* ; Food Safety* ; Humans ; Occupational Groups

Purpose: Targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels for solid tumors have been useful in clinical framework for accurate tumor diagnosis and identifying essential molecular aberrations. However, most cancer panels have been designed to address a wide spectrum of pan-cancer models, lacking integral prognostic markers that are highly specific to gliomas. Materials and Methods: To address such challenges, we have developed a glioma-specific NGS panel, termed “GliomaSCAN,” that is capable of capturing single nucleotide variations and insertion/deletion, copy number variation, and selected promoter mutations and structural variations that cover a subset of intron regions in 232 essential glioma-associated genes. We confirmed clinical concordance rate using pairwise comparison of the identified variants from whole exome sequencing (WES), immunohistochemical analysis, and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Results: Our panel demonstrated high sensitivity in detecting potential genomic variants that were present in the standard materials. To ensure the accuracy of our targeted sequencing panel, we compared our targeted panel to WES. The comparison results demonstrated a high correlation. Furthermore, we evaluated clinical utility of our panel in 46 glioma patients to assess the detection capacity of potential actionable mutations. Thirty-two patients harbored at least one recurrent somatic mutation in clinically actionable gene. Conclusion We have established a glioma-specific cancer panel. GliomaSCAN highly excelled in capturing somatic variations in terms of both sensitivity and specificity and provided potential clinical implication in facilitating genome-based clinical trials. Our results could provide conceptual advance towards improving the response of genomically guided molecularly targeted therapy in glioma patients.