Purpose: To analyze the overall knowledge and attitude of healthcare providers regarding coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and factors affecting these opinions in Korea. Methods: We conducted a nationwide survey study of obstetricians and gynecologists registered in the Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The knowledge, attitude, and factors affecting COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women were investigated. Results: Among 258 participants, 182 (70.5%) answered that they recommended COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women, while 76 (29.5%) answered that they did not. The administrative district of the physician's healthcare center and knowledge regarding adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine were factors affecting opinions on vaccine recommendation. Physicians working in metropolitan cities were 7.3 times more likely to recommend COVID-19 vaccination to pregnant women than those working in Seoul. Physicians aware of the COVID-19 vaccine safety profiles in pregnant women were 25.36 times more likely to recommend vaccines than those who were not. A significantly higher proportion of the recommended group provided vaccine information to pregnant women compared to the nonrecommended group and also recommended booster shot vaccination. Guidelines from academic societies (70.9%) and from government and public centers (64.8%) were important factors in the recommendation group, while additional study results (57.1%) were important factors in the nonrecommendation group. This information will be useful for future reference regarding vaccine recommendations. Conclusion Providing guidelines and recent data regarding COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant populations to healthcare providers will promote obstetricians and gynecologists to recommend vaccination to pregnant patients and will thereby contribute to achieving herd immunity in Korea.

Objective: We investigated the effects of a quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA)–negative result (qSOFA score <2 points) at triage on the compliance with sepsis bundles among patients with sepsis who presented to the emergency department (ED). Methods: Prospective sepsis registry data from 11 urban tertiary hospital EDs between October 2015 and April 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who met the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock criteria were included. Primary exposure was defined as a qSOFA score ≥2 points at ED triage. The primary outcome was defined as 3-hour bundle compliance, including lactate measurement, blood culture, broad-spectrum antibiotics administration, and 30 mL/kg crystalloid administration. Multivariate logistic regression analysis to predict 3-hour bundle compliance was performed. Results: Among the 2,250 patients enrolled in the registry, 2,087 fulfilled the sepsis criteria. Only 31.4% (656/2,087) of the sepsis patients had qSOFA scores ≥2 points at triage. Patients with qSOFA scores <2 points had lower lactate levels, lower SOFA scores, and a lower 28-day mortality rate. Rates of compliance with lactate measurement (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29–0.75), antibiotics administration (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52–0.78), and 30 mL/kg crystalloid administration (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49–0.77) within 3 hours from triage were significantly lower in patients with qSOFA scores <2 points. However, the rate of compliance with blood culture within 3 hours from triage (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.33–2.08) was higher in patients with qSOFA scores <2 points. Conclusion A qSOFA-negative result at ED triage is associated with low compliance with lactate measurement, broad-spectrum antibiotics administration, and 30 mL/kg crystalloid administration within 3 hours in sepsis patients.

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to validate the Korean version of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29 Profile v2.1 (K-PROMIS-29 V2.1) among cancer survivors. Materials and Methods: Participants were recruited from outpatient clinics of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea, from September to October 2018. Participants completed a survey questionnaire that included the K-PROMIS-29 V2.1 and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Pearson’s correlations were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the K-PROMIS-29 V2.1. Results: The mean age of the study participants was 54.4 years, the mean time since diagnosis was 1.2 (±2.4) years, and 349 (87.3%) completed the entire questionnaire. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the seven domains in the K-PROMIS-29 V2.1 ranged from 0.81 to 0.96, indicating satisfactory internal consistency. In the CFA, the goodness-of-fit indices for the K-PROMIS-29 V2.1 were high (comparative fit index, 0.91 and standardized root-mean-squared residual, 0.06). High to moderate correlations were found between comparable subscales of the K-PROMIS-29 V2.1 and subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (r=0.52-0.73). Conclusion The K-PROMIS-29 V2.1 is a reliable and valid measure for assessing the health-related quality of life domains in a cancer population, thus supporting their use in studies and oncology trials.