Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Medial elbow pain is a common musculoskeletal problem among individuals engaging in repetitive activities. Medial epicondylitis is the predominant cause of this pain. However, other potential causes must be considered as part of the differential diagnosis. This article discusses several etiologies of medial elbow pain, including medial epicondylitis, ulnar neuropathy, snapping triceps syndrome, ulnar collateral ligament injury, medial antebrachial cutaneous neuropathy, and diseases of the elbow joint, with an emphasis on ultrasound (US) findings. Awareness of possible diagnoses and their US features can assist radiologists in establishing a comprehensive diagnosis for medial elbow pain.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

Medial elbow pain is a common musculoskeletal problem among individuals engaging in repetitive activities. Medial epicondylitis is the predominant cause of this pain. However, other potential causes must be considered as part of the differential diagnosis. This article discusses several etiologies of medial elbow pain, including medial epicondylitis, ulnar neuropathy, snapping triceps syndrome, ulnar collateral ligament injury, medial antebrachial cutaneous neuropathy, and diseases of the elbow joint, with an emphasis on ultrasound (US) findings. Awareness of possible diagnoses and their US features can assist radiologists in establishing a comprehensive diagnosis for medial elbow pain.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

Medial elbow pain is a common musculoskeletal problem among individuals engaging in repetitive activities. Medial epicondylitis is the predominant cause of this pain. However, other potential causes must be considered as part of the differential diagnosis. This article discusses several etiologies of medial elbow pain, including medial epicondylitis, ulnar neuropathy, snapping triceps syndrome, ulnar collateral ligament injury, medial antebrachial cutaneous neuropathy, and diseases of the elbow joint, with an emphasis on ultrasound (US) findings. Awareness of possible diagnoses and their US features can assist radiologists in establishing a comprehensive diagnosis for medial elbow pain.