School foodservices serve vegetarian meals to shape healthy eating habits and create environmental awareness among students. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the nutritional content of vegetarian menus of an elementary school foodservice. We examined 334 vegetarian and 545 non-vegetarian menus at elementary schools in the Chungnam area and compared their food composition and nutrient content. The average number of dishes per vegetarian menu was 7.0, which was significantly lower than the 7.3 items per non-vegetarian menu. The number of staple and dessert dishes on the vegetarian menus was significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian menus. Contrarily, the non-vegetarian menus had a higher number of broths and side dishes than vegetarian menus. Menus comprising grains, meats·fishes·eggs, vegetables·beans, fruits, and dairy products constituted 39.2% of vegetarian and 50.1% of non-vegetarian menus. The dietary diversity score was 4.3 for the vegetarian menu and this was significantly lower than 4.5 for the non-vegetarian menus. In terms of nutrient content and the index of nutritional quality, the vegetarian menus had significantly higher levels of vitamin A and calcium than the non-vegetarian menus. However, the protein and vitamin B 1 levels were lower in the vegetarian menus. Our results suggest a need to develop balanced vegetarian menus and expand education to improve awareness, acceptance, and consumption of vegetables among school-age children.

School foodservices serve vegetarian meals to shape healthy eating habits and create environmental awareness among students. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the nutritional content of vegetarian menus of an elementary school foodservice. We examined 334 vegetarian and 545 non-vegetarian menus at elementary schools in the Chungnam area and compared their food composition and nutrient content. The average number of dishes per vegetarian menu was 7.0, which was significantly lower than the 7.3 items per non-vegetarian menu. The number of staple and dessert dishes on the vegetarian menus was significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian menus. Contrarily, the non-vegetarian menus had a higher number of broths and side dishes than vegetarian menus. Menus comprising grains, meats·fishes·eggs, vegetables·beans, fruits, and dairy products constituted 39.2% of vegetarian and 50.1% of non-vegetarian menus. The dietary diversity score was 4.3 for the vegetarian menu and this was significantly lower than 4.5 for the non-vegetarian menus. In terms of nutrient content and the index of nutritional quality, the vegetarian menus had significantly higher levels of vitamin A and calcium than the non-vegetarian menus. However, the protein and vitamin B 1 levels were lower in the vegetarian menus. Our results suggest a need to develop balanced vegetarian menus and expand education to improve awareness, acceptance, and consumption of vegetables among school-age children.

School foodservices serve vegetarian meals to shape healthy eating habits and create environmental awareness among students. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the nutritional content of vegetarian menus of an elementary school foodservice. We examined 334 vegetarian and 545 non-vegetarian menus at elementary schools in the Chungnam area and compared their food composition and nutrient content. The average number of dishes per vegetarian menu was 7.0, which was significantly lower than the 7.3 items per non-vegetarian menu. The number of staple and dessert dishes on the vegetarian menus was significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian menus. Contrarily, the non-vegetarian menus had a higher number of broths and side dishes than vegetarian menus. Menus comprising grains, meats·fishes·eggs, vegetables·beans, fruits, and dairy products constituted 39.2% of vegetarian and 50.1% of non-vegetarian menus. The dietary diversity score was 4.3 for the vegetarian menu and this was significantly lower than 4.5 for the non-vegetarian menus. In terms of nutrient content and the index of nutritional quality, the vegetarian menus had significantly higher levels of vitamin A and calcium than the non-vegetarian menus. However, the protein and vitamin B 1 levels were lower in the vegetarian menus. Our results suggest a need to develop balanced vegetarian menus and expand education to improve awareness, acceptance, and consumption of vegetables among school-age children.

School foodservices serve vegetarian meals to shape healthy eating habits and create environmental awareness among students. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the nutritional content of vegetarian menus of an elementary school foodservice. We examined 334 vegetarian and 545 non-vegetarian menus at elementary schools in the Chungnam area and compared their food composition and nutrient content. The average number of dishes per vegetarian menu was 7.0, which was significantly lower than the 7.3 items per non-vegetarian menu. The number of staple and dessert dishes on the vegetarian menus was significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian menus. Contrarily, the non-vegetarian menus had a higher number of broths and side dishes than vegetarian menus. Menus comprising grains, meats·fishes·eggs, vegetables·beans, fruits, and dairy products constituted 39.2% of vegetarian and 50.1% of non-vegetarian menus. The dietary diversity score was 4.3 for the vegetarian menu and this was significantly lower than 4.5 for the non-vegetarian menus. In terms of nutrient content and the index of nutritional quality, the vegetarian menus had significantly higher levels of vitamin A and calcium than the non-vegetarian menus. However, the protein and vitamin B 1 levels were lower in the vegetarian menus. Our results suggest a need to develop balanced vegetarian menus and expand education to improve awareness, acceptance, and consumption of vegetables among school-age children.

Background: This study aimed to establish a strategy to improve the poor working environment and working conditions among long-term healthcare workers in Korea. Methods: A total of 600 questionnaires with which long-term health care workers participated in the targeted base areas of each city and province nationwide were distributed directly and 525 responses were collected and 506 responses were analyzed. Surveys, on-site field visits, and in-depth interviews were also conducted to understand the working environment as well as conditions and establish a strategy for improving the working environment among long-term healthcare workers to understand the demands of working conditions and working conditions. Results: Korean long-term care workers firstly and mostly enumerated their risk factors for ill-health when lifting or moving elderly recipients directly by hand (69.9%), followed by increased physical workload with old beds, tools, and facilities (42.3%) in the workplaces, shortage of manpower (32%), and source of infection (30%). To improve the working environment as well as conditions, Korean long-term care workers considered improving low-wage structures, ergonomic improvements to solve excessive physical loads, and increasing various bonus payments as well as implementing the salary system, positive social awareness, and increasing resting time. Of 506 responses, 92.3% replied that the long-term care insurance system for the elderly should be developed to expand publicization at the national level. Conclusion This study proposes to improve the low-wage structure of Korean long-term care workers, automation and improvement of facilities, equipment, and tools to eliminate excessive physical loads (beneficiary elderly lifting), and reduction of night labor.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the interrupting effect of social distancing (SD) on emergency department (ED) patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, asthma, and suicide attempts by PM 2.5 exposure in eight Korean megacities from 2017 to 2020. Materials and Methods: The study used National Emergency Department Information System and AirKorea data. A total of 469014 patients visited EDs from 2017 to 2020. Interrupted time series analysis was employed to examine changes in the level and slope of the time series, relative risk, and confidence intervals (CIs) by PM 2.5 exposure. The SD level was added to the sensitivity analysis. Results: The interrupted time series analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the ratio of relative risk (RRR) of IHD patients in Seoul (RRR=1.004, 95% CI: 1.001, 1.006) and Busan (RRR=1.007, 95% CI: 1.002, 1.012) post-SD. Regarding stroke, only patients in Seoul exhibited a significant decrease post-SD (RRR=0.995, 95% CI: 0.991, 0.999). No significant changes were observed for asthma in any of the cities. In the case of suicide attempts, Ulsan demonstrated substantial pre-SD (RR=0.827, 95% CI: 0.732, 0.935) and post-SD (RRR=1.200, 95% CI: 1.057, 1.362) differences. Conclusion While the interrupting effect of SD was not as pronounced as anticipated, this study did validate the effectiveness of SD in modifying health behaviors and minimizing avoidable visits to EDs in addition to curtailing the occurrence of infectious diseases.

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)