Purpose: To develop the 2025 update to the Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by systematically evaluating recent evidence, integrating domestic data, and addressing changes since the 2015 guideline revision, thereby providing an evidence-based standard for clinicians and policymakers. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee developed the guidelines using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The process included formulation of three key questions addressing screening efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal screening age and interval. A systematic review of international guidelines and primary literature was conducted, yielding 327 eligible studies. In addition, a utility-based analysis using a Markov model was performed to determine optimal screening ages and intervals. Results: The evidence synthesis identified high-certainty evidence supporting the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for reducing CRC mortality and moderate-certainty evidence for colonoscopy. Evidence for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and stool DNA testing was rated as very low certainty. Based on the evidence review and cost-utility analysis, the committee conditionally recommends CRC screening for asymptomatic, average-risk adults aged 45–74 years using either colonoscopy every 10 years or FIT every 1–2 years. CTC and stool DNA testing were not recommended owing to insufficient evidence. Conclusion The 2025 Korean Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening present updated, evidence-based recommendations tailored to the domestic healthcare context. By conditionally endorsing both colonoscopy and FIT for individuals aged 45–74 years, these guidelines aim to improve population-level screening effectiveness and reduce the burden of CRC in South Korea.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: The Korean Occupational Stress Scale (KOSS) was developed in 2004. During this time, industrial structures have evolved, and societal awareness of occupational stress has changed. This study aims to develop and validate a revised version of the Korean Occupational Stress Scale (KOSS®19), tailored for workers, reflecting these changes. Methods: The KOSS®19 was developed based on the 26-item KOSS–short form (SF) through a review by eight experts. A survey was conducted including 359 service industry workers, comprising the KOSS®19, Burnout, and Depression scales. The KOSS®19 subscales were restructured, and their reliability and validity were evaluated. Results: The KOSS®19 composed of eight subscales: hazardous physical environment (2 items), high job demand (3 items), insufficient job control (2 items), low social support (2 items), job insecurity (2 items), organizational injustice (4 items), lack of reward (2 items), and work-life imbalance (2 items). The reliability and validity of the KOSS®19 were found to be satisfactory. Conclusions The KOSS®19 is a suitable tool for assessing occupational stress, effectively replacing the original KOSS and KOSS-SF.

Background: Emotional labor refers to the management of emotions and expressions to meet the emotional requirements of a job role. This study aimed to develop a revised version of the Korean Emotional Labor Scale (KELS®11), based on the first edition (KELS-24) introduced in 2014, and to provide practical applications and guidelines for its use in the Korean workplace through a validation process. Methods: The revised version of KELS®11 was derived from the 24-item KELS, following a review process involving eight experts. To validate the scale’s reliability and validity, a self-administered survey was conducted among 359 service industry workers using KELS®11, burnout, and depression scales. KELS®11 was reclassified, and its reliability and validity were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was conducted to establish sex-specific cutoff values (normal vs. high-risk groups). Results: KELS®11 was designed to account for individual, organizational, and cultural contexts. It consists of four subscales and 11 items: “emotional regulation” (2 items), “emotional dissonance” (3 items), “organizational monitoring” (2 items), and “organizational protective system for emotional labor” (4 items). KELS®11 demonstrated good validity (content validity ratio: 0.84; item convergence/discriminant validity success rates: 100%; correlation with burnout: r = 0.185–0.436, p < 0.01; correlation with depression: r = 0.128–0.339, p < 0.05) and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.597–0.795). Additionally, sex-specific reference values were established to determine risk groups based on the intensity of emotional labor exposure. Conclusions KELS®11 is a validated and reliable measurement tool designed to assess the intensity and magnitude of emotional labor in the workplace. The revised tool reflects critical considerations in the development of emotional labor measurement scales.

Background: Workplace violence refers to any act or threat of physical violence, verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation, bullying, mobbing, or other aggressive and disruptive behaviors that occur at work. This study aims to develop and validate a revision of the Korean Workplace Violence Scale (KWVS®13), based on the first edition of the Korean Workplace Violence Scale (KWVS-24), and to provide practical applications and guidelines for the Korean workplace environment. Methods: The revised KWVS®13 was developed by restructuring the 24-item KWVS through a review process involving eight experts. To validate the reliability and validity of KWVS®13, a self-administered survey comprising KWVS®13, burnout, and depression scales was conducted among 359 service industry workers. KWVS®13 was reclassified, and its reliability and validity were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to establish sex-specific cutoff values (normal vs. risk) of the scale. Results: KWVS®13 consists of 13 items across four subscales: “psychological and sexual violence from customers” (4 items), “psychological and sexual violence from supervisors or coworkers” (4 items), “physical assault from customers, supervisors, or coworkers” (2 items), and “organizational protective system for workplace violence” (3 items). We found that KWVS®13 shows relatively good validity (content validity ratio for content validity: 0.888; success rate of item convergent and discriminant validity: 100%, and significant correlation coefficient with burnout (r = 0.115–0.83, p < 0.05) and depression (r = 0.098–0.348, p < 0.05) with the exception of Organizational Violence Protection System for Workplace Violence) and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.827–0.860). The reference values for determining risk groups according to the intensity of exposure to workplace violence are presented separately by sex. Conclusions KWVS®13 is a robust and useful measurement tool to objectively and quantitatively assess the intensity and magnitude of workplace violence. It incorporates important considerations for workplace violence assessment and provides a reliable framework for evaluating workplace violence in various professional settings.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.