The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

Background: Primary cicatricial alopecia (PCA) is a rare disease that causes irreversible destruction of hair follicles and affects the quality of life (QOL). Objective: We aimed to investigate the disease awareness, medical use behavior, QOL, and real-world diagnosis and treatment status of patients with PCA. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was administered to patients with PCA and their dermatologists. Patients aged between 19 and 75 years who visited one of 27 dermatology departments between September 2021 and September 2022 were included. Results: In total, 274 patients were included. The male-to-female ratio was 1:1.47, with a mean age of 45.7 years. Patients with neutrophilic and mixed PCA were predominantly male and younger than those with lymphocytic PCA. Among patients with lymphocytic PCA, lichen planopilaris was the most common type, and among those with neutrophilic PCA, folliculitis decalvans was the most common type. Among the total patients, 28.8% were previously diagnosed with PCA, 47.0% were diagnosed with PCA at least 6 months after their first hospital visit, 20.0% received early treatment within 3 months of disease onset, and 54.4% received steady treatment. More than half of the patients had a moderate to severe impairment in QOL. Topical/intralesional steroid injections were the most common treatment. Systemic immunosuppressants were frequently prescribed to patients with lymphocytic PCA, and antibiotics were mostly prescribed to patients with neutrophilic PCA. Conclusion This study provides information on the disease awareness, medical use behavior, QOL, diagnosis, and treatment status of Korean patients with PCA. This can help dermatologists educate patients with PCA to understand the necessity for early diagnosis and steady treatment.

Objective: The abuse of prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines has been a major issue addressed as a serious public health problem worldwide. This study explored factors contributing to substance abuse in Korea by examining the status of substance abuse among Korean adults and evaluating their knowledge, attitudes, and intentions toward substance abuse. Methods: Data were collected online from a sample of participants 19 years old or older from May 20 to June 1, 2020 (n=1,020). The survey consisted of questions on demographics, perceptions of drug risk, motives for drug use, and attitudes toward drug addiction treatment. Principal component and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to explore the factors contributing to the perception of drug abuse. Results: In the multivariate regression analysis, overconfidence in handling drug usage, acceptance of addictive substances, and affirmation of public support for drug abuse were associated with opioid abuse (Nagelkerke R2=0.486), and additionally affirmation of legal cannabis usage and motivation to use diet pills were associated with diet pill abuse (Nagelkerke R2=0.569). Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that the actual situation of substance abuse among Korean adults increases awareness of and attitudes toward drug use related to substance abuse.