Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.

Background: In Korea, the patterns of prevalence of gynecological cancers have shifted due to rising obesity-related cancer cases. We evaluated the associations of body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) with the risk of gynecological malignancy in Korean women. Methods: Using National Health Insurance Service cohort data, we analyzed 365,581 participants among the 1,999,980 women aged ≥ 19 years who underwent health check-ups at the baseline year 2009–2010, excluding those who died, those with prior cancer diagnoses, underwent hysterectomy and/or salpingo-oophorectomy before the index date (January 1st, 2011), or missing/outliers BMI and WC values. Follow-up extended to December 31st, 2021, evaluating the incidences of endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancer. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each gynecological malignancy according to BMI and WC were calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression. Results: Among the 365,581 participants, 898, 1,268, and 873 cases of endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancer occurred, respectively. HRs (95% CIs) for endometrial cancer were 1.37 (1.15–1.63), 1.63 (1.38–1.94), and 3.64 (2.81–4.70) for BMIs of 23.0–24.9, 25.0–29.9, and ≥ 30 kg/m2 compared to BMI of 18.5–22.9 kg/m2 (P for trend < 0.001). HRs (95% CIs) for ovarian cancer were 1.16 (1.00–1.33), 1.19 (1.03–1.37), and 1.49 (1.12–1.98) for BMIs of 23.0–24.9, 25.0–29.9, and ≥ 30 kg/m2 compared to BMI of 18.5–22.9 kg/m2 (P for trend = 0.002). No significant association was found between BMI and the risk for cervical cancer (P for trend = 0.266). HRs (95% CIs) for endometrial cancer were 1.35 (1.09–1.66), 1.41 (1.14–1.74), and 1.90 (1.55–2.34) for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quartiles of WCs compared to the 1st quartile (P for trend <0.001). Ovarian cancer tended to increase and cervical cancer tended to decrease as WC increased (P for trend = 0.035 for ovarian cancer, P for trend = 0.034 for cervical cancer). Conclusion In Korean women, the risks of endometrial and ovarian cancers increased significantly from the pre-obese level as BMI and WC increased, while cervical cancer risk tended to increase as WC decreased. Management of obesity should be reinforced for the prevention of obesity-related gynecological cancers, considering the increasing incidence of these cancers among Korean women.

Purpose: In Korea, the Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) was implemented on February 4, 2018. We aimed to investigate relevant factors and clinical changes associated with LST decisions after law enforcement. Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients who completed LST documents using legal forms at Asan Medical Center from February 5, 2018, to June 30, 2020. Results: 5,896 patients completed LST documents, of which 2,704 (45.8%) signed the documents in person, while family members of 3,192 (54%) wrote the documents on behalf of the patients. Comparing first year and following year of implementation of the act, the self-documentation rate increased (43.9% to 47.2%, p=0.014). Moreover, the number of LST decisions made during or after intensive care unit admission decreased (37.8% vs. 35.2%, p=0.045), and the completion rate of LST documents during chemotherapy increased (6.6% vs. 8.9%, p=0.001). In multivariate analysis, age < 65 (odds ratio [OR], 1.724; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.538 to 1.933; p < 0.001), unmarried status (OR, 1.309; 95% CI, 1.097 to 1.561; p=0.003), palliative care consultation (OR, 1.538; 95% CI, 1.340 to 1.765; p < 0.001), malignancy (OR, 1.864; 95% CI, 1.628 to 2.133; p < 0.001), and changes in timing on the first year versus following year (OR, 1.124; 95% CI, 1.003 to 1.260; p=0.045) were related to a higher self-documentation rate. Conclusion Age < 65 years, unmarried status, malignancy, and referral to a palliative care team were associated with patients making LST decisions themselves. Furthermore, the subject and timing of LST decisions have changed with the LST act.

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.

Background: In Korea, the patterns of prevalence of gynecological cancers have shifted due to rising obesity-related cancer cases. We evaluated the associations of body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) with the risk of gynecological malignancy in Korean women. Methods: Using National Health Insurance Service cohort data, we analyzed 365,581 participants among the 1,999,980 women aged ≥ 19 years who underwent health check-ups at the baseline year 2009–2010, excluding those who died, those with prior cancer diagnoses, underwent hysterectomy and/or salpingo-oophorectomy before the index date (January 1st, 2011), or missing/outliers BMI and WC values. Follow-up extended to December 31st, 2021, evaluating the incidences of endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancer. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each gynecological malignancy according to BMI and WC were calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression. Results: Among the 365,581 participants, 898, 1,268, and 873 cases of endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancer occurred, respectively. HRs (95% CIs) for endometrial cancer were 1.37 (1.15–1.63), 1.63 (1.38–1.94), and 3.64 (2.81–4.70) for BMIs of 23.0–24.9, 25.0–29.9, and ≥ 30 kg/m2 compared to BMI of 18.5–22.9 kg/m2 (P for trend < 0.001). HRs (95% CIs) for ovarian cancer were 1.16 (1.00–1.33), 1.19 (1.03–1.37), and 1.49 (1.12–1.98) for BMIs of 23.0–24.9, 25.0–29.9, and ≥ 30 kg/m2 compared to BMI of 18.5–22.9 kg/m2 (P for trend = 0.002). No significant association was found between BMI and the risk for cervical cancer (P for trend = 0.266). HRs (95% CIs) for endometrial cancer were 1.35 (1.09–1.66), 1.41 (1.14–1.74), and 1.90 (1.55–2.34) for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quartiles of WCs compared to the 1st quartile (P for trend <0.001). Ovarian cancer tended to increase and cervical cancer tended to decrease as WC increased (P for trend = 0.035 for ovarian cancer, P for trend = 0.034 for cervical cancer). Conclusion In Korean women, the risks of endometrial and ovarian cancers increased significantly from the pre-obese level as BMI and WC increased, while cervical cancer risk tended to increase as WC decreased. Management of obesity should be reinforced for the prevention of obesity-related gynecological cancers, considering the increasing incidence of these cancers among Korean women.

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.

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.