Objectives: Korea is one of the fastest-aging societies, and a large proportion of its older population lives alone. This study examined the impact of family interaction frequency on the association between living alone and depressive symptoms among older adults aged ≥80 years using nationally representative survey data. Methods: Among the 229 099 participants of the 2019 Korea Community Health Survey, 15 672 participants aged ≥80 years who either lived with close family or lived alone were included in the analysis. Participants living alone were classified according to the frequency of family interaction, ranging from less than once a month to more than once a week. The outcome variable was moderate to severe depressive symptoms, defined as a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of ≥10. Results: The prevalence of depressive symptoms was higher among older adults living alone (9.4–14.1%, depending on the frequency of family interaction) than among those living with close family (6.5%). Older adults living alone who interacted with family less than once a month were more likely to report depressive symptoms compared with those living with close family (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36 to 2.15). Weekly family interaction mitigated the impact of living alone on the prevalence of depressive symptoms (aOR 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.42). The influence of family interaction on the association between living alone and depressive symptoms remained consistent across subgroups of men, women, and those with difficulty in daily activities. Conclusions Encouraging regular interaction among family members could serve as an effective strategy to protect the mental health of older adults.

BACKGROUND: This research is to identify the difficulties occuring in the course of managing the adverse events and the adverse event related standard operating procedure in the regulation of each institutional review board. METHODS: In order to identify the issues of the management of adverse events of each institution, this research surveyed the IRB administrators in fifty two university hospitals nation-wide. This survey is conducted among one chairman and one IRB member from the IRB members per each IRB who have experience in reviewing adverse events. The survey also includes investigators and sponsors who engage in reporting adverse events. RESULTS: The result of this survey demonstrates that the objects and the terms of adverse event reports provided by the Standard Operating Procedure and the KGCP of each institution are not very different from each other. However, according to the survey, any cases reported to the IRBs, although they are not specified as the object of reports in the institution, have been reviewed by the IRB members. To sum up the results of the survey, the major issues include ambiguous regulations on adverse event reports and reviews, the use of different report formats for each institution, and the difficulty with evaluating the causal relationship with Investigational Product. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to develop concrete and specified guidelines on the objects and the terms of reports, the standard for the causal relationship and the adequate measures for adverse events after review and to standardize the format of adverse event reporting.
Administrative Personnel ; Ethics Committees, Research ; Hospitals, University ; Humans ; Research Personnel ; Social Control, Formal