Cultural safety education emphasizes critical reflection on bias, power relations, and the structural conditions that shape healthcare encounters, and recognizes patients and communities as the subjects who define what constitutes “culturally safe” care. It moves beyond knowledge-based cultural competence by examining professional norms, institutional practices, and dominant assumptions within medicine. In Korea, medical culture has developed through a historically specific process in which Western medicine became institutionalized through Japanese colonial rule and later American influence. The authors therefore adopted the framework of cultural safety to address structurally formed power relations and contextual cultural biases in Korean medical education. This innovation report describes three educational practices implemented at two Korean medical colleges across different stages of basic medical education. At Inje University College of Medicine, a third-year cultural safety course embedded within patient safety training engaged students in dialogue with international patients, supported by guided reflection, to examine cultural bias, professional identity, and system-level tensions. At Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, a first-year communication course incorporated a cultural diversity module that combined experiential learning and reflective writing to support students in identifying unconscious bias and developing patient-centered communication. In 2025, Inje University expanded cultural safety education to first-year premedical students through a longitudinal course integrating postcolonial and stigma theories to explore social hierarchies, internalized authoritarian cultures, and colonial traces in Korean healthcare and medical education. These experiences highlight practical strategies for creating culturally safe learning environments within locally grounded medical education.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Purpose: Most of studies about racial or ethnic biases among medical students have been conducted in English-speaking developed countries. This study explores the hybridity and transformation of Korean medical students’ biases, arguing that a nation’s identity and culture are constantly in a state of ever-changing hybridity. Methods: This research used a qualitative document analysis. The study participants were 600 pre-clinical medical students at two medical colleges in Korea, who enrolled in anti-bias programs and subsequently submitted self-reflection essays. Data collection focused on biases related to race, ethnicity, nationality, and medical practices as doctors. Bhabha’s cultural hybridity concepts guided the coding of the data in order to explore the hybridity and transformation of the students’ biases. Results: The students presented cultural biases toward patients and doctors with ambivalence related to a person’s high socioeconomic status and open-mindedness, as well as doctors’ excellence and superiority as Korean authoritative figures. Since the students had ambivalent and complex biases toward patients and doctors, they felt unhomeliness as Korean doctors encountering international patients in Korean clinics. However, after discovering their contradictory assumptions, they transformed their unhomeliness into new hybrid identities. The students’ biases were rarely based on race but instead were based on nationality, specifically national class by national income. Conclusion Understanding the changing hybrid nature of identities and culture from a cultural hybridity perspective could help clarify medical students’ complex and changing biases and improve anti-bias education. Korean medical students’ hybridized positions suggest that anti-bias education goes beyond focusing on prestige or racism.

Purpose: Most of studies about racial or ethnic biases among medical students have been conducted in English-speaking developed countries. This study explores the hybridity and transformation of Korean medical students’ biases, arguing that a nation’s identity and culture are constantly in a state of ever-changing hybridity. Methods: This research used a qualitative document analysis. The study participants were 600 pre-clinical medical students at two medical colleges in Korea, who enrolled in anti-bias programs and subsequently submitted self-reflection essays. Data collection focused on biases related to race, ethnicity, nationality, and medical practices as doctors. Bhabha’s cultural hybridity concepts guided the coding of the data in order to explore the hybridity and transformation of the students’ biases. Results: The students presented cultural biases toward patients and doctors with ambivalence related to a person’s high socioeconomic status and open-mindedness, as well as doctors’ excellence and superiority as Korean authoritative figures. Since the students had ambivalent and complex biases toward patients and doctors, they felt unhomeliness as Korean doctors encountering international patients in Korean clinics. However, after discovering their contradictory assumptions, they transformed their unhomeliness into new hybrid identities. The students’ biases were rarely based on race but instead were based on nationality, specifically national class by national income. Conclusion Understanding the changing hybrid nature of identities and culture from a cultural hybridity perspective could help clarify medical students’ complex and changing biases and improve anti-bias education. Korean medical students’ hybridized positions suggest that anti-bias education goes beyond focusing on prestige or racism.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Purpose: Most of studies about racial or ethnic biases among medical students have been conducted in English-speaking developed countries. This study explores the hybridity and transformation of Korean medical students’ biases, arguing that a nation’s identity and culture are constantly in a state of ever-changing hybridity. Methods: This research used a qualitative document analysis. The study participants were 600 pre-clinical medical students at two medical colleges in Korea, who enrolled in anti-bias programs and subsequently submitted self-reflection essays. Data collection focused on biases related to race, ethnicity, nationality, and medical practices as doctors. Bhabha’s cultural hybridity concepts guided the coding of the data in order to explore the hybridity and transformation of the students’ biases. Results: The students presented cultural biases toward patients and doctors with ambivalence related to a person’s high socioeconomic status and open-mindedness, as well as doctors’ excellence and superiority as Korean authoritative figures. Since the students had ambivalent and complex biases toward patients and doctors, they felt unhomeliness as Korean doctors encountering international patients in Korean clinics. However, after discovering their contradictory assumptions, they transformed their unhomeliness into new hybrid identities. The students’ biases were rarely based on race but instead were based on nationality, specifically national class by national income. Conclusion Understanding the changing hybrid nature of identities and culture from a cultural hybridity perspective could help clarify medical students’ complex and changing biases and improve anti-bias education. Korean medical students’ hybridized positions suggest that anti-bias education goes beyond focusing on prestige or racism.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Purpose: Most of studies about racial or ethnic biases among medical students have been conducted in English-speaking developed countries. This study explores the hybridity and transformation of Korean medical students’ biases, arguing that a nation’s identity and culture are constantly in a state of ever-changing hybridity. Methods: This research used a qualitative document analysis. The study participants were 600 pre-clinical medical students at two medical colleges in Korea, who enrolled in anti-bias programs and subsequently submitted self-reflection essays. Data collection focused on biases related to race, ethnicity, nationality, and medical practices as doctors. Bhabha’s cultural hybridity concepts guided the coding of the data in order to explore the hybridity and transformation of the students’ biases. Results: The students presented cultural biases toward patients and doctors with ambivalence related to a person’s high socioeconomic status and open-mindedness, as well as doctors’ excellence and superiority as Korean authoritative figures. Since the students had ambivalent and complex biases toward patients and doctors, they felt unhomeliness as Korean doctors encountering international patients in Korean clinics. However, after discovering their contradictory assumptions, they transformed their unhomeliness into new hybrid identities. The students’ biases were rarely based on race but instead were based on nationality, specifically national class by national income. Conclusion Understanding the changing hybrid nature of identities and culture from a cultural hybridity perspective could help clarify medical students’ complex and changing biases and improve anti-bias education. Korean medical students’ hybridized positions suggest that anti-bias education goes beyond focusing on prestige or racism.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the validity and reliability of the Korean version of the Brief Irritability Test (BITe) and adapt it for Korean patients with psychiatric disorders. Methods: A total of 296 patients at the Department of Psychiatry of Hanyang University Guri Hospital completed the BITe, Korean Beck Depression Inventory-II, Korean Beck Anxiety Inventory, the Korean version of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, and Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11. Construct validity was confirmed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability testing included assessments of internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) and item-total correlations. Convergent validity was examined through correlational analyses with variables such as anxiety, depression, anger, and impulsivity. Results: First, the scale had good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α of 0.88. Second, EFA indicated a single dimensionality of the BITe, and CFA demonstrated a reasonable fit for the single-factor model (comparative fit index=0.97, Tucker-Lewis Index=0.95, normed fit index=0.97, goodness-of-fit index=0.96, root mean square error of approximation=0.12, standardized root mean residual=0.03). Finally, the convergent validity analysis revealed a significant positive correlation with depression, anxiety, and anger, except for anger control, which is a sub-variable of anger. Conclusion The results showed that the Korean version of the BITe had good psychometric properties, and might serve as a valuable tool for assessing irritability in Korean patients with psychiatric disorders.