Occupational cancers arise from exposure to carcinogenic agents during work activities and represent a significant public health challenge. In Korea, compensation for occupational cancers has been available since 1964, with asbestos related mesothelioma recognized in 1993. Estimating the population attributable fraction (PAF) using national surveys and epidemiological studies is critical for assessing regulatory impact and forecasting future disease burden.Current Concepts: The International Agency for Research on Cancer categorizes carcinogens into distinct groups, and nearly 47 agents have been identified as relevant to occupational exposures. Advanced assessment tools, including job exposure matrices and the CAREX (CARcinogen EXposure) program, have been developed to accurately estimate exposure prevalence across industries. Comparative studies from Korea, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Italy, and China indicate that the occupational cancer PAF ranges from approximately 1% to 8%. Notably, asbestos, welding fumes, diesel engineexhaust and emerging exposures such as night shift work are consistently recognized as major contributors to occupational cancer risk.Discussion and Conclusion: Although regulatory measures have successfully reduced exposure to several known carcinogens, long latency periods and evolving industrial practices continue to sustain the burden of occupational cancers. Incorporating detailed occupational histories in clinical assessments can facilitate early detection and targeted interventions. Ongoing refinement of exposure estimation methods and international collaboration remain essential for updating PAF calculations. Ultimately, proactive primary prevention and evidence-based regulatory policies are imperative to mitigate the impact of occupational carcinogens on cancer incidence and mortality. These findings underscore the urgency of continuous monitoring and targeted occupational health initiatives.

This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

Occupational cancers arise from exposure to carcinogenic agents during work activities and represent a significant public health challenge. In Korea, compensation for occupational cancers has been available since 1964, with asbestos related mesothelioma recognized in 1993. Estimating the population attributable fraction (PAF) using national surveys and epidemiological studies is critical for assessing regulatory impact and forecasting future disease burden.Current Concepts: The International Agency for Research on Cancer categorizes carcinogens into distinct groups, and nearly 47 agents have been identified as relevant to occupational exposures. Advanced assessment tools, including job exposure matrices and the CAREX (CARcinogen EXposure) program, have been developed to accurately estimate exposure prevalence across industries. Comparative studies from Korea, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Italy, and China indicate that the occupational cancer PAF ranges from approximately 1% to 8%. Notably, asbestos, welding fumes, diesel engineexhaust and emerging exposures such as night shift work are consistently recognized as major contributors to occupational cancer risk.Discussion and Conclusion: Although regulatory measures have successfully reduced exposure to several known carcinogens, long latency periods and evolving industrial practices continue to sustain the burden of occupational cancers. Incorporating detailed occupational histories in clinical assessments can facilitate early detection and targeted interventions. Ongoing refinement of exposure estimation methods and international collaboration remain essential for updating PAF calculations. Ultimately, proactive primary prevention and evidence-based regulatory policies are imperative to mitigate the impact of occupational carcinogens on cancer incidence and mortality. These findings underscore the urgency of continuous monitoring and targeted occupational health initiatives.

This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

Occupational cancers arise from exposure to carcinogenic agents during work activities and represent a significant public health challenge. In Korea, compensation for occupational cancers has been available since 1964, with asbestos related mesothelioma recognized in 1993. Estimating the population attributable fraction (PAF) using national surveys and epidemiological studies is critical for assessing regulatory impact and forecasting future disease burden.Current Concepts: The International Agency for Research on Cancer categorizes carcinogens into distinct groups, and nearly 47 agents have been identified as relevant to occupational exposures. Advanced assessment tools, including job exposure matrices and the CAREX (CARcinogen EXposure) program, have been developed to accurately estimate exposure prevalence across industries. Comparative studies from Korea, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Italy, and China indicate that the occupational cancer PAF ranges from approximately 1% to 8%. Notably, asbestos, welding fumes, diesel engineexhaust and emerging exposures such as night shift work are consistently recognized as major contributors to occupational cancer risk.Discussion and Conclusion: Although regulatory measures have successfully reduced exposure to several known carcinogens, long latency periods and evolving industrial practices continue to sustain the burden of occupational cancers. Incorporating detailed occupational histories in clinical assessments can facilitate early detection and targeted interventions. Ongoing refinement of exposure estimation methods and international collaboration remain essential for updating PAF calculations. Ultimately, proactive primary prevention and evidence-based regulatory policies are imperative to mitigate the impact of occupational carcinogens on cancer incidence and mortality. These findings underscore the urgency of continuous monitoring and targeted occupational health initiatives.

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.