Objective: Stigma influences perceptions of mental illness and novel diseases like coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), often impeding healthcare access despite advancements in medical treatment. This study compares the stigma associated with COVID-19 and mental illness to identify factors that could help reduce stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in May 2023 among 1,500 participants aged 19 to 65 in South Korea, using a panel from Embrain, an online survey service. The survey assessed stigma and distress related to COVID-19 and mental illness using a validated questionnaire. It collected demographic and clinical data, evaluated COVID-19-related stigma, fear, and knowledge, and measured prejudice and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10. Factors significantly associated with stigma scores were entered into linear regression analysis. Results: COVID-19-related stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with knowledge of COVID-19 and positively correlated with fear of infection and age. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection had significantly lower scores on COVID-19-related stigma. Similarly, mental illness stigma was negatively correlated with knowledge of psychiatric treatment and positively correlated with age, as well as conscientiousness and neuroticism in the BFI. Personal experience with individuals with mental illness was associated with significantly lower stigma scores. Conclusion This study suggests that the mechanism-making stigma was similar in cases of traditional mental illness and a novel infectious disease. Both cognitive and experiential factors influence stigma. Educating the public about the disease and enabling interactions with affected individuals emerge as effective strategies for stigma reduction.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop an approach to alleviate the discomfort caused by sandbag compression after a bone marrow examination. This research examined the effects of applying a pressure hemostasis band on bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the bone marrow examination site. Methods: This study was conducted with a nonequivalent control group non-synchronized design. For 74 patients under evaluation who underwent bone marrow examination, sandbag compression was applied to the examination site in the control group (n=37), and a pressure hemostasis band was applied to the intervention group (n=37). In both groups, absolute bed rest was performed for two hours, and bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the examination site were measured. Results: After two hours of the bone marrow examination, there was no difference in bleeding on the gauze between the two groups (F=0.59, p=.444). Bleeding occurred in three patients in the intervention group and six in the control group (χ 2 =1.14, p=.479), with no cases of hematoma detected in either group. One hour post-examination, the control group experienced significantly higher pain (F=5.45, p=.022) and discomfort (F=5.68, p=.020) than the intervention group. However, pain and discomfort levels were similar between groups after two hours. Conclusion Compared to the sandbag compression group, the band application group showed no difference in bleeding and experienced less pain and discomfort at the examination site. This confirms that the pressure hemostasis band is a suitable alternative to sandbag compression in post-examination care.

Objective: Stigma influences perceptions of mental illness and novel diseases like coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), often impeding healthcare access despite advancements in medical treatment. This study compares the stigma associated with COVID-19 and mental illness to identify factors that could help reduce stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in May 2023 among 1,500 participants aged 19 to 65 in South Korea, using a panel from Embrain, an online survey service. The survey assessed stigma and distress related to COVID-19 and mental illness using a validated questionnaire. It collected demographic and clinical data, evaluated COVID-19-related stigma, fear, and knowledge, and measured prejudice and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10. Factors significantly associated with stigma scores were entered into linear regression analysis. Results: COVID-19-related stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with knowledge of COVID-19 and positively correlated with fear of infection and age. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection had significantly lower scores on COVID-19-related stigma. Similarly, mental illness stigma was negatively correlated with knowledge of psychiatric treatment and positively correlated with age, as well as conscientiousness and neuroticism in the BFI. Personal experience with individuals with mental illness was associated with significantly lower stigma scores. Conclusion This study suggests that the mechanism-making stigma was similar in cases of traditional mental illness and a novel infectious disease. Both cognitive and experiential factors influence stigma. Educating the public about the disease and enabling interactions with affected individuals emerge as effective strategies for stigma reduction.

Objective: Stigma influences perceptions of mental illness and novel diseases like coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), often impeding healthcare access despite advancements in medical treatment. This study compares the stigma associated with COVID-19 and mental illness to identify factors that could help reduce stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in May 2023 among 1,500 participants aged 19 to 65 in South Korea, using a panel from Embrain, an online survey service. The survey assessed stigma and distress related to COVID-19 and mental illness using a validated questionnaire. It collected demographic and clinical data, evaluated COVID-19-related stigma, fear, and knowledge, and measured prejudice and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10. Factors significantly associated with stigma scores were entered into linear regression analysis. Results: COVID-19-related stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with knowledge of COVID-19 and positively correlated with fear of infection and age. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection had significantly lower scores on COVID-19-related stigma. Similarly, mental illness stigma was negatively correlated with knowledge of psychiatric treatment and positively correlated with age, as well as conscientiousness and neuroticism in the BFI. Personal experience with individuals with mental illness was associated with significantly lower stigma scores. Conclusion This study suggests that the mechanism-making stigma was similar in cases of traditional mental illness and a novel infectious disease. Both cognitive and experiential factors influence stigma. Educating the public about the disease and enabling interactions with affected individuals emerge as effective strategies for stigma reduction.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop an approach to alleviate the discomfort caused by sandbag compression after a bone marrow examination. This research examined the effects of applying a pressure hemostasis band on bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the bone marrow examination site. Methods: This study was conducted with a nonequivalent control group non-synchronized design. For 74 patients under evaluation who underwent bone marrow examination, sandbag compression was applied to the examination site in the control group (n=37), and a pressure hemostasis band was applied to the intervention group (n=37). In both groups, absolute bed rest was performed for two hours, and bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the examination site were measured. Results: After two hours of the bone marrow examination, there was no difference in bleeding on the gauze between the two groups (F=0.59, p=.444). Bleeding occurred in three patients in the intervention group and six in the control group (χ 2 =1.14, p=.479), with no cases of hematoma detected in either group. One hour post-examination, the control group experienced significantly higher pain (F=5.45, p=.022) and discomfort (F=5.68, p=.020) than the intervention group. However, pain and discomfort levels were similar between groups after two hours. Conclusion Compared to the sandbag compression group, the band application group showed no difference in bleeding and experienced less pain and discomfort at the examination site. This confirms that the pressure hemostasis band is a suitable alternative to sandbag compression in post-examination care.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop an approach to alleviate the discomfort caused by sandbag compression after a bone marrow examination. This research examined the effects of applying a pressure hemostasis band on bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the bone marrow examination site. Methods: This study was conducted with a nonequivalent control group non-synchronized design. For 74 patients under evaluation who underwent bone marrow examination, sandbag compression was applied to the examination site in the control group (n=37), and a pressure hemostasis band was applied to the intervention group (n=37). In both groups, absolute bed rest was performed for two hours, and bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the examination site were measured. Results: After two hours of the bone marrow examination, there was no difference in bleeding on the gauze between the two groups (F=0.59, p=.444). Bleeding occurred in three patients in the intervention group and six in the control group (χ 2 =1.14, p=.479), with no cases of hematoma detected in either group. One hour post-examination, the control group experienced significantly higher pain (F=5.45, p=.022) and discomfort (F=5.68, p=.020) than the intervention group. However, pain and discomfort levels were similar between groups after two hours. Conclusion Compared to the sandbag compression group, the band application group showed no difference in bleeding and experienced less pain and discomfort at the examination site. This confirms that the pressure hemostasis band is a suitable alternative to sandbag compression in post-examination care.

Objective: Stigma influences perceptions of mental illness and novel diseases like coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), often impeding healthcare access despite advancements in medical treatment. This study compares the stigma associated with COVID-19 and mental illness to identify factors that could help reduce stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in May 2023 among 1,500 participants aged 19 to 65 in South Korea, using a panel from Embrain, an online survey service. The survey assessed stigma and distress related to COVID-19 and mental illness using a validated questionnaire. It collected demographic and clinical data, evaluated COVID-19-related stigma, fear, and knowledge, and measured prejudice and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10. Factors significantly associated with stigma scores were entered into linear regression analysis. Results: COVID-19-related stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with knowledge of COVID-19 and positively correlated with fear of infection and age. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection had significantly lower scores on COVID-19-related stigma. Similarly, mental illness stigma was negatively correlated with knowledge of psychiatric treatment and positively correlated with age, as well as conscientiousness and neuroticism in the BFI. Personal experience with individuals with mental illness was associated with significantly lower stigma scores. Conclusion This study suggests that the mechanism-making stigma was similar in cases of traditional mental illness and a novel infectious disease. Both cognitive and experiential factors influence stigma. Educating the public about the disease and enabling interactions with affected individuals emerge as effective strategies for stigma reduction.

Objective: Stigma influences perceptions of mental illness and novel diseases like coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), often impeding healthcare access despite advancements in medical treatment. This study compares the stigma associated with COVID-19 and mental illness to identify factors that could help reduce stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in May 2023 among 1,500 participants aged 19 to 65 in South Korea, using a panel from Embrain, an online survey service. The survey assessed stigma and distress related to COVID-19 and mental illness using a validated questionnaire. It collected demographic and clinical data, evaluated COVID-19-related stigma, fear, and knowledge, and measured prejudice and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10. Factors significantly associated with stigma scores were entered into linear regression analysis. Results: COVID-19-related stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with knowledge of COVID-19 and positively correlated with fear of infection and age. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection had significantly lower scores on COVID-19-related stigma. Similarly, mental illness stigma was negatively correlated with knowledge of psychiatric treatment and positively correlated with age, as well as conscientiousness and neuroticism in the BFI. Personal experience with individuals with mental illness was associated with significantly lower stigma scores. Conclusion This study suggests that the mechanism-making stigma was similar in cases of traditional mental illness and a novel infectious disease. Both cognitive and experiential factors influence stigma. Educating the public about the disease and enabling interactions with affected individuals emerge as effective strategies for stigma reduction.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.