This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Background: The optimal duration and net clinical benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have not been elucidated in realworld situations. Methods: Using nationwide claims data from 2013 to 2021, we selected patients who underwent TAVR and categorized them into two groups: short- and long-term (≤ 3 and > 3 months, respectively) DAPT group. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, any coronary and peripheral revascularization, systemic thromboembolism, and bleeding events, at 1 year. Survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Patients who met the inclusion criteria (1,695) were selected. Propensity score matching yielded 1,215 pairs of patients: 416 and 799 in the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. In the unmatched cohort, the mean ages were 79.8 ± 6.1 and 79.7 ± 5.8 years for the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. In the matched cohort, the mean ages were 80.6 ± 5.9 and 79.9 ± 5.9 years for the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. Over one year in the unmatched cohort, the NACE incidence was 11.9% and 11.5% in the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively (P = 0.893). The all-cause mortality rates were 7.4% and 4.7% (P = 0.042), composite ischemic event rates were 2.5% and 4.7% (P = 0.056), and bleeding event rates were 2.7% and 4.7% (P = 0.056) in the shortand long-term groups, respectively. In the matched cohort, the incidence of NACE was 9.6% in the short-term DAPT group and 11.6% in the long-term DAPT group, respectively (P = 0.329).The all-cause mortality rates were 6.5% and 4.9% (P = 0.298), composite ischemic event rates were 1.4% and 4.5% (P = 0.009), and bleeding event rates were 2.2% and 4.4% (P = 0.072) in the short- and long-term groups, respectively. Conclusion In patients who successfully underwent transfemoral TAVR, the short- and longterm DAPT groups exhibited similar one-year NACE rates. However, patients in the long-term DAPT group experienced more bleeding and ischemic events.

Background: The optimal duration and net clinical benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have not been elucidated in realworld situations. Methods: Using nationwide claims data from 2013 to 2021, we selected patients who underwent TAVR and categorized them into two groups: short- and long-term (≤ 3 and > 3 months, respectively) DAPT group. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, any coronary and peripheral revascularization, systemic thromboembolism, and bleeding events, at 1 year. Survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Patients who met the inclusion criteria (1,695) were selected. Propensity score matching yielded 1,215 pairs of patients: 416 and 799 in the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. In the unmatched cohort, the mean ages were 79.8 ± 6.1 and 79.7 ± 5.8 years for the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. In the matched cohort, the mean ages were 80.6 ± 5.9 and 79.9 ± 5.9 years for the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. Over one year in the unmatched cohort, the NACE incidence was 11.9% and 11.5% in the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively (P = 0.893). The all-cause mortality rates were 7.4% and 4.7% (P = 0.042), composite ischemic event rates were 2.5% and 4.7% (P = 0.056), and bleeding event rates were 2.7% and 4.7% (P = 0.056) in the shortand long-term groups, respectively. In the matched cohort, the incidence of NACE was 9.6% in the short-term DAPT group and 11.6% in the long-term DAPT group, respectively (P = 0.329).The all-cause mortality rates were 6.5% and 4.9% (P = 0.298), composite ischemic event rates were 1.4% and 4.5% (P = 0.009), and bleeding event rates were 2.2% and 4.4% (P = 0.072) in the short- and long-term groups, respectively. Conclusion In patients who successfully underwent transfemoral TAVR, the short- and longterm DAPT groups exhibited similar one-year NACE rates. However, patients in the long-term DAPT group experienced more bleeding and ischemic events.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to evaluate the association between smoking status and subclinical coronary atherosclerosis, as detected by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), in asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 9,285 asymptomatic participants (mean age, 53.7±8.0 years; n=6,017, 64.8% male) with no history of coronary artery disease (CAD) who had undergone self-referred CCTA. Of these participants, 4,333 (46.7%) were considered never smokers, 2,885 (31.1%) former smokers, and 2,067 (22.3%) current smokers. We assessed the degree and characteristics of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis using CCTA, with obstructive CAD defined as a diameter stenosis of at least 50%. RESULTS: Compared with never-smokers, former smokers exhibited no significant differences in the probabilities of obstructive CAD, any coronary plaque, calcified plaque, or mixed plaque, as determined using adjusted odds ratios (aORs; p>0.05 for all). However, the risk of non-calcified plaque was significantly higher in former smokers (aOR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.78; p=0.048). Current smokers had significantly higher rates of obstructive CAD (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.96; p=0.010), any coronary plaque (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.65; p<0.001), calcified plaque (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.55; p=0.001), non-calcified plaque (aOR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.32; p<0.001), and mixed plaque (aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.39 to 2.86; p<0.001) compared to never smokers. CONCLUSIONS This cross-sectional study revealed a significant association between current smoking and subclinical coronary atherosclerosis, as detected on CCTA. Additionally, former smoking demonstrated an association with non-calcified plaque, indicating elevated cardiovascular risk.