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.

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.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient 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.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient 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.

Background/Aims: Although guidelines exist regarding the evaluation and management of patients with chronic constipation (CC), little is known about real-world clinical practice patterns. This study aimed to evaluate the various practices used to manage CC patients in various clinical settings in South Korea. Methods: A nationwide web-based survey was conducted, randomly selecting gastroenterologists and non-gastroenterologists. The 25-item questionnaire included physicians’ perceptions and practices regarding the available options for diagnosing and managing CC patients in Korea. Results: The study participants comprised 193 physicians (86 gastroenterologists, 44.6%) involved in the clinical management of CC patients. The mean clinical experience was 12 years. Only 21 of 193 respondents (10.9%) used the Rome criteria when diagnosing CC. The Bristol Stool Form Scale was used by 29% of the respondents (56/193), while the digital rectal examination was performed by 11.9% of the respondents (23/193). Laboratory testing and colonoscopies were performed more frequently by gastroenterologists than by non-gastroenterologists (both p=0.001). Physiologic testing was used more frequently by gastroenterologists (p=0.046), phy-sicians at teaching hospitals, and physicians with clinical experience ≤10 years (both p<0.05). There were also significant differences in the preference for laxatives depending on the type of hospital. Conclusions There were discrepancies in the diagnosis and management of CC patients depending on the clinical setting. The utilization rates of the Bristol Stool Form Scale and digital rectal examination by physicians are low in real-world clinical practice. These results imply the need for better and more practical training of physicians in the assessment and management of CC.