Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Purpose: This study aimed to systematically evaluate school-based suicide prevention programs for adolescents, focusing on their impact on suicide attempts, knowledge and attitudes about suicide, and help-seeking behaviors. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, KMBASE, KoreaMed, and ScienceON. Randomized controlled trials of school-based interventions for middle and high school students were included. The Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was used to assess study quality. Results: Out of 1,738 screened records, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. SOS (Signs of Suicide) and SEYLE (Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe) programs significantly reduced suicide attempts by 40% and 55%, respectively. Sources of Strength improved help-seeking behavior (ES=0.62, p<.001), though results were inconsistent across interventions. All programs enhanced knowledge and attitudes about suicide, but methodological limitations, such as variability in implementation and reporting, affected reliability. Conclusion School-based suicide prevention programs effectively reduce suicide attempts and improve awareness but show mixed results for help-seeking behaviors. Standardized, scalable interventions and rigorous evaluations are needed to enhance their impact.

Purpose: This study aimed to systematically evaluate school-based suicide prevention programs for adolescents, focusing on their impact on suicide attempts, knowledge and attitudes about suicide, and help-seeking behaviors. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, KMBASE, KoreaMed, and ScienceON. Randomized controlled trials of school-based interventions for middle and high school students were included. The Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was used to assess study quality. Results: Out of 1,738 screened records, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. SOS (Signs of Suicide) and SEYLE (Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe) programs significantly reduced suicide attempts by 40% and 55%, respectively. Sources of Strength improved help-seeking behavior (ES=0.62, p<.001), though results were inconsistent across interventions. All programs enhanced knowledge and attitudes about suicide, but methodological limitations, such as variability in implementation and reporting, affected reliability. Conclusion School-based suicide prevention programs effectively reduce suicide attempts and improve awareness but show mixed results for help-seeking behaviors. Standardized, scalable interventions and rigorous evaluations are needed to enhance their impact.

Purpose: This study aimed to systematically evaluate school-based suicide prevention programs for adolescents, focusing on their impact on suicide attempts, knowledge and attitudes about suicide, and help-seeking behaviors. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, KMBASE, KoreaMed, and ScienceON. Randomized controlled trials of school-based interventions for middle and high school students were included. The Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was used to assess study quality. Results: Out of 1,738 screened records, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. SOS (Signs of Suicide) and SEYLE (Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe) programs significantly reduced suicide attempts by 40% and 55%, respectively. Sources of Strength improved help-seeking behavior (ES=0.62, p<.001), though results were inconsistent across interventions. All programs enhanced knowledge and attitudes about suicide, but methodological limitations, such as variability in implementation and reporting, affected reliability. Conclusion School-based suicide prevention programs effectively reduce suicide attempts and improve awareness but show mixed results for help-seeking behaviors. Standardized, scalable interventions and rigorous evaluations are needed to enhance their impact.

Purpose: This study aimed to systematically evaluate school-based suicide prevention programs for adolescents, focusing on their impact on suicide attempts, knowledge and attitudes about suicide, and help-seeking behaviors. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, KMBASE, KoreaMed, and ScienceON. Randomized controlled trials of school-based interventions for middle and high school students were included. The Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was used to assess study quality. Results: Out of 1,738 screened records, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. SOS (Signs of Suicide) and SEYLE (Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe) programs significantly reduced suicide attempts by 40% and 55%, respectively. Sources of Strength improved help-seeking behavior (ES=0.62, p<.001), though results were inconsistent across interventions. All programs enhanced knowledge and attitudes about suicide, but methodological limitations, such as variability in implementation and reporting, affected reliability. Conclusion School-based suicide prevention programs effectively reduce suicide attempts and improve awareness but show mixed results for help-seeking behaviors. Standardized, scalable interventions and rigorous evaluations are needed to enhance their impact.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Purpose: This study examines the association between child maltreatment and the perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence (IPV) in adulthood, exploring the moderating effects of gender, age, and household income level. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed secondary data from the 2016 Domestic Violence Survey in South Korea, including 1,765 married individuals aged 65 or younger who responded to key variables. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze associations among the variables. Results: The paths from child maltreatment to IPV perpetration (β=.22, p<.001) and victimization (β=.22, p<.001) were statistically significant. Gender, age, and household income level significantly moderated this relationship. Women under 40 were more likely to be IPV victims than perpetrators. Low-income level increased the likelihood of being both perpetrators and victims. Women under 40 who had experienced child maltreatment and had a low-income level showed different probabilities of being victims or perpetrators of IPV. Conclusion Our findings highlight the need to mitigate the negative impact of child maltreatment in adulthood by designing specific interventions for vulnerable groups, such as women, younger individuals, and those with low-income levels. Ensuring lifelong prevention of child maltreatment and establishing tailored programs for IPV is crucial.