Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Background: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with pioglitazone 15 mg add-on versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin and dapagliflozin. Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study, patients with T2DM with an inadequate response to treatment with metformin (≥1,000 mg/day) plus dapagliflozin (10 mg/day) were randomized to receive additional pioglitazone 15 mg/day (n=125) or placebo (n=125) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from baseline to week 24 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05101135). Results: At week 24, the adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c level compared with placebo was significantly greater with pioglitazone treatment (–0.47%; 95% confidence interval, –0.61 to –0.33; P<0.0001). A greater proportion of patients achieved HbA1c <7% or <6.5% at week 24 with pioglitazone compared to placebo as add-on to 10 mg dapagliflozin and metformin (56.8% vs. 28% for HbA1c <7%, and 23.2% vs. 9.6% for HbA1c <6.5%; P<0.0001 for all). The addition of pioglitazone also significantly improved triglyceride, highdensity lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance levels, while placebo did not. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the groups, and the incidence of fluid retention-related side effects by pioglitazone was low (1.5%). Conclusion Triple therapy with the addition of 15 mg/day of pioglitazone to dapagliflozin plus metformin was well tolerated and produced significant improvements in HbA1c in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with dapagliflozin plus metformin.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.