Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess stroke knowledge, fear of recurrence, family support, and health-promoting behavior in patients with transient ischemic attacks (TIA) and examine these factors have an effect on health-promoting behavior. Methods: A descriptive survey design was used and included 151 patients diagnosed with a TIA. Participants were recruited from a neurology outpatient clinic at a university hospital in metropolitan city B. Data were collected between February 7 and March 29, 2024, using structured questionnaires and analyzed with the IBM SPSS/WIN 27.0 program. Results: The average scores for the main variables were as follows: stroke knowledge (13.60±3.15), fear of recurrence (24.34±5.57), family support (44.40±6.02), and health-promoting behavior (65.81±6.77). Family support (β=.33, p<.001), fear of recurrence (β=.28, p<.001), and age (β=.19, p=.027) were significant predictors of health-promoting behavior, with family support showing the greatest influence. Together, these factors explained 33.0% of the variance in health-promoting behavior (F=11.72, p<.001). Conclusion These findings highlight the importance of considering the characteristics of age, addressing fear of recurrence and enhancing family support to encourage health-promoting behaviors in patients with TIA. Strengthening these areas may contribute to effective stroke prevention strategies.

Women are experiencing reproductive health abnormalities at younger ages, and the incidence of cervical cancer in women in their 20s and 30s is increasing. Various factors hinder visits to obstetrics and gynecology. This cross-sectional study aimed to explore how health knowledge, reproductive health-promoting behavior, and sexual communication influenced the degree of intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology in unmarried women. Methods: The participants included 170 Korean unmarried women in their 20s and 30s. The data were collected via an online survey from December 11 to 22, 2023. Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics, the t-test, one-factor analysis of variance, Pearson correlation coefficients, and hierarchical multiple regression. Results: On average, participants were 24.64±0.31 years of age. The intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology was high (11.46±3.51). Visiting obstetrics and gynecology was positively correlated with knowledge of reproductive health (r=.26, p=.001), reproductive health-promoting behavior (r=.43, p<.001), and sexual communication (r=.37, p<.001), all with statistical significance. Experience of visiting obstetrics and gynecology (β=0.40, p<.001), reproductive health-promoting behavior (β=.25, p<.001), sexual experience (β=0.22, p<.001), sexual communication (β=0.20, p=.001), and reproductive health knowledge (β=0.12, p=.033) explained 54.2% of variance in intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology in unmarried women. Conclusion: The findings of this study can be used to develop programs for unmarried women to improve reproductive health-promoting behavior, sexual communication, and reproductive health knowledge, and increase the intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology.

Women are experiencing reproductive health abnormalities at younger ages, and the incidence of cervical cancer in women in their 20s and 30s is increasing. Various factors hinder visits to obstetrics and gynecology. This cross-sectional study aimed to explore how health knowledge, reproductive health-promoting behavior, and sexual communication influenced the degree of intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology in unmarried women. Methods: The participants included 170 Korean unmarried women in their 20s and 30s. The data were collected via an online survey from December 11 to 22, 2023. Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics, the t-test, one-factor analysis of variance, Pearson correlation coefficients, and hierarchical multiple regression. Results: On average, participants were 24.64±0.31 years of age. The intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology was high (11.46±3.51). Visiting obstetrics and gynecology was positively correlated with knowledge of reproductive health (r=.26, p=.001), reproductive health-promoting behavior (r=.43, p<.001), and sexual communication (r=.37, p<.001), all with statistical significance. Experience of visiting obstetrics and gynecology (β=0.40, p<.001), reproductive health-promoting behavior (β=.25, p<.001), sexual experience (β=0.22, p<.001), sexual communication (β=0.20, p=.001), and reproductive health knowledge (β=0.12, p=.033) explained 54.2% of variance in intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology in unmarried women. Conclusion: The findings of this study can be used to develop programs for unmarried women to improve reproductive health-promoting behavior, sexual communication, and reproductive health knowledge, and increase the intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology.

Women are experiencing reproductive health abnormalities at younger ages, and the incidence of cervical cancer in women in their 20s and 30s is increasing. Various factors hinder visits to obstetrics and gynecology. This cross-sectional study aimed to explore how health knowledge, reproductive health-promoting behavior, and sexual communication influenced the degree of intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology in unmarried women. Methods: The participants included 170 Korean unmarried women in their 20s and 30s. The data were collected via an online survey from December 11 to 22, 2023. Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics, the t-test, one-factor analysis of variance, Pearson correlation coefficients, and hierarchical multiple regression. Results: On average, participants were 24.64±0.31 years of age. The intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology was high (11.46±3.51). Visiting obstetrics and gynecology was positively correlated with knowledge of reproductive health (r=.26, p=.001), reproductive health-promoting behavior (r=.43, p<.001), and sexual communication (r=.37, p<.001), all with statistical significance. Experience of visiting obstetrics and gynecology (β=0.40, p<.001), reproductive health-promoting behavior (β=.25, p<.001), sexual experience (β=0.22, p<.001), sexual communication (β=0.20, p=.001), and reproductive health knowledge (β=0.12, p=.033) explained 54.2% of variance in intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology in unmarried women. Conclusion: The findings of this study can be used to develop programs for unmarried women to improve reproductive health-promoting behavior, sexual communication, and reproductive health knowledge, and increase the intention to visit obstetrics and gynecology.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess stroke knowledge, fear of recurrence, family support, and health-promoting behavior in patients with transient ischemic attacks (TIA) and examine these factors have an effect on health-promoting behavior. Methods: A descriptive survey design was used and included 151 patients diagnosed with a TIA. Participants were recruited from a neurology outpatient clinic at a university hospital in metropolitan city B. Data were collected between February 7 and March 29, 2024, using structured questionnaires and analyzed with the IBM SPSS/WIN 27.0 program. Results: The average scores for the main variables were as follows: stroke knowledge (13.60±3.15), fear of recurrence (24.34±5.57), family support (44.40±6.02), and health-promoting behavior (65.81±6.77). Family support (β=.33, p<.001), fear of recurrence (β=.28, p<.001), and age (β=.19, p=.027) were significant predictors of health-promoting behavior, with family support showing the greatest influence. Together, these factors explained 33.0% of the variance in health-promoting behavior (F=11.72, p<.001). Conclusion These findings highlight the importance of considering the characteristics of age, addressing fear of recurrence and enhancing family support to encourage health-promoting behaviors in patients with TIA. Strengthening these areas may contribute to effective stroke prevention strategies.