Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: This study examined the influence of patient safety management systems, leadership, and communication types on nurses’ patient safety management activities. Methods: Participants were 237 nurses who has been working in medical institutes for over 6 months. Online self-report questionnaires were conducted. Measures included patient safety management systems, transformational leadership, authentic leadership, communication types, and patient safety management activities. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and multiple regression with SPSS/WIN 24.0. Results: According to the general characteristics, patient safety management activities were higher among nurses who were female (t=4.27, p<.001), charge nurses (t=-2.41, p=.016), had healthcare accreditation experience (t=4.36, p<.001), and worked in nursing units implementing a team nursing method (F=6.26, p=.002) with more than 30 nurses (F=6.28, p=.043). Female nurses (β=.16, p=.015) with high authentic leadership (β=.21, p=.002), low informal communication (β=-.21, p=.004), and high downward communication (β=.19, p=.009) showed higher patient safety management activities. The models' explanatory power was 21.0%. Conclusion Based on the results of this study, further research is needed to investigate the differences in patient safety management activities according to gender, the number of nurses per ward, and the nursing delivery system. Lowering informal communication and strengthening authentic leadership and downward communication may improve nurses’ patient safety management activities.

Purpose: This study examined the influence of patient safety management systems, leadership, and communication types on nurses’ patient safety management activities. Methods: Participants were 237 nurses who has been working in medical institutes for over 6 months. Online self-report questionnaires were conducted. Measures included patient safety management systems, transformational leadership, authentic leadership, communication types, and patient safety management activities. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and multiple regression with SPSS/WIN 24.0. Results: According to the general characteristics, patient safety management activities were higher among nurses who were female (t=4.27, p<.001), charge nurses (t=-2.41, p=.016), had healthcare accreditation experience (t=4.36, p<.001), and worked in nursing units implementing a team nursing method (F=6.26, p=.002) with more than 30 nurses (F=6.28, p=.043). Female nurses (β=.16, p=.015) with high authentic leadership (β=.21, p=.002), low informal communication (β=-.21, p=.004), and high downward communication (β=.19, p=.009) showed higher patient safety management activities. The models' explanatory power was 21.0%. Conclusion Based on the results of this study, further research is needed to investigate the differences in patient safety management activities according to gender, the number of nurses per ward, and the nursing delivery system. Lowering informal communication and strengthening authentic leadership and downward communication may improve nurses’ patient safety management activities.

This study aimed to develop a physical restraints education program using the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skill (IMB) model and examine its effects on physical restraint-related knowledge, attitudes, nursing practices, and person-centered care of nursing care providers in long-term care hospitals. Methods: A nonequivalent control group repeated measures quasi-experimental design was used. The participants were 54 nursing care providers (intervention group=27, control group=27) in long-term care hospitals from B city. The IMB model-based education program was developed and implemented once a week for 3 weeks. The program involved brain writing, lectures, poster or slogan creation, writing diary to reduce the use of restraint, and shouting slogans. Data were collected using self-reported questionnaires at pretest, immediately after the program completed (3 weeks after pretest), and 4 weeks after completing the program (7 weeks after pretest). Analysis was conducted using χ²-test, Fisher’s exact test, t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and repeated measures ANCOVA with the SPSS/WIN 28.0 program. Results: The participants consisted of nurses (40.7%), nursing assistants (40.7%), and care workers (18.5%). The education program had statistically significant effects on knowledge (F=46.38, p<.001), attitude (F=42.70, p<.001), nursing practice (F=31.29, p<.001), and person-centered care (F=27.74, p<.001) regarding physical restraints. The intervention’s effects remained for 4 weeks after the completion of the intervention. Conclusion: This education program effectively enhanced nursing care providers’ knowledge, attitude, nursing practice, and person-centered care concerning physical restraints. Future research is warranted to provide a regularly repeated program and evaluate the direct effects on the frequency of physical restraints for nursing care providers in long-term care hospitals.

This study aimed to explore the participation experiences of patients with type 2 diabetes in an Automated Personalized Self-Care program, assess the changes in self-care behavior and glycemic control, and evaluate the stages of change and readiness to change using the transtheoretical model (TTM). Methods: We examined 16 patients with type 2 diabetes who participated in a diabetes self-care program using a mobile application. Purposive sampling continued until data saturation. Using a mixed method study, we analyzed the participants’ characteristics, self-care behavior, stage of change, and readiness to change quantitatively and analyzed the qualitative data using Elo and Kyngas’s content analysis method. Results: The compliance group (CG) showed improved self-care behavior and glycemic control. In the CG, the proportion of participants in the action stage was higher in the exercise and diet domains and lower in the blood glucose testing and medication domains than in the non-compliance group (NCG). Readiness to change, motivation for health behaviors, and social motivation were higher in the CG, whereas personal motivation was higher in the NCG. In this qualitative study, three categories and 11 subcategories were identified. The findings suggest the CG regarded their experience in the program more frequently as positive, whereas the NCG perceived greater barriers to using the mobile application in the program. Conclusion: Based on the differences identified between the CG and NCG, TTM-based strategies are needed to facilitate the progression of NCG to the action stage.

Purpose: This study examined the influence of patient safety management systems, leadership, and communication types on nurses’ patient safety management activities. Methods: Participants were 237 nurses who has been working in medical institutes for over 6 months. Online self-report questionnaires were conducted. Measures included patient safety management systems, transformational leadership, authentic leadership, communication types, and patient safety management activities. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and multiple regression with SPSS/WIN 24.0. Results: According to the general characteristics, patient safety management activities were higher among nurses who were female (t=4.27, p<.001), charge nurses (t=-2.41, p=.016), had healthcare accreditation experience (t=4.36, p<.001), and worked in nursing units implementing a team nursing method (F=6.26, p=.002) with more than 30 nurses (F=6.28, p=.043). Female nurses (β=.16, p=.015) with high authentic leadership (β=.21, p=.002), low informal communication (β=-.21, p=.004), and high downward communication (β=.19, p=.009) showed higher patient safety management activities. The models' explanatory power was 21.0%. Conclusion Based on the results of this study, further research is needed to investigate the differences in patient safety management activities according to gender, the number of nurses per ward, and the nursing delivery system. Lowering informal communication and strengthening authentic leadership and downward communication may improve nurses’ patient safety management activities.