Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: To develop an integrated and comprehensive community-based mental healthcare model, opinions were collected on various issues from practitioners in mental health service institutions currently offering mental healthcare services in Seoul through a focus group interview, qualitative research method, and Delphi survey. Methods: The focus group interview was conducted with six practitioners from mental health welfare centers and six hospital-based psychiatrists. A questionnaire of opinions on the mental healthcare model was filled by these practitioners and psychiatrists. A Delphi survey was additionally conducted with a panel of 20 experts from a community mental health welfare center and hospital-based psychiatrists. Results: The focus group interview results showed the need for integrated community-based mental healthcare service and the need to establish a system for managing mental and physical health in an integrated manner. Based on the survey results, the current status of community-based mental healthcare services was investigated, and the direction of the revised model was established. The Delphi survey was then conducted to refine the revised model. Conclusion The present study presents the Seoul-type community-based mental healthcare model with integrated services between a psychiatric hospital with a mental health welfare center as well as combined mental and physical health services. This is ultimately expected to help people with mental illnesses live healthy lives by meeting their needs as community members.

This study was performed to select the proper assessing methods for learning outcomes in undergraduate education of medical humanities (MH), and to evaluate whether student assessments in MH curricula are related to the graduate outcomes (GO)and/or periodic phase outcomes (PO). We searched the reasonable assessing methods for GO and PO of MH curricula of Keimyung University School of Medicine (KUSM). The outcomes are composed of six competencies including patient care, communication, patient support, professionalism, problem solving and research, and self-development. Then, we analyzed whether student assessments carried out during formal MH curricula properly achieved their PO, furthermore their GO. Four competencies including communication, patient support, professionalism, self-development were lightened to be closely related to outcomes for MH. Only the component of problem solving was settled to be related to MH in the competency of problem solving and research. The competency of patient care was excluded from the relationship with MH. The assessing methods for the GO and three PO recommended from educational experts, and there were various available assessing methods based on medical situations and clinical contexts including direct observation of clinical skills, 360 degree feedback, peer review, self-assessment, project-based assessment, portfolio-based assessment, discussion & presentation-based assessment, log-based assessment. For the outcome-achieving from formal MH curricula, the MH programs of phase-1 (1st and 2nd grades) almost accomplished the PO of communication, patient supporting and professionalism, and considerably accomplished the PO of problem solving and self-development. The MH programs of phase-2 (3rd and 4th grades) accomplished considerably their PO as the competencies of professionalism and problem solving, and partially as communication, patient supporting and self-development. However, as only one program, public health law, was provided for MH program in phase-3 (5th and 6th grades), the extra methods to evaluate their MH outcomes are needed. Many assessing methods can be available for the most MH competencies consisting of the GO of KUSM, and the proper assessing methods for each MH competency should be selected based on programs and learning contexts in MH education. While formal MH curricula of the school variously accomplished the MH competencies of GO according to periodic phases of curricula, it is recommended to enhance the feasibility and effectiveness of evaluation for GO in MH curricula of the school.

Purpose: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) in Korean patients with medically uncontrolled pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (PEXG). Methods: This retrospective observational study enrolled 43 medically uncontrolled PEXG patients who underwent a 360° SLT and were followed up for at least 12 months after SLT. The intraocular pressure (IOP) before and after SLT at 1 week, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was evaluated. Treatment success was defined as an IOP reduction of ≥20% from the baseline and an IOP equal to lower than 22 mmHg without additional anti-glaucomatous intervention. Additionally, every follow-up medical record was reviewed to assess any possible side effects of SLT. Results: Based on the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the treatment success rate at 12 months after SLT was 41.9% (18 eyes). For the success group at the 12 months follow-up, SLT showed a mean IOP reduction of 10.3 ± 5.0 mmHg (from 25.6 ± 4.4 to 15.2 ± 2.9 mmHg; 39.3%, p < 0.05). Among the 25 eyes that were considered as the treatment failure group, 14 eyes underwent glaucoma filtering surgeries, four eyes received additional SLT, and further intervention and follow-up was refused for seven eyes. During the overall follow-up period, there were no significant adverse events. Conclusions SLT is a partially effective and safe procedure for lowering IOP in Korean patients with medically refractory PEXG. Therefore, it can be considered as one of the alternative treatment modalities in patients who are at high risk for conventional filtering surgery.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the level of professional ethics awareness and medical ethics competency in order to assess the potential need for ethics items to be included on the Korean Dental Hygienist Licensing Examination. Methods: In total, 358 clinical dental hygienists and dental hygiene students completed a structured questionnaire to evaluate their level of ethical awareness and medical ethics competency. The sub-factors of medical ethics were classified into relationships with patients, medical and social relations, and individual specialized fields. Results: Only 32.1% of participants indicated that they had taken a course on professional ethics in the university curriculum, but 95.2% of respondents considered professional ethics to be important. The overall score for medical ethics competency was average (3.37 out of 5). The score for relationships with patients was 3.75 points, followed by medical and social relations (3.19 points) and individual specialized fields (3.16 points). The level of professional ethics awareness was higher among participants who had taken a course on professional ethics than among those who had not done so or who did not remember whether they had done so. Conclusion Dental hygienists were aware of the importance of professional ethics, but their medical ethics competency was moderate. Therefore, medical ethics should be treated as a required subject in the university curriculum, and medical ethics competency evaluations should be strengthened by adding ethics items to the Korean Dental Hygienist Licensing Examination.

Background: The fatality rate of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) varies among countries owing to demographics, patient comorbidities, surge capacity of healthcare systems, and the quality of medical care. We assessed the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of the epidemic in Korea. Methods: Using a modified World Health Organization clinical record form, we obtained clinical data for 3,060 patients with COVID-19 treated at 55 hospitals in Korea. Disease severity scores were defined as: 1) no limitation of daily activities; 2) limitation of daily activities but no need for supplemental oxygen; 3) supplemental oxygen via nasal cannula; 4) supplemental oxygen via facial mask; 5) non-invasive mechanical ventilation; 6) invasive mechanical ventilation; 7) multi-organ failure or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy; and 8) death. Recovery was defined as a severity score of 1 or 2, or discharge and release from isolation. Results: The median age of the patients was 43 years of age; 43.6% were male. The median time from illness onset to admission was 5 days. Of the patients with a disease severity score of 3–4 on admission, 65 (71.5%) of the 91 patients recovered, and 7 (7.7%) died due to illness by day 28. Of the patients with disease severity scores of 5–7, 7 (19.5%) of the 36 patients recovered, and 8 (22.2%) died due to illness by day 28. None of the 1,324 patients who were < 50 years of age died; in contrast, the fatality rate due to illness by day 28 was 0.5% (2/375), 0.9% (2/215), 5.8% (6/104), and 14.0% (7/50) for the patients aged 50–59, 60–69, 70–79, and ≥ 80 years of age, respectively. Conclusion In Korea, almost all patients of < 50 years of age with COVID-19 recovered without supplemental oxygen. In patients of ≥ 50 years of age, the fatality rate increased with age, reaching 14% in patients of ≥ 80 years of age.