Objective: Stigma influences perceptions of mental illness and novel diseases like coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), often impeding healthcare access despite advancements in medical treatment. This study compares the stigma associated with COVID-19 and mental illness to identify factors that could help reduce stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in May 2023 among 1,500 participants aged 19 to 65 in South Korea, using a panel from Embrain, an online survey service. The survey assessed stigma and distress related to COVID-19 and mental illness using a validated questionnaire. It collected demographic and clinical data, evaluated COVID-19-related stigma, fear, and knowledge, and measured prejudice and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10. Factors significantly associated with stigma scores were entered into linear regression analysis. Results: COVID-19-related stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with knowledge of COVID-19 and positively correlated with fear of infection and age. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection had significantly lower scores on COVID-19-related stigma. Similarly, mental illness stigma was negatively correlated with knowledge of psychiatric treatment and positively correlated with age, as well as conscientiousness and neuroticism in the BFI. Personal experience with individuals with mental illness was associated with significantly lower stigma scores. Conclusion This study suggests that the mechanism-making stigma was similar in cases of traditional mental illness and a novel infectious disease. Both cognitive and experiential factors influence stigma. Educating the public about the disease and enabling interactions with affected individuals emerge as effective strategies for stigma reduction.

Objective: Stigma influences perceptions of mental illness and novel diseases like coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), often impeding healthcare access despite advancements in medical treatment. This study compares the stigma associated with COVID-19 and mental illness to identify factors that could help reduce stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in May 2023 among 1,500 participants aged 19 to 65 in South Korea, using a panel from Embrain, an online survey service. The survey assessed stigma and distress related to COVID-19 and mental illness using a validated questionnaire. It collected demographic and clinical data, evaluated COVID-19-related stigma, fear, and knowledge, and measured prejudice and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10. Factors significantly associated with stigma scores were entered into linear regression analysis. Results: COVID-19-related stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with knowledge of COVID-19 and positively correlated with fear of infection and age. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection had significantly lower scores on COVID-19-related stigma. Similarly, mental illness stigma was negatively correlated with knowledge of psychiatric treatment and positively correlated with age, as well as conscientiousness and neuroticism in the BFI. Personal experience with individuals with mental illness was associated with significantly lower stigma scores. Conclusion This study suggests that the mechanism-making stigma was similar in cases of traditional mental illness and a novel infectious disease. Both cognitive and experiential factors influence stigma. Educating the public about the disease and enabling interactions with affected individuals emerge as effective strategies for stigma reduction.

Objective: Stigma influences perceptions of mental illness and novel diseases like coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), often impeding healthcare access despite advancements in medical treatment. This study compares the stigma associated with COVID-19 and mental illness to identify factors that could help reduce stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in May 2023 among 1,500 participants aged 19 to 65 in South Korea, using a panel from Embrain, an online survey service. The survey assessed stigma and distress related to COVID-19 and mental illness using a validated questionnaire. It collected demographic and clinical data, evaluated COVID-19-related stigma, fear, and knowledge, and measured prejudice and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10. Factors significantly associated with stigma scores were entered into linear regression analysis. Results: COVID-19-related stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with knowledge of COVID-19 and positively correlated with fear of infection and age. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection had significantly lower scores on COVID-19-related stigma. Similarly, mental illness stigma was negatively correlated with knowledge of psychiatric treatment and positively correlated with age, as well as conscientiousness and neuroticism in the BFI. Personal experience with individuals with mental illness was associated with significantly lower stigma scores. Conclusion This study suggests that the mechanism-making stigma was similar in cases of traditional mental illness and a novel infectious disease. Both cognitive and experiential factors influence stigma. Educating the public about the disease and enabling interactions with affected individuals emerge as effective strategies for stigma reduction.

Objective: Stigma influences perceptions of mental illness and novel diseases like coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), often impeding healthcare access despite advancements in medical treatment. This study compares the stigma associated with COVID-19 and mental illness to identify factors that could help reduce stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in May 2023 among 1,500 participants aged 19 to 65 in South Korea, using a panel from Embrain, an online survey service. The survey assessed stigma and distress related to COVID-19 and mental illness using a validated questionnaire. It collected demographic and clinical data, evaluated COVID-19-related stigma, fear, and knowledge, and measured prejudice and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10. Factors significantly associated with stigma scores were entered into linear regression analysis. Results: COVID-19-related stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with knowledge of COVID-19 and positively correlated with fear of infection and age. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection had significantly lower scores on COVID-19-related stigma. Similarly, mental illness stigma was negatively correlated with knowledge of psychiatric treatment and positively correlated with age, as well as conscientiousness and neuroticism in the BFI. Personal experience with individuals with mental illness was associated with significantly lower stigma scores. Conclusion This study suggests that the mechanism-making stigma was similar in cases of traditional mental illness and a novel infectious disease. Both cognitive and experiential factors influence stigma. Educating the public about the disease and enabling interactions with affected individuals emerge as effective strategies for stigma reduction.

Objective: Stigma influences perceptions of mental illness and novel diseases like coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), often impeding healthcare access despite advancements in medical treatment. This study compares the stigma associated with COVID-19 and mental illness to identify factors that could help reduce stigma. Methods: An online survey was conducted in May 2023 among 1,500 participants aged 19 to 65 in South Korea, using a panel from Embrain, an online survey service. The survey assessed stigma and distress related to COVID-19 and mental illness using a validated questionnaire. It collected demographic and clinical data, evaluated COVID-19-related stigma, fear, and knowledge, and measured prejudice and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10. Factors significantly associated with stigma scores were entered into linear regression analysis. Results: COVID-19-related stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with knowledge of COVID-19 and positively correlated with fear of infection and age. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection had significantly lower scores on COVID-19-related stigma. Similarly, mental illness stigma was negatively correlated with knowledge of psychiatric treatment and positively correlated with age, as well as conscientiousness and neuroticism in the BFI. Personal experience with individuals with mental illness was associated with significantly lower stigma scores. Conclusion This study suggests that the mechanism-making stigma was similar in cases of traditional mental illness and a novel infectious disease. Both cognitive and experiential factors influence stigma. Educating the public about the disease and enabling interactions with affected individuals emerge as effective strategies for stigma reduction.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

Purpose: This study evaluated whether combination therapy is more effective than monotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (MRGC) as first-line chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Elderly (≥ 70 years) chemo-naïve patients with MRGC were allocated to receive either combination therapy (group A: 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]/oxaliplatin, capecitabine/oxaliplatin, capecitabine/cisplatin, or S-1/cisplatin) or monotherapy (group B: 5-FU, capecitabine, or S-1). In group A, starting doses were 80% of standard doses, and they could be escalated to 100% at the discretion of the investigator. Primary endpoint was to confirm superior overall survival (OS) of combination therapy vs. monotherapy. Results: After 111 of the planned 238 patients were randomized, enrollment was terminated due to poor accrual. In the full-analysis population (group A [n=53] and group B [n=51]), median OS of combination therapy vs. monotherapy was 11.5 vs. 7.5 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.30; p=0.231). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 vs. 3.7 months (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83; p=0.005). In subgroup analyses, patients aged 70-74 years tended to have superior OS with combination therapy (15.9 vs. 7.2 months, p=0.056). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred more frequently in group A vs. group B. However, among severe TRAEs (≥ grade 3), there were no TRAEs with a frequency difference of > 5%. Conclusion Combination therapy was associated with numerically improved OS, although statistically insignificant, and a significant PFS benefit compared with monotherapy. Although combination therapy showed more frequent TRAEs, there was no difference in the frequency of severe TRAEs.