Based on the findings of this study, we recommend that South Korean hospitals offer occupational stress management programs that incorporate relevant programs in efforts to strengthen the overall components of PCP among nurses to reduce turnover intentions. Further studies are required to determine the most effective intervention programs for hospital settings.

This paper examines how working from home influenced the division of childcare and housework among dual earning heterosexual couples with children in the UK during the first wave of the COVID-19 lockdown. We use unique data gathered during the peak of the UK lockdown (May-June), when many employees were required to work from home, to see whether fathers flexible working was associated with a more equitable division of housework and childcare. We found mothers were more likely to be the ones carrying out more if not all of five of the six categories of housework and care we examined – namely, cooking, cleaning, routine and non-routine childcare, and the education of children/home-schooling, both before and during the lockdown. This was not the case for the DIY tasks. A multivariate regression analysis showed that when fathers worked from home or using flexitime during the lockdown, a more equal division was found for tasks such as cleaning, routine childcare, and to some extent home schooling. Furthermore, fathers who worked flexibly were more likely to report that they had increased the amount of time they spent on housework and care. Mothers also reported that fathers who worked from home increased the time they spent on routine childcare. Overall, the study shows how flexible working, including working from home among men, especially done on a mass scale where there are no negative assumptions or stigma behind its use, may lead to a more equitable distribution of housework and childcare. Policy makers should encourage more men to work from home in order to support families and women’s labour market participation during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

Our results suggest that although laypersons had a fair knowledge about dementia, further educational programs and campaigns are needed to improve knowledge about dementia, more focusing on elderly adults as the target audience and emphasizing the causes and treatments of dementia as educational contents.

No abstract

BackgroundTo systematically investigate the current status and methodology of health technology reassessment (HTR) in various countries to draw insights for the healthcare system in South Korea.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted on the articles published between January 2000 and February 2015 on Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PubMed. The titles and abstracts of retrieved records were screened and selected by two independent reviewers. Data related to HTR were extracted using a pre-standardised form. The review was conducted using narrative synthesis to understand and summarise the HTR process and policies.ResultsForty five studies, conducted in seven countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, and the United States of America, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Informed by the literature review, and complemented by informant interviews, we focused on HTR activities in four jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Spain. There were similarities in the HTR processes, namely the use of existing health technology assessment agencies, reassessment candidate technology identification and priority setting, stakeholder involvement, support for reimbursement coverage, and implementation strategies. Considering the findings of the systematic review in the context of the domestic healthcare environment in Korea, an appropriate HTR model was developed. This model included four stages, those of identification, prioritisation, reassessment and decision.ConclusionsDisinvestment and reinvestment through the HTR was used to increase the efficiency and quality of care to help patients receive optimal treatment. Based on the lessons learnt from other countries’ experiences, Korea should make efforts to establish an HTR process that optimises the National Healthcare Insurance system through revision of the existing Medical Service Act.

Breast cancer is the second most common malignancy among Korean women. The 2002 National Cancer Center screening guideline breast cancer was revised via an evidence-based approach to provide medical personnel with a standard protocol of screening breast cancer. There is moderate-level evidence that biennial screening mammography in asymptomatic women aged 40 to 69 reduces breast cancer mortality, while low-level evidence suggests that screening mammography in women 70 years or older does not reduce breast cancer mortality. The committee concluded that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of either ultrasonography or clinical breast examination as screening modalities for breast cancer. Future researches about the benefits and harms of the National Breast Cancer Screening Program in Korea are strongly required because the characteristics of breast cancer in Korea are different from those in the West, especially regarding dense breast. In conclusion, the committee recommends biennial screening mammography in asymptomatic women aged 40 to 69 years (grade B recommendation). The committee recommends selective screening mammography in women 70 years or older according to individual risk and preference (grade C recommendation). The committee neither recommends nor opposes ultrasonography and clinical breast examination as screening modalities (grade I recommendation). Symptomatic and high-risk women, however, should be offered complementary measures including ultrasonography and clinical breast examination under clinical supervision.

BackgroundA systematic review is used to investigate the best available evidence of clinical safety and effectiveness of healthcare intervention. This requires methodological rigor in order to minimize bias and random error. The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses for nursing interventions conducted by Korean researchers.MethodsWe searched electronic databases from 1950 to July 2010, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, and Korean databases, including KoreaMed, Korean Medical Database, and Korean studies Information Service System etc. Two reviewers independently screened and selected all references, and assessed the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses using the “Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR) tool.ResultsTwenty two systematic reviews or meta-analyses were included in this study. The median overall score (out of 11) for included reviews was 5 (range 2–11) and the mean overall score for AMSTAR was 4.7 (95% confidence interval 3.8-5.7). Nine out of 22 reviews were rated as low quality (AMSTAR score 0–4), 11 were rated as moderate quality (AMSTAR score 5–8), and two reviews were categorized as high quality (AMSTAR score 9–11).ConclusionsThe methodological quality of published reviews on nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers was assessed as low to moderate. In order to use the best available evidence in clinical decision making, reviewers should conduct systematic reviews or meta- analyses using rigorous research methods.