Risk perception was associated with most of the social factors examined and overreaction by the public. Therefore, providing accurate information and data to the public, establishing trust, and facilitating the development of an attitude will all be important in future crises.

Objective We evaluated the effect on treatment using the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosis. Methods Singleton pregnant women whose plasma glucose levels were ≥140 mg/dL on the 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) underwent 75 g oral glucose tolerance for GDM diagnosis. During the first half of the study period, GDM was diagnosed using 2 abnormal values by Carpenter-Coustan (C-C) criteria. In the second half of the study period, 1 or more abnormal values by IADPSG criteria were used for GDM diagnosis. Pregnant women were classified into 5 groups: normal 50 g GCT, positive 50 g GCT but non-GDM, GDM by IADPSG criteria and non-treated, GDM by IADPSG criteria and treated, GDM by CC criteria and treated. The odds ratios (ORs) for large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomia were analyzed. Results Of the 2,678 patients, the frequency of GDM diagnosed by CC and IADPSG criteria was 2.6% and 7.5%. ORs (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for LGA and macrosomia in the group with GDM by IADPSG criteria and non-treated were 2.81 (95% CI, 1.47-5.38) and 2.84 (95% CI, 1.08-7.47). The risk of LGA and macrosomia did not increase in the group with GDM by IADPSG criteria and treated. Conclusion The risk of LGA and macrosomia for mild GDM diagnosed solely by IADPSG criteria depends on whether they are treated or not. Treatment of GDM based on IADPSG criteria reduces the risk of excessive fetal growth.

ObjectiveIn 2007, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that all pregnant women be offered screening or diagnostic tests for chromosomal abnormalities regardless of their age. Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for common chromosomal aneuploidies was introduced as a screening test in case of high-risk pregnancies. We assessed the rates of prenatal tests in women aged 35 years and older.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted to compare the rates of amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling (CVS), serum screening, and NIPT from January 2005 through March 2017 in women aged 35 years and older. We divided the initial 12 months after NIPT introduction into 4-month intervals, beginning in April 2016 through March 2017.ResultsThe rates of amniocentesis were 56% before the ACOG statement, 38% between the ACOG statement and NIPT introduction, and 10% after NIPT introduction (P=0.001). The rates of CVS during the same periods were 0.5%, 2.1%, and 4.3% (P=0.016), respectively. The rates of serum screening were 44.2%, 61.3%, and 55.1% (P=0.049), respectively. During the 3 quarters after NIPT introduction, the rates of amniocentesis were 16.2%, 12.3%, and 7.3% (P=0.002), respectively; the rates of serum screening were 62%, 54%, and 46% (P=0.03), respectively; and the rates of NIPT were 19.9%, 30.3%, and 39.5% (P=0.007), respectively. The rates of CVS over the same periods were not significantly different.ConclusionThe ACOG statement and NIPT introduction significantly decreased the rate of amniocentesis in women of advanced maternal age. NIPT also reduced the rate of serum screening.

Background The number of mobile health apps is rapidly increasing. This means that consumers are faced with a bewildering array of choices, and finding the benefit of such apps may be challenging. The significant international burden of breast cancer (BC) and the potential of mobile health apps to improve medical and public health practices mean that such apps will likely be important because of their functionalities in daily life. As the app market has grown exponentially, several review studies have scrutinized cancer- or BC-related apps. However, those reviews concentrated on the availability of the apps and relied on user ratings to decide on app quality. To minimize subjectivity in quality assessment, quantitative methods to assess BC-related apps are required. Objective The purpose of this study is to analyze the content and quality of BC-related apps to provide useful information for end users and clinicians. Methods Based on a stepwise systematic approach, we analyzed apps related to BC, including those related to prevention, detection, treatment, and survivor support. We used the keywords “breast cancer” in English and Korean to identify commercially available apps in the Google Play and App Store. The apps were then independently evaluated by 2 investigators to determine their eligibility for inclusion. The content and quality of the apps were analyzed using objective frameworks and the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), respectively. Results The initial search identified 1148 apps, 69 (6%) of which were included. Most BC-related apps provided information, and some recorded patient-generated health data, provided psychological support, and assisted with medication management. The Kendall coefficient of concordance between the raters was 0.91 (P<.001). The mean MARS score (range: 1-5) of the apps was 3.31 (SD 0.67; range: 1.94-4.53). Among the 5 individual dimensions, functionality had the highest mean score (4.37, SD 0.42) followed by aesthetics (3.74, SD 1.14). Apps that only provided information on BC prevention or management of its risk factors had lower MARS scores than those that recorded medical data or patient-generated health data. Apps that were developed >2 years ago, or by individuals, had significantly lower MARS scores compared to other apps (P<.001). Conclusions The quality of BC-related apps was generally acceptable according to the MARS, but the gaps between the highest- and lowest-rated apps were large. In addition, apps using personalized data were of higher quality than those merely giving related information, especially after treatment in the cancer care continuum. We also found that apps that had been updated within 1 year and developed by private companies had higher MARS scores. This may imply that there are criteria for end users and clinicians to help choose the right apps for better clinical outcomes.

No abstract