• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.17 no.8
• /
• pp.3769-3776
• /
• 2016

Background: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths among women worldwide. High breast cancer mortality has been attributed to lack of public awareness of the disease. Little is known about the level of knowledge of breast cancer in Central African Republic. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge of health professionals on breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 158 health professionals (27 medical; 131 paramedical) in 17 hospitals in Bangui using a self-administered questionnaire. Descriptive statistical analysis, Person's ${\chi}^2$ test and ANOVA were applied to examine associations between variables with p < 0.05 being considered significant. Results: Data analyzed using SPSS version 20 indicates that average knowledge about breast cancer perception of the entire population was 47.6%, diagnosis method 45.5%, treatment 34.3% and risk factors 23.8%. Most respondents (65.8%) agreed that breast cancer is important in Central African Republic and that family history is a risk factor (44.3%). Clinical assessments and mammography were considered most suitable diagnostic methods, and surgery as the best treatment. The knowledge level was significantly higher among medical than paramedical staff with regard to risk factors, diagnosis and treatment. However the trainee group had very high significant differences of knowledge compared with all other groups. Conclusions: There is a very urgent need to update the various training programs for these professionals, with recommendations of retraining. Health authorities must create suitable structures for the overall management of cancer observed as a serious public health problem.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.2691-2703
• /
• 2015

This research aims to provide basic materials for assisting DNR patient cares by understanding ICU nurses' awareness and ethical attitude regarding DNR. A total of 154 results were analyzed which were collected from Aug. 1st to Sep. 5th in 2014 by surveying nurses working in ICU (from 1 advanced general hospital in G metropolitan city and other general hospitals of more than 700 beds in Cheolla provinces). (1) For the decision attitudes of DNR, there were both consent and objection. Consent for the patient's opinion of rejecting further treatment and life extension despite of bad prognosis. And objection for no conducting DNR in the case of the patient's wish, treatment requested by the guardian, and CPR for the patient who has no chance. (2) Objection for artificial respirator and other treatment requested by the patient's family and the entrance of guardians into ICU. Consent for the passive use of artificial respirator by the doctor and the decrease of basic care to stabilize patients physically and mentally. No specific opinion for treatment not following aseptic techniques. Objection for frequent reports to primary care physician requested by the family. (3) Acknowledging less interest by the doctor, while supporting the health care team in the case of the guardian's complaint, objection for the DNR decision mede by the primary care physician. Objection for the DNR decision by the guideline. Objection or neutrality for straightforward explanation to the patient of bad prognosis. Objection for straightforward explanation of the patient's status (even near to death) to the patient him/herself or the guardian. In conclusion, the subject of DNR is the patient and the patient's opinion should be fully reflected. The conflict arising from the scope of medical practice and decision processes should be minimized. The standard and guideline for DNR decision is required for the ethical decision making for the patient along with agreements based on full explanations.

• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.469-474
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to examine the satisfaction level of parents with elementary school students in some metropolitan areas with the pit and fissure sealing program in a bid to raise awareness of the importance of the preventive treatment and accelerate the spread of it. The subjects in this study were 231 parents who had school children and resided in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province. After a self-administered survey was conducted in October and November 2008, the collected data were analyzed. The findings of the study were as follows; 1. As to places for receiving the preventive treatment, 111 respondents (48.1%) experienced pit and fissure sealing in dental clinics, and 88 respondents(38.1%) did that in dental hospitals. 177 people(76.6%) received that treatment from dentists, and 16 respondents(11.3%) did that from dental hygienists. 2. Concerning whether to be for or against the pit and fissure sealing program, more than half that numbered 143(61.9%) supported that program, and 88 respondents(38.1%) didn't. As for satisfaction level, they expressed the biggest satisfaction with the preventive effect of that treatment($3.92{\pm}.85$), and were least satisfied with the cost($1.91{\pm}.86$). 3. Regarding links between general characteristics and satisfaction level, they were statistically significantly different in satisfaction level with the cost according to residential area and the number of child, and age made a statistically significant difference to their satisfaction level with the preventive effect of it. 4. As for relationship between warranty term and whether to be for the pit and fissure sealing program or not, 45(31.5%) out of those who supported the program were provided with no warranty, and 32(36.4%) out of those who took a stand against it were provided with no warranty, either. Warranty was provided to 12(8.4%) respondents of the former group without a fixed term, but that's not the case for any of the latter. The warranty term made statistically significant differences to their agreement or disagreement to the program(p<0.05).

• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.37-48
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the operational status and level of understanding among IRB and HRPP staffs at a hospital or a research institute to the HRPP guideline set by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) and to provide recommendations. Methods: Online survey was distributed among members of Korean Association of IRB (KAIRB) through each IRB office. The result was separated according to topic and descriptive statistics was used for analysis. Result: Survey notification was sent out to 176 institutions and 65 (37.1%) institutions answered the survey by online. Of 65 institutions that answered the survey; 83.1% was hospital, 12.3% was university, 3.1% was medical college, 1.5% was research institution. 23 institutions (25.4%) established independent HRPP offices and 39 institutions (60.0%) did not. 12 institutions (18.5%) had separate IRB and HRPP heads, 21 (32.3%) institutions separated business reporting procedure and person in charge, 12 institutions separated the responsibility of IRB and HRPP among staff, and 45 institutions (69.2%) had audit & non-compliance managers. When asked about the most important basic task for HRPP, 23% answered self-audit. And according to 43.52%, self-audit was also the most by both institutions that operated HRPP and institutions that did not. When basic task performance status was analyzed, on average, the institutions that operated HRPP was 14% higher than institutions that only operated IRB. 9 (13.8%) institutions were evaluated and obtained HRPP accreditation from MFDS and the most common reason for obtaining the accreditation was to be selected as Institution for the education of persons conducting clinical trial (6 institutions). The most common reason for not obtaining HRPP accreditation was because of insufficient staff and limited capacity of the institution (28%). Institutions with and without a plan to be HRPP accredited by MFDS were 20 (37.7%) each. 34 institutions (52.3%) answered HRPP evaluation method and accreditation by MFDS was appropriate while 31 institutions (47.7%) answered otherwise. 36 institutions answered that HRPP evaluation and accreditation by MFDS was credible while 29 institutions (44.5%) answered that HRPP evaluation method and accreditation by MFDS was not credible. Conclusion: 1. MFDS's HRPP accreditation program can facilitate the main objective of HRPP and MFDS's HRPP accreditation program should be encouraged to non-tertiary hospitals by taking small staff size into consideration and issuing accreditation by segregating accreditation. 2. While issuing Institution for the education of persons conducting clinical trial status as a benefit of MFDS's HRPP accreditation program, it can also hinder access to MFDS's HRPP accreditation program. It should also be considered that the non-contact culture during COVID-19 pandemic eliminated time and space limitation for education. 3. For clinical research conducted internally by an institution, internal audit is the most effective and sole method of protecting safety and right of the test subjects and integrity for research in Korea. For this reason, regardless of the size of the institution, an internal audit should be enforced. 4. It is necessary for KAIRB and MFDSto improve HRPP awareness by advocating and educating the concept and necessity of HRPP in clinical research. 5. A new HRPP accreditation system should be setup for all clinical research with human subjects, including Investigational New Drug (IND) application in near future.