• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1999.10a
• /
• pp.250-251
• /
• 1999

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1995.10a
• /
• pp.167-168
• /
• 1995

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1996.10a
• /
• pp.291-292
• /
• 1996

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.63-66
• /
• 2015

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2000.10a
• /
• pp.171-172
• /
• 2000

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1997.10b
• /
• pp.256-257
• /
• 1997

• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.31 no.4 s.63
• /
• pp.844-856
• /
• 1998

Globally, cancer research has been considered one of the most important field of biomedical researches. Recently, in Korea, there are increasing concerns about cancer research and the development of national cancer control programme. For the efficient investment in cancer research at the national level, strategic approach is needed based on the nationwide information about current status of research. However even the basic data on cancer research have not been systematically collected, and are not available when necessary. The aim of this study is to assess current status of cancer research. For this purpose, this study applied two round Delphi method in which fifteen experts in cancer research fields participated. They rated each items on the initial list at the first round, and modified their responses at the second round. Panels responded that pathogenesis of cancer, research & development of cancer drug, and oncogene, etc. are the most urgent and important research Holds. They assessed national level of cancer research as being 49.6% of the world highest level. Coefficient of variation tended to be lowered with the iteration. Predictive stability was evaluated to be lower in items of urgency than in items of importance and research level. Although this study shares the same limitations in the selection of the experts with many other Delphi studies, it provides a primary data that would be required to plan the national strategy of the cancer research.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.433-437
• /
• 2020

Cancer is a disease which has the huge burden in worldwide, and cancer is the number one cause of death in Korea. At this point, the new framework for cancer monitoring index is required for regional cancer monitoring. Especially, cancer survivors are the important target which is rapidly increasing recently, also cancer survivor's quality of care should be considered in the cancer monitoring index framework. To develop the Multidimensional Cancer Monitoring Index considering cancer survivor's quality of care, we took into account cancer continuum which including prevention, detection, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, assessment of quality of care and monitoring cancer patient, and end-of life care for stage. For target, components of health care delivery system such as patient, family, provider, payer, and policy maker are included. Also, Donabedian model which is a framework for examining health services and evaluating quality of health care such as structure, process, and outcome is applied to contents. This new cancer monitoring framework which includes multidimensional components could help to develop regional cancer monitoring index, and to make national cancer management and prevention policy in the future.

• Journal of Society of Preventive Korean Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.1-15
• /
• 2020

Objectives : The objectives of this study were to investigate why and how China used traditional Chinese medicine as a response to COVID-19 and how its performance was achieved, and to explore ways to utilize traditional Korean medicine in Korea. Methods : We examined the information through government data and media articles. China's COVID-19 progress and policy response were reviewed and compared with Korea. Based on this, the characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine response in China were identified. Results : Based on legal basis, China makes the overall use of traditional Chinese medicines to respond to COVID-19. Traditional Chinese medicine has been applied to health insurance, the licensing regulations have been eased, and traditional Chinese medical specialists were dispatched. The medical care guidelines were developed and R&D were carried out. In addition, policies related to traditional Chinese medicine included policies for preventive treatment, the combination of Chinese and Western medicine, and telemedicine. Conclusions : Traditional Chinese medicine response to COVID-19 was included within the overall national quarantine policy, providing medical services for the mild stage. In addition, R&D was conducted to establish a basis for the utilization of traditional Chinese medicines. Traditional Korean medicine also needs to be prepared so that it can be used as a complement to the response of communicable diseases.

• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.36 no.2
• /
• pp.163-170
• /
• 2003

Objectives : This study aimed to develop an evaluation protocol of disability weights using person trade-off, and to test the reliability of the developed protocol in a Korean context. Methods : To develop the valuation protocol, the Global Burden of Disease(GBD) and the Dutch studies were replicated and modified. Sixteen indicator conditions were selected from the Korean version of disease classification, which was based on that of the GBD Study, and the person trade-off method referred to the Dutch method. Results : The disability weights were valued in a two step panel sfudy. The first step was a carefully designed group process by three panels, using person trade-off to establish the disability weights for sixteen selected indicator conditions. The second step consisted of interpolation of the remaining diseases, on a disability scale, by the individual members of three panels. The members of three panels were all medical doctors, with sufficient knowledge of the consequences of a broad variety of diseases. The internal consistency of the Korean disability weights was satisfactory. Considerable agreement existed within each panel and among the panels. Conclusions : It was feasible to use a modified evaluation protocol from those used in GBD and Dutch studies, This would provide a rational basis for an international comparative study of disability weights.