Search

Pediatric obesity is a serious global health challenge. In East Asia, rapid socioeconomic changes have increased obesity rates. This study examines weight distribution and obesity trends in East Asian children using WHO criteria. Data from the Non-Communicable Disease Risk Factor Collaboration was used to analyze weight categories (thinness, normal weight, overweight, and obesity) among children aged 5 to 19 in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Data were collected through probabilistic sampling and national surveys and classified using WHO BMI standards. Age standardized prevalence rate enabled cross-country comparisons for boys and girls from 2010 to 2022. Statistical methods included arithmetic statistics, linear regression, and time series analysis using the ARIMA model, with SAS 9.4 and SPSS for analysis. Significant trends were found (p for trend < 0.05). Taiwan and South Korea showed increased thinness, while China and Japan showed decreases. Normal weight prevalence declined, notably among South Korean boys. Overweight and obesity rates rose, especially among South Korean boys and Chinese girls. Japan's rates remained stable, while Taiwan showed minor fluctuations. Boys had higher overweight and obesity rates than girls in all countries. The highest rates were among children aged 10 to 11 years. East Asia, particularly South Korea and China, has seen rising obesity rates. Increasing thinness in South Korea and Taiwan also requires attention. The decline in healthy-weight children is concerning. Interventions should target children before ages 10 to 11. Urgent, tailored public health interventions are needed., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Hong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objective: This study aims to explore the opinions on the insurance coverage of artificial intelligence (AI), as categorized based on the distinct value elements offered by AI, with a specific focus on patient-centered outcomes (PCOs). PCOs are distinguished from traditional clinical outcomes and focus on patient-reported experiences and values such as quality of life, functionality, well-being, physical or emotional status, and convenience., Materials and Methods: We classified the value elements provided by AI into four dimensions: clinical outcomes, economic aspects, organizational aspects, and non-clinical PCOs. The survey comprised three sections: 1) experiences with PCOs in evaluating AI, 2) opinions on the coverage of AI by the National Health Insurance of the Republic of Korea when AI demonstrated benefits across the four value elements, and 3) respondent characteristics. The opinions regarding AI insurance coverage were assessed dichotomously and semi-quantitatively: non-approval (0) vs. approval (on a 1-10 weight scale, with 10 indicating the strongest approval). The survey was conducted from July 4 to 26, 2023, using a web-based method. Responses to PCOs and other value elements were compared., Results: Among 200 respondents, 44 (22%) were patients/patient representatives, 64 (32%) were industry/developers, 60 (30%) were medical practitioners/doctors, and 32 (16%) were government health personnel. The level of experience with PCOs regarding AI was low, with only 7% (14/200) having direct experience and 10% (20/200) having any experience (either direct or indirect). The approval rate for insurance coverage for PCOs was 74% (148/200), significantly lower than the corresponding rates for other value elements (82.5%-93.5%; P ≤ 0.034). The approval strength was significantly lower for PCOs, with a mean weight ± standard deviation of 5.1 ± 3.5, compared to other value elements ( P ≤ 0.036)., Conclusion: There is currently limited demand for insurance coverage for AI that demonstrates benefits in terms of non-clinical PCOs., Competing Interests: Hye Young Jang and Seong Ho Park, who hold respective positions on the Assistants to the Editor and Editor-in-Chief of the Korean Journal of Radiology, were not involved in the editorial evaluation or decision to publish this article. The remaining author has declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Korean Society of Radiology.)

There has been paucity of data regarding the secular trend of adverse outcomes in peritoneal dialysis (PD) as compared with hemodialysis (HD) in Korea. 96,596 patients who started dialysis between 2004-2015 in Korea were identified using the National Health Insurance Service database. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval, CI) of PD over HD for mortality was 1.31 (1.27-1.36; P < 0.001) in the period of 2004-2007 and 1.21 (1.16-1.27; P < 0.001) in the period of 2008-2011. However, the hazard of PD over HD for mortality turned out to be insignificant in the period of 2012-2015. Similar trend was noted for nonfatal cardiovascular events (CVEs). In subgroup analysis, the hazard of PD over HD for mortality was evident, regardless of the status of age, diabetes, and comorbidity burden in 2004-2011. In 2012-2015, however, the hazard of PD over HD for mortality was insignificant when follow up was censored at one year, which became significant when follow up follow up was censored at three or five year. In conclusion, the mortality of PD over HD in Korea has been significantly improved, a finding that was paralleled by the improved nonfatal CVEs.