The “fourth industrial revolution” (FIR) is an age of advanced technology based on information and communication. FIR has a more powerful impact on the economy than in the past. However, the prospects for the labor environment are uncertain. The purpose of this study is to anticipate and prepare for occupational health and safety (OHS) issues.In FIR, nonstandard employment will be common. As a result, it is difficult to receive OHS services and compensation. Excessive trust in new technologies can lead to large-scale or new forms of accidents. Global business networks will cause destruction of workers' biorhythms, some cancers, overwork, and task complexity. The social disconnection because of an independent work will be a risk for worker's mental health. The union bonds will weaken, and it will be difficult to apply standardized OHS regulations to multinational enterprises.To cope with the new OHS issues, we need to establish new concepts of "decent work” and standardize regulations, which apply to enterprises in each country, develop public health as an OHS service, monitor emerging OHS events and networks among independent workers, and nurture experts who are responsible for new OHS issues.

ObjectivesDespite a sharp increase in e-cigarette use, there is debate about whether e-cigarettes are a viable alternative for harm reduction, and the forms that regulation should take. Healthcare providers can be effective in offering guidance to patients and their families and shaping regulatory policy. We described lung cancer specialists’ attitudes toward e-cigarettes and its regulation.MethodsWe undertook a nationwide survey of pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, medical and radiological oncologists who are members of Korean Association for Lung Cancer. Survey items included beliefs and attitudes toward e-cigarettes, attitudes toward e-cigarette regulation and preparedness on discussing e-cigarettes with their patients.ResultsMost respondents believed that e-cigarettes are not safer than conventional tobacco cigarettes (75.7%) or smokeless tobacco (83.2%), and feared that discussing e-cigarettes with the patients would encourage use (65.4%). They did not consider it a smoking cessation treatment (78.3%), and thus would not recommend it to smokers who do not want to quit (82.2%) or who failed to quit with conventional smoking cessation treatment (74.1%). Most respondents supported all examples of e-cigarette regulations, including the safety and quality check (97.8%), warning label (97.8%), advertisement ban (95.1%), restriction of flavoring (78.4%), minimum purchasing age (99.5%), and restriction of indoor use (94.6%). Most learned about e-cigarettes from media and advertisements, or conversation with patients rather than through professional scientific resources, and reported discomfort when discussing e-cigarette with patients.ConclusionLung cancer specialist physicians in Korea doubt the safety of e-cigarette and use of e-cigarette as smoking cessation treatment, and supported strict regulation. However, only 20% reported that they obtained information on e-cigarettes from the scientific literature and many lacked adequate knowledge based on scientific evidence, suggesting the need for better preparedness. Nevertheless, the views of professionals revealed from our study could help to develop clinical guidelines and regulatory guidance.

No abstract

Background/Aims Colorectal cancer, one of the most common cancers in developed countries, is curable when diagnosed at an early stage. However, for better screening, both a test that patients will tolerate and diagnostic accuracy are required. We compared patient experiences and preferences between computed tomographic (CT) colonography and conventional colonoscopy (CC) under conscious sedation. Methods Patients referred to the gastrointestinal clinic for CC were enrolled to also undergo CT colonography prior to CC. After each procedure, patients completed a questionnaire in which variables, such as abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, and loss of dignity, were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale, with the highest score representing the worst experience. To verify response stability, a telephone questionnaire followed within 24 h after each procedure. Patients were then asked about their preference for CT colonography or CC. Results Data were collected from 51 patients who fulfilled all requirements, including CT colonography, CC, the two questionnaires after each procedure, and a follow-up questionnaire. Severity of abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, and a loss of dignity were reported to be higher in CT colonography than in CC ( p <0.01). In addition, the preference for CC was significantly higher than that for CT colonography ( p <0.01). Conclusions Although CT colonography is a safe and noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer, further study is required to increase patient acceptance.

These results suggest that the amino acid multivariate index previously developed from a Japanese dataset has the potential to aid in the early detection of lung cancers of different histological types in Korean patients.