ArticlePreventive medicine reports2024
Attitudes and experiences of traditional Korean medicine practitioners in cases of traffic accidents: A qualitative study.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The surge in vehicles has escalated traffic volume, leading to an upswing in traffic accidents and subsequent disorders. Complex symptoms often characterize post-traumatic syndrome from these accidents. Traditional Korean medicine (TKM), increasingly used in car insurance, forms a substantial part of treatment costs. However, the current system lacks explicit fee guidelines and approval criteria for non-reimbursable TKM procedures, relying heavily on practitioners' judgment without robust evidence-based decision-making. This scenario raises concerns about treatment appropriateness and transparency. We aim to explore physicians' perspectives on utilizing TKM in emergency medicine, their participation sentiments, and their session selection process post-traffic accident. Methods: We collected TKM practitioners' opinions regarding their role in clinical environment and involvement in treating patients after traffic accidents. The need for comprehensive and standardized protocols for the diagnosis, treatment, management, and prognosis of patients with post-traumatic syndrome is evident. Additionally, improvements that facilitate rational decision-making by medical consumers and protect the treatment rights of healthcare providers are necessary. Results has emphasized the importance of evidence-based decision-making, establishing appropriate fee structures and detailed criteria for non-reimbursable TKM-based procedures, and enhancing regulations for the reliability and transparency of TKM-based treatments in the context of car insurance. Results and conclusions: The perspective of healthcare providers directly involved in TKM-based treatments must be considered to maintain a sustainable vehicular insurance system, transcending administrative policy discourse. We highlighted the challenges and potential solutions for improving the effectiveness and appropriateness of TKM-based treatments in the context of car insurance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.