Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40919517›Full record

ArticleIntegrative medicine research2026

Traditional Korean and Western medicine use after industrial accidents: A hurdle model analysis.

Sungmin Park, Bo-Hyoung Jang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrative medicine research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sungmin ParkInstitute of Safety and Effectiveness Evaluation for Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.
Bo-Hyoung JangInstitute of Safety and Effectiveness Evaluation for Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The number of injured workers using Traditional Korean Medicine (KM) soared from 752 in 2013 to 10,273 in 2023, yet this trend remains underexplored. This cross-sectional study examined the frequency and factors linked to KM and Western Medicine (WM) use among injured workers. Methods: Data from 6,985 participants in the 2018 and 2023 waves of the Panel Study of Workers' Compensation Insurance (PSWCI) were analyzed. A hurdle model assessed outpatient visits: logistic regression for the probability of use and negative binomial regression for visit intensity. Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors were included as covariates. Results: Of 6,985 participants, 182 used KM, 5,970 used WM, and 833 reported no outpatient visits. Having private medical insurance and lower limb injuries showed higher Total Marginal Effects (TME) of both KM and WM utilization. KM use showed higher TMEs among females and those with occupational diseases but lower TMEs for injuries to other body regions. Higher WM utilization was linked to workers with disabilities, hypertension, chronic conditions, and extended rehabilitation, while the 2023 cohort, higher education and income, alcohol consumption, and re-employment were linked to lower WM use. Conclusions: Between 2018 and 2023, adjusted KM utilization remained unchanged, whereas WM visits declined. KM use was positively linked to being female and having occupational diseases. WM visits tended to rise with greater medical severity yet decreased as socioeconomic conditions improved. Still, the rise in total KM claims under WCI indicates a growing demand for conservative, pain-relieving musculoskeletal care.

Indexed as

Hurdle modelOccupational injuriesTotal Marginal EffectsTraditional Korean MedicineWorkers’ Compensation Insurance

Identifiers

PMID40919517
PMCPMC12410344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.