scholarly journals The Cholera Epidemic of 1907 and the Formation of Colonial Epidemic Control Systems in Korea

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 547-578
Author(s):  
Kyu Won LEE

It was in 1907 when Korea was annexed by Japan in the field of health care systems as the Gwangje Hospital, Uihakgyo the National Medical School and the Korean Red Cross Hospital were merged into the colonial Daehan Hospital, and massive cholera epidemic controls by the Japanese Army were enforced. However, despite their importance, the cholera epidemic of 1907 in Korea and preventive measures taken at that time have not yet been studied extensively as a single research subject. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a more concrete and broader understanding of the Korea-Japan annexation of health care systems under the rule of the Japanese Resident-General of Korea by revealing new facts and correcting existing errors. In 1907, cholera was transmitted to Korea from China and Japan and spread across the Korean Peninsula, resulting in a major public health crisis, perhaps one of the most serious cholera outbreaks in the twentieth century Korea. Although Busan and Pyeongyang were the cities most infected with cholera, the targets for the most intensive interventions were Gyeongseong (Seoul) and Incheon, where the Japanese Crown Prince were supposed to make a visit. The Japanese police commissioner took several anti-cholera preventive measures in Gyeongseong, including searching out patients, disinfecting and blocking infected areas, and isolating the confirmed or suspected. Nevertheless, cholera was about to be rampant especially among Japanese residents. In this situation, Itō Hirobumi, the first Resident-General of Korea, organized the temporary cholera control headquarters to push ahead the visit of the Japanese Crown Prince for his political purposes to colonize Korea. To dispel Emperor Meiji’s concerns, Itō had to appoint Satō Susumu, the famous Japanese Army Surgeon General, as an advisor, since he had much credit at Court. In addition, as the Japanese-led Korean police lacked epidemic control ability and experience, the headquarters became an improvised organization commanded by the Japanese Army in Korea and wielded great influence on the formation of the colonial disease control systems. Its activities were forced, violent, and negligent, and many Korean people were quite uncooperative in some anti-cholera measures. As a result, the Japanese Army in Korea took the initiative away from the Korean police in epidemic controls, serving the heavy-handed military policy of early colonial period. In short, the cholera epidemic and its control in 1907 were important events that shaped the direction of Japan’s colonial rule.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Cazap ◽  
Ian Magrath ◽  
T. Peter Kingham ◽  
Ahmed Elzawawy

Noncommunicable diseases are now recognized by the United Nations and WHO as a major public health crisis. Cancer is a main part of this problem, and health care systems are facing a great challenge to improve cancer care, control costs, and increase systems efficiency. The disparity in access to care and outcomes between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries is staggering. The reasons for this disparity include cost, access to care, manpower and training deficits, and a lack of awareness in the lay and medical communities. Diagnosis and treatment play an important role in this complex environment. In different regions and countries of the world, a variety of health care systems are in place, but most of them are fragmented or poorly coordinated. The need to scale up cancer care in the low- and middle-income countries is urgent, and this article reviews many of the structural mechanisms of the problem, describes the current situation, and proposes ways for improvement. The organization of cancer services is also included in the analysis.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lise Helsingen ◽  
Erle Refsum ◽  
Dagrun Kyte Gjøstein ◽  
Magnus Løberg ◽  
Michael Bretthauer ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Norway and Sweden have similar populations and health care systems, but different reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Norway closed educational institutions, and banned sports and cultural activities; Sweden kept most institutions and training facilities open. We aimed to compare peoples’ attitudes towards authorities and control measures, and perceived impact of the pandemic and implemented control measures on life in Norway and Sweden.Methods: Anonymous web-based surveys for individuals age 15 or older distributed through Facebook using the snowball method, in Norway and Sweden from mid-March to mid-April, 2020. The survey contained questions about perceived threat of the pandemic, views on infection control measures, and impact on daily life. We performed descriptive analyses of the responses and compared the two countries.Results: 3,508 individuals participated in the survey (Norway 3000; Sweden 508). 79% were women, the majority were 30-49 years (Norway 60%; Sweden 47%), and about 45% of the participants in both countries had more than four years of higher education.Participants had high trust in the health services, but differed in the degree of trust in their government (High trust in Norway 17%; Sweden 37%). More Norwegians than Swedes agreed that school closure was a good measure (Norway 66%; Sweden 18%), that countries with open schools were irresponsible (Norway 65%; Sweden 23%), and that the threat from repercussions of the mitigation measures were large or very large (Norway 71%; Sweden 56%). Both countries had a high compliance with infection preventive measures (> 98%). Many lived a more sedentary life (Norway 69%; Sweden 50%) and ate more (Norway 44%; Sweden 33%) during the pandemic. Conclusion: Sweden had more trust in the authorities, while Norwegians reported a more negative lifestyle during the pandemic. The level of trust in the health care system and self-reported compliance with preventive measures was high in both countries despite the differences in infection control measures.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lise M. Helsingen ◽  
◽  
Erle Refsum ◽  
Dagrun Kyte Gjøstein ◽  
Magnus Løberg ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Norway and Sweden have similar populations and health care systems, but different reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Norway closed educational institutions, and banned sports and cultural activities; Sweden kept most institutions and training facilities open. We aimed to compare peoples’ attitudes towards authorities and control measures, and perceived impact of the pandemic and implemented control measures on life in Norway and Sweden. Methods Anonymous web-based surveys for individuals age 15 or older distributed through Facebook using the snowball method, in Norway and Sweden from mid-March to mid-April, 2020. The survey contained questions about perceived threat of the pandemic, views on infection control measures, and impact on daily life. We performed descriptive analyses of the responses and compared the two countries. Results 3508 individuals participated in the survey (Norway 3000; Sweden 508). 79% were women, the majority were 30–49 years (Norway 60%; Sweden 47%), and about 45% of the participants in both countries had more than 4 years of higher education. Participants had high trust in the health services, but differed in the degree of trust in their government (High trust in Norway 17%; Sweden 37%). More Norwegians than Swedes agreed that school closure was a good measure (Norway 66%; Sweden 18%), that countries with open schools were irresponsible (Norway 65%; Sweden 23%), and that the threat from repercussions of the mitigation measures were large or very large (Norway 71%; Sweden 56%). Both countries had a high compliance with infection preventive measures (> 98%). Many lived a more sedentary life (Norway 69%; Sweden 50%) and ate more (Norway 44%; Sweden 33%) during the pandemic. Conclusion Sweden had more trust in the authorities, while Norwegians reported a more negative lifestyle during the pandemic. The level of trust in the health care system and self-reported compliance with preventive measures was high in both countries despite the differences in infection control measures.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharath Chandra Guntuku ◽  
Jonathan Purtle ◽  
Zachary F Meisel ◽  
Raina M Merchant ◽  
Anish Agarwal

BACKGROUND As policy makers continue to shape the national and local responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, the information they choose to share and how they frame their content provide key insights into the public and health care systems. OBJECTIVE We examined the language used by the members of the US House and Senate during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and measured content and sentiment based on the tweets that they shared. METHODS We used Quorum (Quorum Analytics Inc) to access more than 300,000 tweets posted by US legislators from January 1 to October 10, 2020. We used differential language analyses to compare the content and sentiment of tweets posted by legislators based on their party affiliation. RESULTS We found that health care–related themes in Democratic legislators’ tweets focused on racial disparities in care (odds ratio [OR] 2.24, 95% CI 2.22-2.27; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), health care and insurance (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.7-1.77; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), COVID-19 testing (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.19; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), and public health guidelines (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.22-1.29; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). The dominant themes in the Republican legislators’ discourse included vaccine development (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.47-1.55; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) and hospital resources and equipment (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.18-1.25). Nonhealth care–related topics associated with a Democratic affiliation included protections for essential workers (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.52-1.59), the 2020 election and voting (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.27-1.35), unemployment and housing (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.24-1.31), crime and racism (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.18-1.26), public town halls (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.23), the Trump Administration (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.19-1.26), immigration (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.19), and the loss of life (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.35-1.42). The themes associated with the Republican affiliation included China (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.85-1.92), small business assistance (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.23-1.3), congressional relief bills (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.2-1.27), press briefings (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.19-1.26), and economic recovery (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.23). CONCLUSIONS Divergent language use on social media corresponds to the partisan divide in the first several months of the course of the COVID-19 public health crisis.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lise Helsingen ◽  
Erle Refsum ◽  
Dagrun Kyte Gjøstein ◽  
Magnus Løberg ◽  
Michael Bretthauer ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Norway and Sweden have similar populations and health care systems, but different reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Norway closed educational institutions, and banned sports and cultural activities; Sweden kept most institutions and training facilities open. We aimed to compare peoples’ attitudes towards authorities and control measures, and perceived impact of the pandemic and implemented control measures on life in Norway and Sweden. Methods: Anonymous web-based surveys for individuals age 15 or older distributed through Facebook using the snowball method, in Norway and Sweden from mid-March to mid-April, 2020. The survey contained questions about perceived threat of the pandemic, views on infection control measures, and impact on daily life. We performed descriptive analyses of the responses and compared the two countries. Results: 3,508 individuals participated in the survey (Norway 3000; Sweden 508). 79% were women, the majority were 30-49 years (Norway 60%; Sweden 47%), and about 45% of the participants in both countries had more than four years of higher education. Participants had high trust in the health services, but differed in the degree of trust in their government (High trust in Norway 17%; Sweden 37%). More Norwegians than Swedes agreed that school closure was a good measure (Norway 66%; Sweden 18%), that countries with open schools were irresponsible (Norway 65%; Sweden 23%), and that the threat from repercussions of the mitigation measures were large or very large (Norway 71%; Sweden 56%). Both countries had a high compliance with infection preventive measures (> 98%). Many lived a more sedentary life (Norway 69%; Sweden 50%) and ate more (Norway 44%; Sweden 33%) during the pandemic. Conclusion: Sweden had more trust in the authorities, while Norwegians reported a more negative lifestyle during the pandemic. The level of trust in the health care system and self-reported compliance with preventive measures was high in both countries despite the differences in infection control measures.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 495-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janani Krishnaswami ◽  
Maria del C. Colon-Gonzalez

Maternal and infant mortality are fundamental indicators of a society’s health and wellness. These measures depict a health crisis in the United States. Compared with other rich countries, women in the United States more frequently die from pregnancy or childbirth, and infants are less likely to survive to their first birthday. Most of these deaths are preventable; disproportionately affect diverse, low-income groups; and are perpetuated by social and health care inequities and subpar preventive care. Lifestyle medicine (LM) is uniquely positioned to ameliorate this growing crisis. The article presents key prescriptions for LM practitioners to build health and health equity for women. These prescriptions, summarized by the acronym PURER, include action in the areas of (1) practice, (2) understanding/empathy, (3) reform, (4) empowerment, and (5) relationship health. The PURER approach focuses on partnering with diverse female patients to promote resilience, promoting social connection and engagement, facilitating optimal family planning and advocating for culturally responsive, equitable health care systems. Through PURER, LM practitioners can help women and partners resiliently overcome the harmful challenges of discrimination and stress characterizing present-day American life. Over time, the equitable and collective practice of LM can help ameliorate the health care barriers undermining the health of women, families, and society.


Author(s):  
Lise M. Helsingen ◽  
Erle Refsum ◽  
Dagryn Kyte Gjostein ◽  
Magnus Loberg ◽  
Michael Bretthauer ◽  
...  

Objectives: Norway and Sweden, two neighboring countries with similar populations, health care systems and socioeconomics, have reacted differently to the COVID-19 pandemic. Norway closed all kindergartens, schools and universities, and banned sports and cultural activities, while Sweden kept most institutions and trainings facilities open. We aimed to compare peoples' attitudes towards authorities and control measures, and effects on life in Norway and Sweden. Design: Anonymous web-based surveys for individuals age 15 or older distributed through Facebook using the snowball method. Setting: Norway and Sweden, mid-March to mid-April, 2020. Participants: Altogether, 3,508 individuals participated in the survey; 3000 in Norway and 508 in Sweden. 79% of the participants were women, 60% of the Norwegians and 47% of the Swedes were between 30-49 years, and around 45% of the participants in both countries had more than 4 years of higher education. Outcome measures: Perceived threat of the pandemic, views on infection control measures, and impact on daily life. We performed descriptive analyses of the responses and compared the two countries. Results: People had high trust in the health services in both countries, but differed in the degree of trust in their government (17% had high trust in Norway and 37% in Sweden). More Norwegians than Swedes agreed that school closure was a good measure (66% Norway and 18% in Sweden), and that countries with open schools were irresponsible (65% in Norway and 23% in Sweden). About the same amount responded that COVID-19 was a large to very large threat to the population (53% in Norway and 58% in Sweden), whereas more Norwegians than Swedes responded that the threat from repercussions of the mitigation measures were large or very large (71% in Norway and 56% in Sweden). Compliance with infection preventive measures was high and similar in the two countries (more than 98%). In Norway, 69% lived a more sedentary life during the pandemic versus 50% in Sweden; and Norwegians reported they ate more than Swedes (44% in Norway and 33% in Sweden). Conclusion: Sweden, with less restrictive measures against the COVID-19 pandemic, had a higher level of trust in the authorities, while Norwegians reported a more negative lifestyle during the pandemic. The level of trust in the health care system and self-reported compliance with preventive measures was high in both countries.


2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ida Hellander ◽  
Rohith Bhargavan

This report presents information on the state of the U.S. health system in late 2011. The authors include data on the uninsured and the underinsured and their access to health care, socioeconomic inequality in care, the rising costs of the U.S. health system, and the role of corporate money in health care, with special reference to the pharmaceutical industry and the hospice industry. They also provide updates on Medicaid and Medicare and on the new federal health care law. Some information on health care systems elsewhere in the world is also included.


2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 42-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yair Latan ◽  
David M. Wilhelm ◽  
David A. Duchene ◽  
Margaret S. Pearle

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document