OBJECTIVES: Alcohol consumption is a well-established risk factor for cancer. Despite extensive research into the relationship between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, the effect of light alcohol consumption on cancer risk remains a topic of debate. To contribute to this discourse, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.METHODS: Our systematic review aimed to investigate the associations between different levels of alcohol consumption and the risk of several cancer types. We focused on analyzing prospective associations using data from 139 cohort studies. Among them, 106 studies were included in the meta-analysis after a quantitative synthesis.RESULTS: Our analysis did not find a significant association between light alcohol consumption and all-cause cancer risk (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.04), but we observed a dose-response relationship. Light alcohol consumption was significantly associated with higher risks of esophageal, colorectal, and breast cancers. Light to moderate drinking was associated with elevated risks of esophageal, colorectal, laryngeal, and breast cancers. Heavy drinking was also found to contribute to the risk of stomach, liver, pancreas, and prostate cancers, thereby increasing the risk of almost all types of cancer. Additionally, females generally had lower cancer risks compared to males.CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight that cancer risks extend beyond heavy alcohol consumption to include light alcohol consumption as well. These findings suggest that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption associated with cancer risk. Our results underscore the importance of public health interventions addressing alcohol consumption to mitigate cancer risks.
OBJECTIVES: Vaccinations for infectious diseases are opposed despite their achievement, and this opposition has recently been revealed in Korea. However, research in Korea has not been vigorous. The authors studied why some Korean parents hesitate to vaccinate their children by applying the health belief model.METHODS: Parents who hesitate to vaccinate and parents who do not were surveyed in alternative education preschools and elementary schools. They were classified into four types of hesitancy and statistically compared.RESULTS: Among the 129 subjects, 43 vaccinated without hesitancy, 20 vaccinated on time with hesitancy, 32 vaccinated with a deliberate delay of one month or longer, and 34 did not vaccinate. Vaccination increased with an increase in the awareness that severe outcomes can occur when unvaccinated. Concerns about adverse reactions from vaccinations or direct/indirect experiences affected refusal. Furthermore, perceptions of the lack of meaningfulness of vaccinations, distrust of policy and safety management, influence of leaders or activists in joined organizations, and experts of Korean traditional or alternative medicine affected refusal. Explanations by doctors, text messages and mails from institutions, and concerns about disadvantages caused by not complying with government policies increased vaccination.CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for vaccine hesitancy and acceptance were similar to the results of international research. Health authorities and professionals should communicate sufficiently and appropriately with hesitant parents and find ways to rationally resolve social conflicts. However, this sample was small and there is little Korean research, so more in-depth and diverse researchs are needed.