ABSTRACT
Background: Global pharmaceutical companies in Korea argue that the development of innovative drugs should be recognized as a social contribution, yet it has been countered by various stakeholders. The need to distinguish between philanthropic activities and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of pharmaceutical companies and reaching consensus in the Korean context has been raised. We sought to evaluate the CSR status of Korean pharmaceutical companies and collect the stakeholders' opinions to define philanthropic activities and CSR related to pharmaceutical companies in Korea. Methods: We conducted a literature review on the definition of CSR of pharmaceutical companies, and the CSR activities of the domestic pharmaceutical companies were compared with those of global pharmaceutical companies operating in Korea. The opinions of stakeholder groups (patient advocate groups, consumer organizations, and domestic/global pharmaceutical companies) were collected using focus group interviews (FGI) and written surveys. Results: Literature review suggested that CSR is categorized as "must do" (economic and legal responsibilities), "ought to do" (ethical responsibilities), and "can do" (philanthropic responsibilities), whereas contributions beyond the economic, legal, or ethical responsibilities can be defined as "can do" (philanthropic responsibilities). Domestic pharmaceutical companies simply adopted systems for ethical and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) management, which are at the "ought to do" level (ethical responsibility), whereas the headquarters of these global pharmaceutical companies established the CSR team and systematically reported on the CSR activity, including ESG management reports, which is at the "ought to do" level and further moving to the "can do" level, but the Korean branch rarely has CSR teams, and the CSR activities in Korea were also insufficient. At the FGI, the global pharmaceutical companies argued that CSR activities, such as innovative drug development, should be recognized as similar to philanthropic activities, yet stakeholders besides them suggested that those activities are "can do" rather than being philanthropic. Discussion: We found that the pharmaceutical companies in Korea are attempting to achieve the "ought to do" level (ethical responsibilities) while complying with the "must do" level (legal and economic responsibilities) yet not philanthropic activities. A social consensus regarding the philanthropic responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies in Korea was not reached.
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the long-term functional changes in patients with moderate-to-severe ischemic stroke. In addition, we investigated whether there was a difference between the modified Barthel Index (MBI) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) according to severity. To evaluate the changes in the long-term functional independence of the subjects, six evaluations were conducted over 2 years, and the evaluation was performed using MBI and FIM. A total of 798 participants participated in this study, of which 673 were classified as moderate and 125 as severe. During the first 3 months, the moderate group showed greater recovery than the severe group. The period of significant change in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was up to 6 months after onset in the moderate group, and up to 3 months after onset in the severe group. In the severe group, MBI evaluation showed significant changes up to 6 months after onset, whereas FIM showed significant changes up to 18-24 months. Our results showed that functional recovery of patients with ischemic stroke in the 3 months after onset was greater in the moderate group than in the severe group. FIM is more appropriate than MBI for evaluating the functional status of patients with severe stroke.
