Background
The Korean Journal of Family Medicine (KJFM), which is an official journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine, is an English-text medical journal published since 2009. Although nearly 15 years have passed since the journal was launched, to the best of our knowledge, no study has reviewed articles published in the KJFM. Accordingly, we analyzed articles published in the KJFM for the first time.
Methods
Articles published in the KJFM between January 2018 and November 2023 were categorized according to article type. Information about author affiliations, study subjects, research methods, and modes of data collection was then scrutinized. Moreover, we compared the frequencies of subjects, research methods and modes of data collection before, during, and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
Results
Original article was the most common article type. Approximately 52% of the articles were published by authors affiliated with departments other than family medicine, and 40% were published by family medicine. Approximately 60% and 38% of the articles were published by Korean authors and authors of international affiliations, respectively. Throughout the pandemic periods, research subjects focusing on “diseases & symptoms” have diminished, while “principles of family medicine” have progressively increased. Additionally, the use of cross-sectional study methods has declined. In terms of data collection, the use of “big data,” “medical records,” and “questionnaires” has decreased, whereas the use of “study results” has increased.
Conclusion
KJFM is journal with wide and international participation covering various research subjects and study methods. We believe that our study provides valuable data for the future direction and development of the KJFM.

Background
This study was conducted to survey the current status of family medicine residency programs and to evaluate the difficulties in training of the curriculums. Methods: Questionnaires on residency programs were sent to all the centers of residency programs by mail in April 2006. The questionnaire included detailed characteristics of residency programs, curriculum schedule, reasons for failed specific curriculum, and review and measures by the program center and the Korean Academy of Family Medicine to resolve problematic curriculums. Results: A total of 113 residency programs responded. Among the 93 residency programs except for the 20 subsidiary hospitals, inadeguate subjects were mainly dermatology (12 programs, 12.3%), psychiatry (6 programs, 7.5%), ophthalmology (5 programs, 7.1%), and otolaryngology (5 programs, 7.1%). Training rejection rate was higher in dermatology (13 programs, 14.4%), radiology (11 programs, 13.1%), gastrofibroscopy (8 programs, 9.5%), and psychiatry (5 programs, 6.2%). Emergency me-dicine in 4 programs and general surgery in 3 programs had a longer duration of training than initially planned. Difficulties in training some subjects were due to failed establishment of specific curriculums in non-university hospital. Commonly established clinics were health promotion center, obesity clinic, smoking cessation clinic, geriatric clinic, stress clinic, and clinical nutrition clinic. Family medicine center programs included gastrofibroscopy, obesity, smoking cessation, geriatrics, hospice care, and evidence-based medicine. Conclusion: There is repeated demand for taking measures to promote better curriculum in the nation-wide view of family medicine. Dermatology, radiology, psychiatry, and otolaryngology were the subjects difficult to receive training. Measures to strengthen the weak subjects are urgently needed. (J Korean Acad Fam Med 2007;28: 367-374)

Background
: Family practice academic dissertations are the product of family practice research in the school of medicine. This paper was intended to evaluate the status of family practice academic dissertations, analyze the basic data and suggest directions for family practice research in the school of medicine.

Methods : The total number of masters' and doctoral dissertations from 1992 to February, 2005 was 124. of those, 120 were collected. They were analyzed in terms of research area, subjects, collected data, methodology, and statistical methods.

Results : In terms of research area, health promotion/ disease prevention was the most common (42.5%). For study subjects, out-patients and in-hospital patients were the most prevalent (38.0%), followed by health promotion center visitors and community residents (28.7%). When it came to research methodology, analytic study was the most common by a wide margin (70.8%). Among analytic studies, cross-sectional studies were the most frequent, followed by case-control studies and cohort studies. The most commonly-used data were medical records and questionnaires.

Conclusion : Many advances have been made in research methodology and academic dissertation numbers since 1992. Many research topics, however, were not relevant to primary care. Much research was done in general hospital instead of primary-care facilities. These results must improve in the future.