Implementation targets and problem framing in Korean medicine in South Korea: a scoping review

Abstract

Korean medicine (KM) is institutionally recognized in South Korea but operates alongside conventional medicine within a dual medical system with separate professional, organizational, and reimbursement arrangements. We mapped KM-related implementation targets, problem framing, and contextual features. We conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, KCI, and RISS were searched from inception to 16 March 2026, with a supplementary search on 18 March 2026 and reference-list screening. Original empirical studies conducted in South Korea were eligible when implementation of a defined KM-related target was central. Eligible targets included discrete clinical or public health interventions and arrangements through which care or policy was organized. Two reviewers independently selected, charted, and coded studies. Twenty-two studies were included. In post-inclusion coding, all 22 were arrangement-focused; none was intervention-focused or mixed. Clinical pathways in use were the most common target (8/22), followed by programs and collaborative practice arrangements (4/22 each). Operationalization was the primary implementation focus in 11 studies; diffusion or adoption, coordination, and formal incorporation each accounted for three, and legitimation for two. Public-sector incorporation, legitimacy or evidence demands, professional-organizational separation, and reimbursement-regulatory boundaries were recurrent contextual features. No study focused primarily on sustainment. Within this corpus, KM implementation was studied as making service and policy arrangements workable and, in some studies, supporting their continuation or institutional legitimacy, rather than as spreading discrete interventions. These findings support examining the arrangements enabling service delivery alongside intervention uptake in other institutionally differentiated systems. Not applicable. The review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9DCZR ).

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. BMC Health Services Research, 2026 · DOI ↗