I recall my own experiences during my studies where focusing solely on efficiency led to trial and error, teaching me that the fundamentals are most important. Non-face-to-face care is convenient as it relies on questionnaires and interviews, but it misses the core pillars of Traditional Korean Medicine (TKM): Mang-jin (望診, visual inspection) and Jeol-jin (切診, pulse diagnosis). For example, some patients may appear simply overweight, but internally suffer from severe Bi-heo (脾虛, deficiency of the Spleen/Digestive system), leaving them exhausted. Using a general diet formula in such cases can cause dizziness and further deplete their energy. Furthermore, the herbal composition must change entirely depending on where Eohyeol (瘀血, blood stasis) or Dameum (痰飮, accumulated phlegm-fluid/metabolic waste) is stagnant in the body. Here is a summary of the differences: - Convenience: Remote care is very high (flexible time/place), whereas in-person is moderate (requires travel). - Diagnostic Method: Remote care focuses on surveys/interviews; in-person utilizes a comprehensive diagnosis of Mang-jin, Jeol-jin, and Mun-jin (interview). - Customization Precision: Remote care tends toward standardized prescriptions; in-person reflects individual constitution and symptoms precisely. - Physical Response: Remote care relies on the patient's subjective report; in-person allows for an objective assessment by the practitioner. - Feedback/Management: Remote care uses messages/calls; in-person allows for face-to-face counseling and physical change checks. Ultimately, it is not about which is 'better,' but about how accurately you understand your body's state before starting. I recommend visiting the clinic initially to thoroughly assess your condition with me. Utilizing non-face-to-face options during the maintenance phase thereafter can be a much more efficient approach.