Literature DB >> 24962402

Psychosocial predictors, assessment, and outcomes of cosmetic procedures: a systematic rapid evidence assessment.

Ginny Brunton1, Nicole Paraskeva, Jenny Caird, Karen Schucan Bird, Josephine Kavanagh, Irene Kwan, Claire Stansfield, Nichola Rumsey, James Thomas.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent breast implant complications led to a UK government policy review of the evidence concerning cosmetic interventions. We synthesised cosmetic intervention research evidence covering psychosocial factors associated with requesting procedures and psychological outcomes, effects of procedures on psychological outcomes, preintervention assessments for identifying those at risk, alternative therapy effectiveness, and issues in achieving informed consent.
METHODS: Undertaking a systematic rapid evidence assessment, six databases and three journals were searched. Included studies were systematic reviews or primary studies of participants requesting cosmetic procedures; published 2002-2012; containing either psychological or psychosocial measures, a psychological outcome, or evaluation of informed consent. Reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed quality, undertaking narrative synthesis.
RESULTS: Methodological quality of the included 13 systematic reviews and 179 primary studies was low, with wide variation in psychosocial measures. Findings suggest several psychosocial factors (e.g., intimate partner violence) may be associated with requesting cosmetic surgery. Multiple factors (e.g., unrealistic expectations) may predict poor psychological outcomes. Current psychological screening tools focus predominantly on body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) symptoms. Psychological and pharmacological interventions are effective alternative BDD treatments. Patients and doctors bring different needs to informed consent discussions, inconsistently matched to those required by professional ethics, litigation risk, and facilitating profit.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematically reviewing this literature for UK policy has highlighted that some groups may be at risk of poor post-cosmetic procedure outcomes. Practitioners and patients must explore reasons for seeking cosmetic procedures and discuss all potential results and alternative solutions. Future research should employ more robust methodologies to identify effects in those at risk, led by consensus on a core set of psychological outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24962402     DOI: 10.1007/s00266-014-0369-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg        ISSN: 0364-216X            Impact factor:   2.326


  10 in total

1.  Self-Report Scales to Measure Expectations and Appearance-Related Psychosocial Distress in Patients Seeking Cosmetic Treatments.

Authors:  Anne F Klassen; Stefan J Cano; Amy Alderman; Charles East; Lydia Badia; Stephen B Baker; Sam Robson; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 4.283

Review 2.  Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.

Authors:  Shannon E Kelly; David Moher; Tammy J Clifford
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-05-10

3.  Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research.

Authors:  Jonas Feldmann; Milo Alan Puhan; Margot Mütsch
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Exploring the Links Between Self-Compassion, Body Dissatisfaction, and Acceptance of Cosmetic Surgery in Young Italian Women.

Authors:  Amanda Nerini; Camilla Matera; Cristian Di Gesto; Giulia Rosa Policardo; Cristina Stefanile
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-12-03

Review 5.  Psychiatric Assessment and Management of Clients Undergoing Cosmetic Surgery: Overview and Need for an Integrated Approach.

Authors:  Sharmi Bascarane; Pooja P Kuppili; Vikas Menon
Journal:  Indian J Plast Surg       Date:  2021-02-22

6.  Characteristics of Patients Seeking and Proceeding with Non-Surgical Facial Aesthetic Procedures.

Authors:  Sylvia P B Ramirez; Gunther Scherz; Helen Smith
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol       Date:  2021-03-01

7.  Predictors of Acceptance of Cosmetic Surgery: Instagram Images-Based Activities, Appearance Comparison and Body Dissatisfaction Among Women.

Authors:  Cristian Di Gesto; Amanda Nerini; Giulia Rosa Policardo; Camilla Matera
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-09-03       Impact factor: 2.708

8.  Association Between Mental Health Status and Patient Satisfaction With the Functional Outcomes of Rhinoplasty.

Authors:  Erika Strazdins; Yu Feng Nie; Raziqah Ramli; Tom Palesy; Jenna M Christensen; Raquel Alvarado; George N Marcells; Richard J Harvey
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 4.611

9.  Association of Mental Health Status With Perception of Nasal Function.

Authors:  Erika Strazdins; Yu Feng Nie; Raziqah Ramli; Tom Palesy; Jenna M Christensen; George Nicholas Marcells; Richard John Harvey
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 4.611

10.  An ethics analysis of the rationale for publicly funded plastic surgery.

Authors:  Lars Sandman; Emma Hansson
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 2.652

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.