User login
DENVER – compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.
Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.
“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”
In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.
Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.
“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”
Study evaluated 42 patients
In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.
“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”
Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.
The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.
In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”
According to Dr. Chopra, this is the first study to evaluate the impact of a broad spectrum of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, including injectables and lasers, on the happiness and life satisfaction of treatment non-naive patients.
“Surprisingly, we found these patients were no happier after treatment,” he told this news organization. “However, before rushing to declare that cosmetic procedures don’t make us happier, it is critical to evaluate these results in the context of our study population. We believe there to be a distinction between treatment naive and non-naive patients. All the patients in our study were treatment non-naive, routinely and frequently undergoing cosmetic procedures. Moreover, our treatment non-naive patients were very happy at baseline prior to treatment.”
He and his colleagues hypothesize that there is a “ceiling effect” to the happiness one can attain via these procedures. “Our treatment non-naive patients had already reached this ceiling-peak happiness of their treatment journey, and at this point were only pursuing procedures to maintain their results and happiness,” he said. “Thus, we were unable to measure any effect this late in the ‘maintenance-phase’ of their journey via our study. On the other hand, treatment naive patients (those who have never undergone a cosmetic procedure) were not included. We hypothesize that evaluating patients at the start of their journey after their first round of treatments will demonstrate an impact on happiness, prior to reaching the ceiling and subsequent ‘maintenance phase.’ ”
Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that it was not clear which specific cosmetic treatments the study participants received. “I would like to see if different injectable or device treatments would give different happiness scale results,” Dr. Green said.
“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”
Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
DENVER – compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.
Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.
“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”
In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.
Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.
“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”
Study evaluated 42 patients
In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.
“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”
Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.
The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.
In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”
According to Dr. Chopra, this is the first study to evaluate the impact of a broad spectrum of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, including injectables and lasers, on the happiness and life satisfaction of treatment non-naive patients.
“Surprisingly, we found these patients were no happier after treatment,” he told this news organization. “However, before rushing to declare that cosmetic procedures don’t make us happier, it is critical to evaluate these results in the context of our study population. We believe there to be a distinction between treatment naive and non-naive patients. All the patients in our study were treatment non-naive, routinely and frequently undergoing cosmetic procedures. Moreover, our treatment non-naive patients were very happy at baseline prior to treatment.”
He and his colleagues hypothesize that there is a “ceiling effect” to the happiness one can attain via these procedures. “Our treatment non-naive patients had already reached this ceiling-peak happiness of their treatment journey, and at this point were only pursuing procedures to maintain their results and happiness,” he said. “Thus, we were unable to measure any effect this late in the ‘maintenance-phase’ of their journey via our study. On the other hand, treatment naive patients (those who have never undergone a cosmetic procedure) were not included. We hypothesize that evaluating patients at the start of their journey after their first round of treatments will demonstrate an impact on happiness, prior to reaching the ceiling and subsequent ‘maintenance phase.’ ”
Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that it was not clear which specific cosmetic treatments the study participants received. “I would like to see if different injectable or device treatments would give different happiness scale results,” Dr. Green said.
“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”
Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
DENVER – compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.
Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.
“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”
In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.
Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.
“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”
Study evaluated 42 patients
In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.
“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”
Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.
The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.
In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”
According to Dr. Chopra, this is the first study to evaluate the impact of a broad spectrum of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, including injectables and lasers, on the happiness and life satisfaction of treatment non-naive patients.
“Surprisingly, we found these patients were no happier after treatment,” he told this news organization. “However, before rushing to declare that cosmetic procedures don’t make us happier, it is critical to evaluate these results in the context of our study population. We believe there to be a distinction between treatment naive and non-naive patients. All the patients in our study were treatment non-naive, routinely and frequently undergoing cosmetic procedures. Moreover, our treatment non-naive patients were very happy at baseline prior to treatment.”
He and his colleagues hypothesize that there is a “ceiling effect” to the happiness one can attain via these procedures. “Our treatment non-naive patients had already reached this ceiling-peak happiness of their treatment journey, and at this point were only pursuing procedures to maintain their results and happiness,” he said. “Thus, we were unable to measure any effect this late in the ‘maintenance-phase’ of their journey via our study. On the other hand, treatment naive patients (those who have never undergone a cosmetic procedure) were not included. We hypothesize that evaluating patients at the start of their journey after their first round of treatments will demonstrate an impact on happiness, prior to reaching the ceiling and subsequent ‘maintenance phase.’ ”
Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that it was not clear which specific cosmetic treatments the study participants received. “I would like to see if different injectable or device treatments would give different happiness scale results,” Dr. Green said.
“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”
Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
AT ASDS 2022