Should Advertising by Aesthetic Surgeons be Permitted?

Ethical and Regulatory Gaps in Aesthetic Medical Practice in Top Asian Medical Tourism Destinations

Aesthetic medicine merges art and medical sciences, focusing on the modification and enhancement of physical appearance through surgical and non-surgical procedures. While it is not globally recognized as a medical specialty, aesthetic medicine has become a cornerstone of medical tourism in several Asian countries, including India, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand. Despite its popularity, there is notable gap in literature concerning its ethical and regulatory perspective. This study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of existing regulations and ethical considerations in aesthetic medicine within the context of the selected Asian countries. Given the field's growth and its potential impact on both domestic and international health practices, this study is significant for healthcare providers, policymakers, and consumers alike. By identifying areas for improvement in current regulatory frameworks, the paper advocates for further examination to ensure that stakeholder rights and well-being are adequately protected.

Do Websites Serve Our Patients Well? A Comparative Analysis of Online Information on Cosmetic Injectables

BACKGROUND

Patients access online cosmetic health information to help with decision making. This information is unregulated, variable in quality, and may be biased. This study compared the most popular cosmetic injectables websites to assess their readability, quality, and technical performance.

METHODS

A Google search for "Botox" (botulinum toxin type A) and "fillers" was performed in July of 2020, identifying the most popular health information websites. Sites were analyzed for their readability and quality of health information using the validated DISCERN criteria and the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct principles. Technical qualities were evaluated using two website performance algorithms, WooRank and WebsiteGrader.

RESULTS

Eighty-five websites were analyzed (13 academic/hospital websites, seven commercial websites, 25 private practice board-certified websites, seven private practice not-board-certified websites, 16 online health reference websites, and 17 other websites). The mean readability consensus score was 11 (eleventh grade reading level). The mean DISCERN quality scores were higher for online health reference websites compared to academic/hospital websites (p = 0.045), commercial websites (p = 0.045), private practice board-certified websites (p < 0.001), and private practice not-board-certified websites (p = .002). No correlation between a website's rank and its DISCERN score was found (ρ = -0.07; p = 0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Cosmetic injectable websites are too difficult to read by the sixth grade standard recommended by the National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association. Online health reference sites are higher in quality than physician sites. This has implications for the ability of many patients to be fully informed consumers. The readability, quality, and technical aspects of websites may affect the overall accessibility of patient health information.

Truth-in-Advertising Laws: Are They Working? A Cross-Sectional Analysis of a "Plastic Surgeon" Patient Search Simulation

BACKGROUND

Non-board-certified plastic surgeons performing cosmetic procedures and advertising as plastic surgeons may have an adverse effect on a patient's understanding of their practitioner's medical training and patient safety. The authors aim to assess (1) the impact of city size and locations and (2) the impact of health care transparency acts on the ratio of board-certified and non-American Board of Plastic Surgeons physicians.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic Google search for the term "plastic surgeon [city name]" to simulate a patient search of online providers. Comparisons of board certification status between the top hits for each city were made. Data gathered included city population, regional location, practice setting, and states with the passage of truth-in-advertising laws.

RESULTS

One thousand six hundred seventy-seven unique practitioners were extracted. Of these, 1289 practitioners (76.9 percent) were American Board of Plastic Surgery-certified plastic surgeons. When comparing states with truth-in-advertising laws and states without such laws, the authors found no significant differences in board-certification rates among "plastic surgery" practitioners (88.9 percent versus 92.0 percent; p = 0.170). There was a significant difference between board-certified "plastic surgeons" versus out-of-scope practitioners on Google search between large, medium, and small cities (100 percent versus 92.9 percent versus 86.5; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-board-certified providers tend to localize to smaller cities. Truth-in-advertising laws have not yet had an impact on the way a number of non-American Board of Plastic Surgery-certified practitioners market themselves. There may be room to expand the scope of truth-in-advertising laws to the online world and to smaller cities.