![[Profiling UK injectable aesthetic practitioners: a national cohort analysis]](zargaran2023profiling-400x300.jpg)
FAU > Technische Fakultät > Informatik > Lehrstuhl 15 (Digital Reality)
David Zargaran1, Alexander Zargaran2, Thomas Terranova3, Helia Khaledi1, Alexandra Robinson1, Julie Davies4, Tim Weyrich5,6, Afshin Mosahebi7
1 Department of Plastic Surgery, University College London, UK
2 St Thomas’s Hospital, London
3 QUAD A – American Association for the Accreditation of Ambulatory Plastic Surgery Facilities (AAAAPSF), IL, USA
4 UCL Global Business School for Health, University College London, UK
5 Department of Computer Science, University College London, UK
6 Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU)
7 Royal Free Hospital, University College London
Introduction:
The United Kingdom (UK) injectables market has been growing rapidly with a lack of robust regulation and to date, no information regarding the profile of practitioners has been published.
Aim:
We aim to provide a descriptive and qualitative analysis of the advertised practitioners in the United Kingdom.
Methods:
We performed a systematic search using the internet search engine Google to perform a qualitative descriptive analysis of aesthetic practitioners in the UK. For each contiguous country in the UK: England, Scotland, and Wales, five searches were performed. The list of practitioners was then cross-referenced with professional regulatory bodies, with extraction of registration number, date of registration and presence or absence from the Specialist Register or General Practitioner register.
Results:
3,000 websites were visited and evaluated. 1,224 independent clinics with 4,405 practitioners were identified. 738 were identified as those in business support functions and the remaining 3,667 practitioners were undertaking injectable practice. The profile of professions were doctors 32%, nurses 13%, dentists 24% and dental nurses 8%. Of the 1,163 doctors identified 481 were on the specialist register (41%) and 219 were on the GP register (19%). 27 specialties were represented in this cohort analysis. Plastic Surgery formed the majority of those who were on the specialist register at 37%, followed by Dermatology at 18%.
Conclusion:
This paper is the first to describe the range of practitioners, their professional backgrounds and experience who perform non-surgical aesthetic interventions. The range of backgrounds may have an impact on the potential risks to patients and will be an important consideration in proposed legislation to introduce licensing to the industry.
David Zargaran, Alexander Zargaran, Thomas Terranova, Helia Khaledi, Alexandra Robinson, Julie Davies, Tim Weyrich, Afshin Mosahebi. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 86, pp. 150–154, Elsevier, July 2023.David Zargaran, Alexander Zargaran, Thomas Terranova, Helia Khaledi, Alexandra Robinson, Julie Davies, Tim Weyrich, and Afshin Mosahebi. Profiling UK injectable aesthetic practitioners: a national cohort analysis.Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 86:150–154, 7 2023.Zargaran, D., Zargaran, A., Terranova, T., Khaledi, H., Robinson, A., Davies, J., Weyrich, T., and Mosahebi, A. 2023. Profiling UK injectable aesthetic practitioners: a national cohort analysis.Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 86 (7), 150–154.D. Zargaran, A. Zargaran, T. Terranova, H. Khaledi, A. Robinson, J. Davies, T. Weyrich, and A. Mosahebi, “Profiling UK injectable aesthetic practitioners: a national cohort analysis,” Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, vol. 86, pp. 150–154, 7 2023. |
