Skip to main content
JPRAS Open logoLink to JPRAS Open
. 2020 Jul 24;25:88–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jpra.2020.06.001

Patient demand for plastic surgeons for every US state based on Google searches

Jared A Blau 1, Heather A Levites 1, Brett T Phillips 1, Scott T Hollenbeck 1,
PMCID: PMC7451795  PMID: 32904136

Abstract

Introduction

As a profession, plastic surgeons must meet the public demand for esthetic and reconstructive procedures. Patients search for physicians using Google, which offers insights into patient needs through their search history.

Methods

The Google Trends Relative Search Volumes (RSV) were pulled for all searches for “plastic surgery” over 12 months. The number of active plastic surgeons per state was divided by Census Bureau population estimates to calculate the surgeons-per-capita value, or “surgical concentration.” The Google score divided by this concentration yields a “surgical demand index” for each state.

Results

Florida, New York, and Connecticut had the greatest concentration of surgeons per ten-thousand people (0.220, 0.217, and 0.209, respectively), while Wyoming, Arkansas, and Vermont had the smallest (0.051, 0.071, 0.080). California exhibited the greatest number of Google searches (RSV=100), followed by Florida and Hawaii (RSV=95). Oregon (RSV=38), Virginia (RSV=52), and Alaska (RSV=58) had the fewest searches. The “surgical demand index” was greatest in Wyoming (1187.778), Oklahoma (993.751), and Arkansas (974.664) and smallest in Oregon (264.682), Virginia (320.716), and Connecticut (354.872).

Conclusion

The distribution of US plastic surgeons is not homogeneous. The Google data suggest that some markets (e.g. Oregon) are saturated while others (e.g. Wyoming) have significant demand that is not met by the number of plastic surgeons in those states.

Keywords: Internet search, Google, Popularity, Surgery markets

Introduction

Background

In our modern era, patients have unprecedented access to information through the internet. Google, the most visited site online,1 provides its search data to the public, through a platform called Google Trends2 (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, C.A.).

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the relative popularity of searches for plastic surgery across the United States with the number of plastic surgeons in each state. We hypothesized that several states with low representation of plastic surgeons would nevertheless have a population that is interested in plastic surgery. This may identify regional market needs- locations a new plastic surgeon may want to open a practice. Additionally, we sought to illustrate how the Google data can be mined and analyzed to study public interest in surgery.

Methods

Study design

Google data are reported as the Relative Search Volume for all searches for “Plastic Surgery” for the twelve-month period from June 2014-June 2015. These data are reported state-by-state, and normalized by total search volume. Data are reported on a scale from 0 to 100 based on a proportion to all searches.3 The number of American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) members in each state was provided by the ASPS for the same year. State populations are the US Census Bureau 2014 estimates.4

Surgical demand is reported as the Surgical Demand Index, a measure of how the concentration of plastic surgeons matches the public curiosity with plastic surgery. The Index is calculated by dividing the Google Relative Search Volume by the concentration of plastic surgeons in any individual state, according the formula:

SurgicalDemandIndex=FrequencyofSearchesNumberofPlasticSurgeonsNearby=GoogleRelativeSearchVolume(NumberofPlasticSurgeonsinEachStateStatePopulation)

Results

Descriptive data and main results

California had the highest Google Relative Search Volume at 100 (a benchmark used to calibrate all other states), followed by Florida (95), Hawaii (95), New York (94), and North Carolina (91). Oregon had the lowest volume at 38, followed by Virginia (52), Alaska (58), Nebraska (60) and Wyoming (61). The data are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig 1

Google Relative Search Volume, concentration of plastic surgeons, and Surgical Demand Index for each state.

Table 1.

State-by-state characteristics on search volume, surgeons, and population.

Rank, Surgical Demand Index State Name Number of ASPS Surgeons State Population Surgical Density (Surgeons per 10,000 people) Google Relative Search Volume Surgical Demand Index(Google RSV/Surgeons per 10,000 people)
1 Wyoming 3 584,153 0.051 61 1187.778
2 Oklahoma 32 3878,051 0.083 82 993.751
3 Arkansas 21 2966,369 0.071 69 974.664
4 New Mexico 19 2085,572 0.091 77 845.205
5 Alabama 52 4849,377 0.107 86 802.012
6 Vermont 5 626,562 0.080 64 801.999
7 North Carolina 125 9943,964 0.126 91 723.921
8 Iowa 30 3107,126 0.097 69 714.639
9 Montana 11 1023,579 0.107 76 707.200
10 West Virginia 18 1850,326 0.097 66 678.453
11 Maine 13 1330,089 0.098 64 654.813
12 Mississippi 36 2994,079 0.120 78 648.717
13 Indiana 69 6596,855 0.105 66 631.004
14 Washington 90 7061,530 0.127 80 627.692
15 South Carolina 65 4832,482 0.135 84 624.505
16 Nevada 39 2839,099 0.137 85 618.778
17 Hawaii 23 1419,561 0.162 95 586.340
18 Louisiana 62 4649,676 0.133 78 584.959
19 Idaho 19 1634,464 0.116 66 567.761
20 Minnesota 75 5457,173 0.137 76 552.994
21 Kentucky 57 4413,457 0.129 71 549.746
22 Texas 419 26,956,958 0.155 84 540.426
23 Georgia 156 10,097,343 0.154 83 537.230
24 Pennsylvania 194 12,787,209 0.152 81 533.899
25 Michigan 135 9909,877 0.136 72 528.527
26 South Dakota 11 853,175 0.129 68 527.417
27 Wisconsin 71 5757,564 0.123 65 527.101
28 California 755 38,802,500 0.195 100 513.940
29 Ohio 159 11,594,163 0.137 70 510.435
30 Tennessee 103 6549,352 0.157 79 502.329
31 Missouri 91 6063,589 0.150 74 493.083
32 Rhode Island 15 1055,173 0.142 70 492.414
33 Nebraska 23 1881,503 0.122 60 490.827
34 Arizona 117 6731,484 0.174 84 483.286
35 Alaska 9 736,732 0.122 58 474.783
36 Colorado 87 5355,866 0.162 73 449.400
37 Massachusetts 125 6745,408 0.185 81 437.102
38 New Jersey 179 8938,175 0.200 87 434.425
39 New York 428 19,746,227 0.217 94 433.679
40 Florida 438 19,893,297 0.220 95 431.476
41 Kansas 46 2904,021 0.158 68 429.290
42 New Hampshire 22 1326,813 0.166 70 422.168
43 Maryland 123 5976,407 0.206 84 408.145
44 Delaware 17 935,614 0.182 73 401.764
45 Utah 53 2942,902 0.180 72 399.790
46 North Dakota 13 739,482 0.176 68 386.806
47 Illinois 259 12,880,580 0.201 73 363.043
48 Connecticut 75 3596,677 0.209 74 354.872
49 Virginia 135 8326,289 0.162 52 320.716
50 Oregon 57 3970,239 0.144 38 264.683

California has the most surgeons at 765 and Wyoming the fewest at 3. When the number of surgeons is divided by the state population, Florida ranks at the top with 0.220 surgeons per ten-thousand people, then New York (0.217), Connecticut (0.209), Maryland (0.206), and Illinois (0.201). The least-dense states are Wyoming (0.051), Arkansas (0.071), Vermont (0.080), Oklahoma (0.083), and New Mexico (0.091).

Demand for plastic surgeons was highest in Wyoming (1187.778 Relative Search Volume/surgeons per ten-thousand), then Oklahoma (993.751), Arkansas (974.664), New Mexico (845.205), and Alabama (802.012). Demand was lowest in Oregon (264.683), Virginia (320.716), Connecticut (354.872), Illinois (363.043), and North Dakota (386.805).

In this study, we show that the distribution of interest in plastic surgery and the distribution of plastic surgeons, is not homogeneous. There are states where there is excessive interest in the field but hardly any surgeons (e.g. Wyoming), and those that despite an army of physicians on call, the public interest is more scarce (e.g. Oregon).

Discussion

Key results

Google Trends data previously showed that search volume for selected cosmetic surgery procedures correlated with the number of procedures reported by the ASPS.5 Similarly, this study demonstrates that augmenting the Google data with another source (such as the number of surgeons practicing in each state) yields relevant findings. We can expect the Google Trends data to inform more discussions of plastic surgery by virtue of the scale and accessibility of the data.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is that only Active ASPS member Surgeons were accounted for each state. Certain markets may be saturated by physicians practicing plastic surgery who have other training or certifications. The recorded years of the data are due to a lack of updated ASPS surgeon numbers as well as the decennial nature of the US census. In the future, we aim to use the most updated numbers as they are gathered by these agencies and even track the trends over time. Our work suggests opportunities in certain regions but without data on hiring and job postings, this is speculative. Next, searches for “plastic surgery” reveal a global interest in the field and include not only those interested in a procedure. These data do not control for sensationalism in plastic surgery, for example, which may vary from state to state. They also do not distinguish between esthetic and reconstructive procedures.

Interpretation

These data offer several possible applications, but may be chiefly relevant to a new plastic surgeon hoping to enter a market where his or her practice has ample opportunity to flourish. Wyoming, with its small population, does not immediately appear to be an ideal option. Just looking at the Google data, the 40% decrease in plastic surgery search volume compared to California is not too surprising. Yet, the Surgical Demand Index ranks Wyoming as number one, 27 places higher than the Golden State.

Generalizability

Plastic Surgeons have never been strangers to the internet, and these data show that the public have not been strangers to us. As has been shown with other specialties, the number of plastic surgeons utilizing this platform for personal curiosity, professional decisions, and research queries is sure to rise.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors have no financial or personal relationships to disclose.

Financial Disclosure Statement

None of the authors has any relevant commercial associations or financial disclosures.

Footnotes

Meeting Presentation: A preliminary version of these findings was presented at Plastic Surgery the Meeting in Los Angeles, California in 2016.

References


Articles from JPRAS Open are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES