Figure 2.
Dependence of (A) gender and (B) age on respondents’ preference with respect to implant location (under the skin, in the abdomen, and outside of the body), shape (multiple microscopic small disks deposited in a fluid, a thin device which is soft and the size of a credit card, and rod shaped of the size of a 3″ pencil), and visibility (very small or invisible, do not care about visibility). Note that for the visibility, “Yes” means the respondent is fine with the implant to be visible, and “No” means otherwise. There is a significant association between age and implants’ shape (χ 2 (12, n = 468) = 25.59; P = 0.01). However, no significant association was found between age and implant location preference (χ 2 (12, n = 468) = 13.74; P = 0.3). Gender had no significant association with shape preference (χ 2 (3, n = 468) = 2.74; P = 0.4) and implant location (χ 2 (3, n = 468) = 2.08; P = 0.6). There was also an association of implant’s visibility with (C) gender and (D) age. Male participants were more indifferent regarding implant visibility (χ 2 (1, n = 468) = 16.34; P < 0.0001). Among male participants, 36% (62 out of 172) were indifferent about implant’s visibility, while this ratio was 19% (57 out of 296) for female participants. The age also was a determinant factor in the implant’s visibility preference among respondents. Around 22% of those younger than 50 (61 out of 277) do not care about the implant visibility compared with 30% (58 out of 191) of those older than 50 (χ 2 (4, n = 468) = 23.69; P < 0.0001).