Table 1.
Characteristics of Cosmetic Dermatology Care Seeking Behavior of Study Population to Non-Dermatologists
Parameters | Not Seeking a Dermatologist | Seeking a Dermatologist | Unadjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) | P value | Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Use of Social networking site | ||||||
285 (63.9%) | 161 (36.1%) | 1.350 (0.875–2.083) | 0.175 | 1.826 (0.898–3.714) | 0.097 | |
Snapchat | 141 (69.5%) | 62 (30.5%) | 1.613 (1.117–2.329) | 0.011 | 2.164 (1.257–3.726) | 0.005 |
Percentage of photos posted by participants in social media that were edited | ||||||
≤40% | 186 (56.7%) | 142 (43.3%) | Reference | |||
>40% | 81 (80.2%) | 20 (19.8%) | 3.092 (1.809–5.284) | 0.001 | 6.157 (3.097–12.242) | 0.001 |
Type of skin lesion edited | ||||||
Dark circle | 43 (76.8%) | 13 (23.2%) | 2.121 (1.111–4.047) | 0.023 | 2.434 (1.078–5.498) | 0.032 |
Reason for editing the skin lesion | ||||||
I know other people do it | 7 (87.5%) | 1 (12.5%) | 4.258 (0.520–34.859) | 0.177 | 34.387 (2.49–474.27) | 0.008 |
Awareness about Skin care | ||||||
Yes | 174 (59.2%) | 120 (40.8%) | 0.734 (0.518–1.039) | 0.081 | 0.564 (0.334–0.952) | 0.032 |
No, do not Know | 170 (66.4%) | 86 (33.6%) | Reference | |||
Awareness of cosmetic dermatological procedures | ||||||
Yes | 182 (75.2%) | 60 (24.8%) | 2.734 (1.893–3.948) | 0.001 | 11.262 (5.769–21.98) | 0.001 |
No | 162 (52.6%) | 146 (47.4%) | Reference | |||
Ever visited a dermatologist for cosmetic dermatology care | ||||||
Yes | 40 (30.1%) | 93 (69.9%) | Reference | |||
No | 304 (72.9%) | 113 (27.1%) | 6.2555 (4.073–9.605) | 0.001 | 22.927 (10.84–48.47) | 0.001 |
Seek dermatologist in future if needed | ||||||
Yes | 216 (56.8%) | 164 (43.2%) | Reference | |||
No | 128 (75.3%) | 42 (24.7%) | 2.314 (1.546–3.464) | 0.001 | 2.279 (1.274–4.076) | 0.005 |
Self- esteem | ||||||
High | 43 (76.8%) | 13 (23.2%) | Reference | |||
Low | 301 (60.9%) | 193 (39.1%) | 2.121 (1.111–4.047) | 0.023 | 3.582 (1.321–9.711) | 0.012 |
Note: The bold and underlined P value shows that the values were statistically significant (p<0.05).