A Systematic Review on the Reinforcement Loop in Aesthetic Medicine and Surgery: The Interplay of Social Media, Self-Perception, and Repeat Procedures.

Abstract

This systematic review delves into the impact of social media on self-perception and the escalating interest in clinical aesthetic procedures, proposing that social media significantly influences beauty standards and increases demand for aesthetic enhancements. Following PRISMA guidelines, a mixed-method analysis of 34 articles was conducted, sourced from various databases, focusing on social media's psychological effects on clinical aesthetics decisions. The studies encompassed a broad spectrum, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodologies, reflecting diverse geographical and cultural perspectives. The quantitative analysis demonstrated a strong positive correlation between social media usage and the consideration of aesthetic procedures (r=0.45, p<0.001), indicating a significant impact. Specific findings included a large effect size (Cohen's d=0.8) for the relationship between time spent on social media and the desire for aesthetic enhancements. Individuals spending more than 3 hours per day on social media platforms were twice as likely to consider aesthetic procedures compared to those with less usage, with a 95% confidence interval indicating robustness in these findings. Confirming the reinforcing effect of social media on aesthetic decision-making, this study highlights the complex interplay between digital media exposure, altered self-perception, and the increased inclination towards aesthetic procedures. It suggests a critical need for practitioners to carefully navigate the digital influence on patient's desires, reinforcing the significance of understanding psychological motivations and societal pressures in clinical aesthetics. This comprehensive analysis offers pivotal insights for clinical practice and ongoing research into social media's role in contemporary beauty standards. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .