Non-Surgical Medical Aesthetics and Patient Quality of Life: An Umbrella Review

Abstract

Abstract Background Non-surgical cosmetic facial procedures have become popular treatment options for individuals seeking aesthetic improvements. Despite a breadth of literature on patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes, there is a lack of information specific to changes in quality of life outcomes. Objectives The objective of this umbrella review was to report the effectiveness of non-surgical facial aesthetic treatments on reported quality of life in cosmetic treatment seeking patients. We also aimed to identify gaps in the literature on measures of quality of life outside of patient satisfaction. Methods We completed a comprehensive, systematic search of review articles across six databases including Medline, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, APA PsychINFO, Cochrane Reviews and Google Scholar. We included review-level studies examining the change in quality of life measures following treatment. Critical appraisal was completed for each review article included. Results A total of seven reviews included. One review was of strong quality, two moderate, and four were weak. Several non-surgical procedures were evaluated across reviews including injectable neurotoxins, dermal fillers and laser skin resurfacing. The majority of included studies reported increases in measures of quality of life, post treatment in the same patient or compared to controls. The most commonly reported measure was psychological wellbeing, followed by self-perception. There was a lack of measures outside of improvements to aesthetics, including those specific to mental health (e.g., depression). Conclusions Overall, studies that report on non-surgical treatments report increases in overall quality of life. This conclusion should be interpreted with caution as the majority of reviews included were of moderate to weak quality. A major gap in this literature includes mental health outcomes. Future research should focus on increasing the rigour of reporting for systematic reviews.