Perceptions Of Sensitive Skin Research Articles

The Prevalence of Sensitive Skin

Sensitive skin has been described as unpleasant sensory responses to stimuli that should not provoke such sensations. Objectively measurable signs of irritation are not always present in individuals with sensitive skin, however, subjective sensory effects such as, itching, burning, stinging, tightness, and dryness, are consistently present. Given the subjective nature of the phenomenon known as sensitive skin, surveys have been a popular approach to evaluating the prevalence of this condition among the general population, and a number of them have been conducted worldwide. Overall, ~60–70% of women and 50–60% of men report having some degree of sensitive skin. However, there are differences between populations in various geographies, and perceptions of sensitive skin at specific anatomic sites. This article is a review of survey data on the prevalence of self-declared sensitive skin in various geographies, among different gender and age groups, and at various anatomic sites. In addition, we review the factors that may contribute to sensitive skin, and the physiological characteristics associated with this condition, including impaired barrier function and heightened neural reactions.

The Association Between Perception of Sensitive Skin and Objective and Subjective Measures in Women with Urinary Incontinence

Purpose: To determine the prevalence of perceived sensitive skin in urinary incontinent women, and explore associations with objective and subjective measures. Methods: A sensitive skin questionnaire was administered to 122 predominantly obese, frequent urinary incontinent women normally using protective underwear and recruited from the general population in St. Petersburg, Florida and San Antonio, Texas between October 2013 and February 2014. Their sensitive skin perception was compared with: 1) genital erythema, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in the population, and subgroups of diabetic/menopausal status, and 2) product-related experiences. ]Results: Population of 72% postmenopausal, 82% non-diabetic women, reported overall (62%), facial (50%), genital (41%), and body (39%) skin sensitivity. No statistical differences or trends found with diabetic/menopausal profile. Sensitive skin perception corresponded to higher (worse) erythema and TEWL scores over time, with some statistically significant differences for TEWL: overall buttock site on Day 14 (p=0.02), non-diabetic buttock (p=0.03), postmenopausal buttock (p=0.01) and labia majora (p=0.03) sites at Day 7 and at the buttock (p=0.01) site on Day 14. There was a statistically discernable perceived irritation due to products used in the genital area for subjects with perceived sensitive skin (p<0.05), and sensitive skin subjects were more likely to avoid certain ingredients and look for claims related to sensitive skin (p<0.01). Conclusions: Based on this study, no association was seen between perception of sensitive skin and diabetic/ menopausal status. Skin sensitivity was associated numerically with higher (worse) erythema and TEWL scores, some reaching statistical significance. Sensitive skin consumers were more likely to experience product irritation used in the genital area, avoid certain ingredients, and look for sensitive skin claims. The diabetic population was small in this study, and a larger study is needed for final conclusion.m.

Perceptions of sensitive skin: women with urinary incontinence

Urinary incontinence is common among women, and these individuals may have different perceptions about sensitive skin than the general population. We used an epidemiological approach to determine patterns of perceived sensitive skin among incontinent women. In addition, perceptions about sensitivity to certain products and environmental factors were evaluated. A total of 29 women over the age of 50 suffering from light urinary incontinence filled out questionnaires designed to evaluate perceptions of sensitive skin in general, and at specific body sites (face, body and genital area). Results were compared to age- and gender-matched control subjects. A significant difference was found between incontinence and controls for perceived sensitivity in general, however, no significant differences were found for perceived sensitivity at the three specific body sites, i.e., face, body and genital area. The majority of participants in both the control and incontinent groups were fairly consistent with the perception of sensitive skin in general and sensitive skin of the face and body. Both groups were less consistent in describing the skin of the genital area. Responses of the two groups were similar regarding the perception of the certain environmental factors and products cause irritation. A significantly higher percentage of subjects with urinary incontinence describe their skin overall as "sensitive". Incontinents tended to describe the skin of the genital area as less sensitive than skin overall, whereas the controls tended to the genital area as more sensitive.

Perceptions of sensitive skin: changes in perceived severity and associations with environmental causes

The number of individuals who perceive themselves to have sensitive skin appear to be on the increase. A single definition of this condition remains elusive. We used an epidemiological approach to evaluate the reasons why responders feel they have sensitive skin, how their skin has changed over time, and if there are sex, ethnic, and age group differences. A total of 1039 individuals filled out standard questionnaires. Respondents were not selected based on any criteria related to sensitive skin but consisted of individuals participating in other studies. About 53% stated that their skin had been sensitive for more than 5 years, and 31% claimed that their skin has become more sensitive. When asked to describe why they have sensitive skin, severe weather was the reason most commonly selected. Visual (redness/swelling) and sensory (burning/stinging) reactions to products was also selected as the reason. Caucasians more often claimed that products produced visual effects, whereas African-Americans more often claimed that products produced sensory effects. The environmental factor most strongly associated with sensitive skin was stress. Overall, the data support the generally accepted definition of sensitive skin as a reduced tolerance to cosmetics and toiletries; however, many individuals feel they have sensitive skin for other reasons unrelated to cosmetics and toiletries.

Ethnic variations in self-perceived sensitive skin: epidemiological survey.

To examine possible ethnic variations in perception of sensitive skin, an epidemiological survey was performed in the San Francisco area. Approximately 800 telephone interviews were conducted with women from four different ethnic groups (Afro-Americans, Asians, Euro-Americans, Hispanics; approximately 200 women per group). In addition to sensitive facial skin assessments, age and other general skin condition data were collected. 52% of the subjects identified themselves as having sensitive facial skin. There was no statistical difference between the ethnic groups in terms of sensitive skin prevalence. Nevertheless, some differences were noted between ethnic subgroups of sensitive skin. Euro-Americans were characterized by a higher skin reactivity to wind and tended to be less reactive to cosmetics. Afro-Americans presented diminished skin reactivity to most environmental factors and a lower frequency of recurring facial redness. Asians appeared to have greater skin reactivity to spicy food, to sudden changes in temperature and to wind, and tended to suffer from itching more frequently. Hispanics presented a lower incidence of skin reactivity to alcohol. The differences in skin sensitivity between ethnic groups concerned mostly factors of skin reactivity and, to a lesser extent, its symptomatology. But, taken together, we note the similarities in comparing how women of varying ethnic backgrounds perceive the sensitive skin condition.