Differential facial aesthetic treatment considerations for skin of color populations: African American, Asian and Hispanic

Differential facial aesthetic treatment considerations for skin of color populations: African American, Asian and Hispanic

Presenters: Boyd C¹, Chiu A², Montes JR³, Narurkar V⁴; Shumate GT⁵, Gallagher CJ⁵

Affiliations: ¹BOYD, Birmingham, MI; ²The Derm Institute, Hermosa Beach, CA; ³José Raúl Montes Eyes & Facial Rejuvenation, San Juan, PR; ⁴Bay Area Laser Institute, San Francisco, CA; ⁵Allergan plc, Irvine, CA

Background/Objective: By 2050, more than half of the total population in the United States will be of African American, Asian, or Hispanic descent. The unique anatomical needs, aesthetic goals, and cultural considerations for these growing patient populations should be evaluated to optimize treatment expectations and outcomes. A research study was performed to gain insights into the areas of aesthetic concern, relative prioritization of treatment areas, and any barriers to receiving injectables among these populations.

Methods: Four-hundred and one African American, 403 Asian, and 401 Hispanic women living in the United States, aged 30 to 65 years, completed an online evaluation in which questions focused on identifying bothersome facial areas, consideration levels for facial aesthetic treatments, and any barriers to receiving injectables. A maximum difference scaling method was used to identify which of the 15 facial areas would be prioritized for treatment. Respondents were naïve to facial aesthetic treatments but were aesthetically oriented and were considering physician administered aesthetic treatment within the next two years.

Results: The Hispanic population reported the highest consideration rate for injectables (85%), followed by Asian (75%) and African Americans (64%). African American and Hispanics were most bothered by their submental region, whereas Asian respondents were most bothered by the area underneath the eyes (infraorbital area). All skin of color populations prioritized first the periorbital region (infraorbital and crow’s feet areas) followed by the submental area and forehead lines. Relative to the other populations, African American respondents expressed the highest prioritization of the submental region. All respondents then prioritized treatment of glabellar lines, nasolabial folds, and oral commissures. Analysis by increasing Fitzpatrick Type (I–VI) showed an increasing prioritization of the periorbital region and decreasing prioritization of the chin and perioral lines. Most frequently cited barriers to considering injectable treatment included safety and side effects, concern about injecting a foreign substance into the body, and cost.

Conclusion: Understanding the unique aesthetic considerations of a diversifying patient population is imperative. Differences in injectable consideration rates and bothersome areas were apparent across the patient populations evaluated, but there was consensus regarding the facial areas most likely to be prioritized for treatment. An understanding of the differential aging patterns, cultural considerations, and aesthetic goals for each patient population may help optimize treatment expectations and outcomes.