| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6214736 | Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery | 2014 | 4 Pages |
SummaryBackgroundThe provision of cosmetic interventions and their advertising have recently come under intense scrutiny in the wake of the PIP scandal and Keogh report.AimA study of Scottish websites offering esthetic procedures was conducted to determine adherence to the advertising standards and regulations currently in place.MethodsRegulations are provided by the Advertising Standards Authority, Committee on Advertising Practice, Independent Healthcare Advisory Services and General Medical Council. An Internet search was then conducted to search for providers of non-surgical and surgical cosmetic procedures.ResultsOverall 125 websites were reviewed. 109 local and 16 national with 17 websites associated with cosmetic surgeons. 26 websites failed to adhere to regulations. Failure was related to advertising of POM on the homepage or dropdown menu (20), offering enticements inappropriately (6). 26.6% of websites did not display qualifications of the practitioners. Only 16.6% of websites described the specific and the non-specific side effects of “anti-wrinkle injections” and only 12.5% mentioned alternative treatments.ConclusionsThe majority of websites reviewed adhered to current advertising standards. Plastic surgeons provide a small percentage of cosmetic procedures. Greater regulation at the point of product entry and of all esthetic practitioners is required.
