Demographic Survey of Aesthetic Interests and Concerns (MOSAIC): US Survey Study of Facial and Body Aesthetic Concerns and Treatment Interests Among Men

J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2026;19(8 Suppl 2):57–65.

Omer Ibrahim, MD; Jacob Beer, MD; Terrence Keaney, MD, FAAD; Kamakshi R. Zeidler, MD, FACS; Corey Hartman, MD, FAAD; Elizabeth Houshmand, MD, FAAD; Jorge Ng Zheng, PharmD, MBA; and Elena Dimitrijevic, PhD

Dr. Ibrahim is with Chicago Cosmetic Surgery and Dermatology, Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Beer is with Beer Dermatology, West Palm Beach, Florida. Dr. Keaney is with SkinDC, Arlington, Virginia. Dr. Zeidler is with Aesthetx, Campbell, California. Dr. Hartman is with Skin Wellness Dermatology, Birmingham, Alabama. Dr. Houshmand is with Houshmand Dermatology and Wellness, Dallas, Texas. Drs. Zheng and Dimitrijevic are with Allergan Aesthetics, an AbbVie company, Irvine, California.

FUNDING: Funding for this supplement was provided by Allgeran Aesthetics, an AbbVie company, and Research Execute Learn.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate aesthetic concerns and treatment interests of diverse participants in a large United States (US)-based study. Herein, we report findings in male participants. METHODS: Aesthetically inclined participants (aged 22–85 years) completed an online survey (February 2022–April 2022) to rate the frequency and degree of bothersomeness of 41 facial and 31 body characteristics and the likelihood of seeking professional treatment within the next year. The relative bothersomeness of each characteristic was ranked using a Maximum Difference scaling framework. Participants also ranked 48 aesthetic treatments by degree of interest. RESULTS: Of 3,974 participants, 697 (17.5%) self-identified as male (3 transgender). Top facial concerns included dark circles under the eyes, under-eye bags or sagginess, and hair loss/thinning hair, which aligned with facial characteristics most likely to be treated. Top body concerns included stubborn fat around the stomach and flanks and a lack of muscle tone and muscle definition. Body characteristics most likely to be treated included stubborn fat around the stomach and flanks and sagging skin (also among top concerns) and unwanted hair (not a top concern). Treatments of most interest were tummy tuck/abdominoplasty, nonsurgical fat reduction, and facials at a spa or doctor’s office. LIMITATIONS: Survey data may be subject to self-reporting bias. US data for male participants may not be generalizable to broader populations. CONCLUSION: The findings from this subgroup analysis of a large study can be used to adapt consultations and treatment based on the facial and body aesthetic concerns and treatment interests of male-identifying patients. KEYWORDS: Aesthetics, patient preference, surveys and questionnaires, cosmetic techniques

Introduction

An increasing number of male patients are seeking aesthetic care and treatments, and though the majority of individuals seeking aesthetic treatment are women, the number of men seeking cosmetic procedures is projected to continue to increase.¹ The International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery reports that the proportion of aesthetic procedures in men grew 76% from 2020 to 2024, with the number of surgical procedures doubling and a 58% increase in nonsurgical procedures.^2,3 A notable driver in the growing acceptance of aesthetic procedures in men has been an increasing desire to improve appearance and reduce the signs of aging to distinguish themselves in a competitive work and social environment, a trend likely reinforced by greater visibility of facial appearance through video conferencing and social media.^1,4,5 The rising use of social media promotes idealized images and has been shown to increase body dissatisfaction and social appearance anxiety, both predictors of the decision to undergo cosmetic procedures.⁶ This influence may be particularly pronounced among younger populations, with emerging evidence suggesting that Generation Z individuals are increasingly engaging with appearance-focused content and trends (eg, “looksmaxxing”) through social media platforms.⁷

In parallel with these sociocultural influences, there are also anatomical and societal differences between men and women that influence aesthetic treatment concerns and goals. Men tend to have a larger skull with a squarer face, a larger and more angled jaw with a protruding chin, a greater width and height of forehead, a greater glabellar width and projection, and fuller and more redundant eyelids.⁸ There is also a difference between men and women on what is considered attractive. In a survey study of men, women, and healthcare providers, the words “handsome,” “masculine,” “strong,” “smile,” and “symmetrical” were most often chosen to represent ideal facial characteristics in men.⁹ In contrast, the words “smooth,” “beautiful,” “soft,” and “delicate” were frequently chosen to define feminine facial beauty. In the same study, men most frequently indicated high or extreme concern with hair-related issues (ie, receding hairline, thinning hair, or pattern baldness; 35%), whereas women most frequently indicated under-eye bags or dark circles (38%). Despite these known sex differences and the rising prevalence of men seeking aesthetic treatment, few studies document the differences in treatment goals between sexes.

To gain perspective on how aesthetic concerns and treatment interests differ across various sex/gender, racial, ethnic, and age categories, a survey was conducted to describe facial and body aesthetic inclinations in adults in the United States (US). The study used Maximum Difference (MaxDiff) methodology¹⁰ to rank the relative bothersomeness of facial and body characteristics and interest in specific aesthetic treatments. Participants also reported the characteristics they were most likely to treat over the next year. Data from the overall population and race/ethnicity-specific participant subgroups are published separately.^11–15 This paper reports study findings from the male subgroup.

Methods

Study design. Detailed methodology for this study was described in the overview publication.¹¹ Briefly, this study was an anonymous online survey conducted by Research Learn Execute between February 25, 2022, and April 5, 2022. All participants were blinded to the sponsor throughout the study. Survey questions aimed to understand 4 areas related to aesthetic concerns and treatment interests: participant treatment preferences for the face vs the body, characteristics of the face and body considered most frequently bothersome and relatively most bothersome (top aesthetic concerns), facial and body characteristics most likely to be treated, and the aesthetic treatments that participants were most interested in receiving for the face and body.

Assessment of concern with the face or body. Participants responded to the question, “When you think about your appearance overall, are you more concerned about the appearance of your body or the appearance of your face?” on a 5-point scale. Percentages are presented for participants reporting greater concern with characteristics of the face vs the body, equal concern with the face and the body, and greater concern with the body vs the face.

Identifying and ranking aesthetic concerns. Of 41 facial and 31 body characteristics selected based on prior research and consultation with subject matter experts,¹¹ participants were asked to select those they had and found bothersome. Participants then ranked these characteristics by bothersomeness using a MaxDiff scaling framework, which involved selecting the most and least bothersome characteristics among each randomized set of 5; facial and body characteristics were presented separately. The MaxDiff score (expressed as a percentage from 0% to 100%) indicated how often a characteristic was chosen as the most bothersome. Top aesthetic concerns were defined as characteristics that were both frequently reported as bothersome and had high MaxDiff scores. The MaxDiff framework has been used in similar studies and was selected for its ability to provide greater differentiation on preference dynamics.^11,16–18 Frequently bothersome, most bothersome, and top facial and body aesthetic concerns are also presented across age categories; for the percentages among all male participants, the contributions of each age group were weighted based on 2022 US census data.^11,19

Aesthetic treatment intentions. Participants were asked to choose from the same 41 facial and 31 body characteristics and to select those that they were likely to have professionally treated within the next year. Those responding “probably will” or “definitely will” seek treatment were included in the analysis.

Interest in aesthetic treatments. Participants ranked 48 facial or body treatments (grouped by category) based on their likelihood of receiving each within the next year using a MaxDiff scaling framework (Supplemental Table 1). Data for the top 10 treatments among male participants are presented and compared to the corresponding percentages of participants in the female population who were interested in those treatments. For all male and all female participants, the percentages of contributions of each race or ethnicity were weighted based on 2022 US census data.^11,19 The top 10 most desired treatments are also presented across age categories; for the percentages among all male participants, the contributions of each age group were weighted based on 2022 US census data.^11,19

Participants. All participants self-reported the racial or ethnic background description that best captures their specific race/origin (see full list in the overview publication¹¹). Participants were asked to select the sex/gender they identify with the most (including female, male, transgender female, transgender male, and nonbinary). Body mass index was calculated based on participant self-reported height and weight. Fitzpatrick skin phototype was determined based on a composite score from participant responses to key criteria, including eye and hair color, presence of freckles, sun exposure, and tanning. Eligible participants were adults living in the US aged 22 to 85 years who were aesthetically inclined (ie, those who wanted to enhance their facial and/or body appearance and who expressed willingness to pursue professional treatments) and who had an annual income of at least $35,000 (and reported having some discretionary income). Age categories were defined as Generation Z/young millennial, aged ≤30 years; older millennial, aged 31 to 41 years; Generation X, aged 42 to 57 years; and 58+, aged 58 to 85 years. In this analysis, the Generation X and 58+ groups were combined.

This study followed the EPHMRA Code of Conduct and the International Code of Marketing and Social Research Practice. Study participants were informed about data collection and privacy measures such as anonymization of survey responses, as well as the option to withdraw from the study at any time. Participants were required to provide informed consent by agreeing to these terms prior to completing the study.

Results

Participant demographics. Of 3,974 participants who met inclusion criteria and completed the survey, 697 (17.5%) self-identified as male. This included 3 participants who identified as transgender men. Participant demographics and baseline characteristics for the male subgroup are presented in Table 1. At the time of the study, more than half of male participants were millennials and were distributed across all regions in the US. A total of 44.3% of male participants had a normal weight, with body mass index of 18.5 to <25 kg/m², and 73.6% had Fitzpatrick skin phototype III or IV.

Top aesthetic concerns among male participants. The face was more of an aesthetic concern than the body for 40% of male participants, followed by 36% who expressed more concern about their body; 24% noted equal concern about their face and body.

Top facial aesthetic concerns among male participants. Of the 41 facial characteristics rated, the 5 most frequently bothersome were eye related, including dark circles under the eyes and under-eye bags or sagginess, hair loss/thinning hair (equally ranked with under-eye bags or sagginess), and skin quality concerns, including oily skin and dry or dull skin/lack of glow (Figure 1).

Based on MaxDiff scaling used to rank the degree of bothersomeness of the 41 facial characteristics, the 5 most bothersome were sagging skin (49%) and stubborn fat underneath the chin (49%; equivalent rankings), dark circles under the eyes (48%), and under-eye bags or sagginess (46%) and uneven skin color/hyperpigmentation (46%; equivalent rankings; Figure 1). The top 5 facial aesthetic concerns (ie, characteristics most frequently reported and ranked as most bothersome) were dark circles under the eyes, under-eye bags or sagginess and hair loss/thinning hair (equivalent rankings), sagging skin, and stubborn fat underneath the chin (Figure 1).

When weighted by age, the top 5 aesthetic facial concerns were under-eye bags or sagginess, dark circles under the eyes, and hair loss/thinning hair (equivalent rankings), sagging skin, and stubborn fat underneath the chin (Table 2). Dark circles under the eyes was the top concern for the Generation Z/young millennial and older millennial age groups, whereas hair loss/thinning hair and under-eye bags or sagginess (equivalent rankings) were top concerns for Generation X/58+ (Table 2). Hair loss/thinning hair, when present, was ranked as a top concern starting at the age of 31 but did not rank in the top 5 for Generation Z/young millennial individuals aged ≤30 years, as facial skin quality concerns (ie, dark circles under the eyes, acne scarring, uneven skin color/hyperpigmentation, rough skin/uneven skin texture) took precedence in this age group (Table 2). The most frequently bothersome and most bothersome facial characteristics across generations are presented in Supplemental Table 2 and Supplemental Table 3, respectively.

Top body aesthetic concerns among male participants. Of the 31 body characteristics rated, the most frequently bothersome were stubborn fat around the stomach and flanks (sides), a lack of muscle tone and muscle definition, unwanted hair, and sagging skin (Figure 2).

Based on MaxDiff scaling, the 5 most bothersome body characteristics were stubborn fat in the stomach (49%) and in the bra or back area (45%), lack of muscle tone and muscle definition (42%), and stubborn fat in the thighs (41%) and flanks (39%; Figure 2). The top 5 body aesthetic concerns (ie, those both frequently reported and rated as highly bothersome) were stubborn fat in the stomach, lack of muscle tone and muscle definition and stubborn fat on the flanks (equivalent rankings), stubborn fat in the bra or back area, and sagging skin (Figure 2).

When weighted by age, the top 5 aesthetic body concerns were stubborn fat in the stomach and flanks, lack of muscle tone and muscle definition, and sagging skin and stubborn fat in the thighs and bra or back area (equivalent rankings; Table 2). Stubborn fat in the stomach and other body areas, lack of muscle tone and muscle definition, and sagging skin were noted as top concerns across all generations (Table 2). The Generation Z/young millennial age group ranked rough skin/uneven skin texture among the top 5 concerns, whereas the older millennial and Generation X/58+ age groups did not (Table 2). The most frequently bothersome and most bothersome body characteristics across generations are presented in Supplemental Table 2 and Supplemental Table 3, respectively.

Treatment likelihood of facial and body characteristics among male participants. The 5 most likely facial characteristics participants would seek professional treatment for within the next year were dark circles under the eyes, hair loss/thinning hair, under-eye bags or sagginess, oily skin, and dry or dull skin/lack of glow (Figure 3; plotted against the top facial concerns). Dark circles under the eyes, hair loss/thinning hair, and under-eye bags or sagginess were also among the top facial aesthetic concerns, showing alignment between top concerns and treatment priorities (Figure 3). Although sagging skin and stubborn fat underneath the chin were ranked as top concerns, participants did not identify these characteristics as priorities for seeking professional treatment.

The 5 most likely body characteristics participants would seek professional treatment for were stubborn fat in the stomach; unwanted hair, stubborn fat in the flanks, and sagging skin (equivalent rankings); and lack of muscle tone and muscle definition, stretch marks, and rough skin/uneven skin texture (equivalent rankings; Figure 4; plotted against the top body concerns). Stubborn body fat around the stomach, lack of muscle tone and muscle definition, stubborn fat in the flanks, and sagging skin were also among the top body aesthetic concerns, showing alignment between top concerns and treatment priorities (Figure 4).

Degree of interest in aesthetic treatments. The top 10 aesthetic treatments of interest for male participants are presented in Figure 5, along with the percentages of participants in the female population who reported interest in these 10 treatments. Of the 48 aesthetic treatments assessed (Supplemental Table 1), tummy tuck/abdominoplasty ranked as the top treatment of interest for male participants. Other top ranked treatments included nonsurgical fat reduction, facials at a spa or doctor’s office, liposuction on the body, neurotoxins, microdermabrasion, dermal fillers, nonsurgical skin tightening, professional-grade skincare, and muscle stimulation.

When weighted by age, the top 10 treatments of interest among male participants were nonsurgical fat reduction, facials at a spa or doctor’s office, tummy tuck/abdominoplasty, liposuction on the body, nonsurgical skin tightening, neurotoxins, microdermabrasion, muscle stimulation, professional-grade skincare, and hydradermabrasion (Table 3). These top treatments were generally similar across generations with some variations (Table 3). Generation Z/young millennial participants selected facials at a spa or doctor’s office as the top treatment, whereas older millennial participants showed interest in surgical intervention such as a tummy tuck/abdominoplasty, and those in the Generation X/58+ group opted for less invasive treatments such as nonsurgical fat reduction (Table 3). Thigh lift and laser hair removal ranked within the top 10 for Generation Z/young millennial but not for the other age categories (Table 3). Eyelash growth treatments and upper arm lift ranked as top interests for older millennial participants but not for the other age categories (Table 3). Treatment with neurotoxins was noted across generations; dermal fillers were of interest to Generation Z/young millennial and older millennial male participants (Table 3). In contrast, muscle stimulation became a top treatment of interest in the older millennial and Generation X/58+ groups (Table 3).

Discussion

This analysis highlighted the aesthetic facial and body concerns and treatment interests of men in the US. As a subgroup analysis of a large US study, these findings offer the opportunity to consider the specific aesthetic needs of men compared to women and provide valuable insights for aesthetic providers that can help tailor consultation and guide treatment approaches for male patients.

The percentage of male participants who expressed greater concern with facial characteristics was similar to that of male participants who had greater concerns about body characteristics, in contrast to the female population, in which facial characteristics were more frequently ranked as a greater concern.¹¹ Top facial concerns among men included dark circles under the eyes, under-eye bags or sagginess, hair loss/thinning hair, and sagging skin, and these characteristics also ranked among the top concerns for women overall.¹¹ Male participants additionally reported stubborn fat under the chin as top facial concern, whereas female participants were concerned with uneven skin color/hyperpigmentation. The top body concerns among men included stubborn fat in the stomach and flanks and a lack of muscle tone; stubborn fat across different areas of the body also ranked as top concerns for women, but lack of muscle tone did not.¹¹ Differences in top body concerns may arise from anatomical variations and social influences on ideals of attractiveness between men and women.⁸ Nonetheless, unwanted fat in the submentum and body are a top treatment priority for men. In clinical practice, stubborn fat in the lower abdomen and upper arm skin laxity are frequently encountered and may represent additional relevant treatment targets.

The top aesthetic concerns among male participants were relatively similar across all surveyed age groups; however, skin quality (ie, dark circles under the eyes, acne scarring, uneven skin color/hyperpigmentation, rough skin/uneven skin texture) was more frequently identified as bothersome by Generation Z/younger millennial individuals. Across generations, hair loss/thinning emerged as a top concern for the older millennial and Generation X/58+ age groups. However, treatment for hair loss, such as hair transplant, did not rank among the top treatment interests for male participants in these age groups.^20,21 This disconnect may also reflect perceived invasiveness, cost, recovery time, or limited awareness of available treatment options, highlighting an opportunity for improved patient education, earlier intervention, and discussion of less invasive treatment approaches during consultation. Considering the profound impact hair loss can have on quality of life,^20,21 more attention and continued research to better understand barriers to treatment are warranted.

Although the top aesthetic concerns were generally similar between male and female participants, the degree of alignment with the characteristics participants were most likely to seek professional treatment for within the next year was slightly different. For male participants, 3 of the 5 facial characteristics most likely to be professionally treated aligned with top facial concerns (ie, dark circles under the eyes, under-eye bags or sagginess, and hair loss/thinning hair), whereas for female participants, only frown lines and uneven skin color ranked as both top concerns and top priorities for seeking professional treatment.¹¹ Male and female participants ranked stubborn body fat in the stomach and flanks as both top body concerns and characteristics they would most likely treat; however, male participants also ranked lack of muscle tone and sagging skin as top body concerns and top priorities for seeking professional treatment.¹¹ These findings show slightly greater alignment between top concerns and treatment-seeking priorities among male vs female participants, raising the possibility of differences in competing aesthetic priorities, including greater treatment fatigue and higher sensitivity to cost, downtime, and perceived risk. Differences in how men and women prioritize discrete, targetable concerns vs broader aesthetic goals may also contribute to this misalignment. Prior research has identified differences between men and women in motivations for seeking cosmetic treatment, with reasons such as career advancement and peer pressure having greater influence for men vs women.⁵ Thus, it is possible that financial considerations or social attitudes toward aesthetic treatment may account for the variations in how men and women prioritize their top aesthetic concerns for treatment.

The top 10 most desired aesthetic treatments were similar across age groups. Nonsurgical fat reduction, facials at a spa or doctor’s office, and tummy tuck/abdominoplasty were among the top 3 aesthetic treatments of interest for all generations, and these treatments of interest aligned with the top concerns across generations, including stubborn body fat in the stomach and flanks and facial skin quality concerns such as dark circles under the eyes. There were also similarities between the male and female participants in the study, as nonsurgical fat reduction and facials at the spa or doctor’s office ranked highly in both populations across generations.¹¹ The high degree of interest in minimally invasive aesthetic procedures among both men and women may reflect the need to treat aesthetic concerns without major downtime and scarring, allowing individuals to return to work and activities sooner. In contrast to the overall female participants, male participants selected an invasive surgical procedure such as a tummy tuck/abdominoplasty, highlighting the degree of bothersomeness associated with stubborn body fat when present and potentially indicating a willingness to undergo more invasive procedures despite associated risks and downtime to achieve more dramatic results.

The findings in this study reinforce and expand upon previous findings of aesthetic treatment preferences in men. An international survey of aesthetically conscious adults identified hair-related issues (ie, receding hairline, thinning hair, and pattern baldness) as the top concern among males.⁹ Crow’s feet lines, forehead lines, glabellar lines, under-eye bags, a desire to add volume to cheekbones, and facial skin issues (eg, redness, acne) were identified by both male and female participants as characteristics of high or extreme concern.⁹ Similarly, a survey of aesthetically oriented US men documented the top facial characteristics of concern as hair loss, double chin, crow’s feet lines, tear troughs, and forehead lines.⁴ Both crow’s feet lines and tear troughs were most likely to be prioritized for treatment.⁴ Among male participants with hair loss as a concern, 79% noted they would rather treat hair loss than the feature they originally selected as the most important to treat during the MaxDiff exercise (the focus of the MaxDiff exercise was on facial characteristics that could be treated with minimally invasive procedures and, as such, hair loss was not included).⁴ The findings from the current study and the previous studies consistently identified hair-related issues and the periorbital area as those of both major concern and a priority for aesthetic treatment among men, reinforcing the psychosocial importance of the hair and eye area.^22,23 The current study also expands on the literature by highlighting the top body concerns and treatment priorities and interests for male participants, including data across generations.

This analysis of the male participants in the study has several notable strengths, including a large sample size comprising only male participants and use of MaxDiff methodology to capture relative priorities more accurately than traditional rating scales with reduced response bias. Similar analyses have focused on the face, with limited data on aesthetic concerns and treatment interests related to the body; this study captured comprehensive coverage of facial and body concerns to create a holistic view of an individual’s aesthetic priorities. Several limitations must also be acknowledged. Although subgroup analyses were conducted, further stratification by country of origin, generation, and acculturation status may yield additional nuance. MaxDiff methodology, though robust in revealing relative priorities, does not measure willingness to undergo treatment or financial/access barriers, which remain important determinants of real-world uptake. The study was conducted in the US, and findings may not be generalizable to other regions. Although the survey was opened to members of the transgender and nonbinary communities, responses from members of these groups were limited. Future iterations of the survey should ensure adequate representation and feedback from these groups as aesthetic interests and the aesthetic patient continue to evolve.

Conclusion

As the interest in aesthetic procedures among men continues to increase, this large US study provides important insight into the aesthetic concerns and treatment inclinations of male-identifying patients. The greatest facial concerns were the appearance of the eye area and hair loss/hair thinning. The greatest body concerns revolved around stubborn fat on various areas and a lack of muscle tone. The findings from this study can be used to assist aesthetic providers in adapting consultations and treatment to better address the unique needs of male-identifying patients.

Supplemental Materials

Supplemental Tables 1–3

Disclosures

Dr. Ibrahim has served as a consultant and advisory board member for Allergan Aesthetics. Dr. Beer has been/is currently involved in clinical trials for Allergan, Alpha Tau Medical, Eirion, Caliway Biopharmaceuticals, Incyte, Lilly, Merz, Xtresse, and Veradermics and has served in a consulting or advisory board capacity for Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Veradermics. Dr. Keaney has served as a consultant, speaker, investigator, and advisory board member for Allergan Aesthetics. Dr. Zeidler has served as a consultant for Alastin/Galderma, Allergan Aesthetics, Bimini Health, Lumisque, and Turn Biosciences. Dr. Hartman has served as an investigator, consultant, and/or advisory board member for Allergan Aesthetics, Galderma, Revance, Revision Skincare, and SkinBetter. Dr. Houshmand has served as a consultant and advisory board member for Allergan Aesthetics. Drs. Zheng and Dimitrijevic are full-time employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock.

Acknowledgments

Writing and editorial assistance was provided to the authors by Illyce Nuñez, PhD and Jessica Brunquell, PhD of Peloton Advantage, an OPEN Health company, and was funded by AbbVie Inc. The authors would like to acknowledge the supplement co-sponsor Research Execute Learn LLC (Randy Long and Drew Minko) for their assistance with the survey design, distribution, collection of data, and analysis of the results.

References

1. Lem M, Pham JT, Kim JK, Tang CJ. Changing aesthetic surgery interest in men: an 18-year analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023;47(5):2136–2141.
2. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS international survey on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed in 2020. 2021. Accessed 2 Mar 2022. https://www.isaps.org/discover/about-isaps/global-statistics/reports-and-press-releases/global-survey-2020-full-report-and-press-releases-english/
3. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS international survey on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed in 2024. 2025. Accessed 25 Aug 2025. https://www.isaps.org/media/oogpzodr/isaps-global-survey_2024.pdf.
4. Jagdeo J, Keaney T, Narurkar V, et al. Facial treatment preferences among aesthetically oriented men. Dermatol Surg. 2016;42(10):1155–1163.
5. Girdwichai N, Chanprapaph K, Vachiramon V. Behaviors and attitudes toward cosmetic treatments among men. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2018;11(3):42–48.
6. Mironica A, Popescu CA, George D, et al. Social media influence on body image and cosmetic surgery considerations: a systematic review. Cureus. 2024;16(7):e65626.
7. Konig DJ, Sidhu AS, Corpuz GS. Looksmaxxing: straddling the inflection between self-enhancement and self-harm. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 22 Dec 2025.
8. Farhadian JA, Bloom BS, Brauer JA. Male aesthetics: a review of facial anatomy and pertinent clinical implications. J Drugs Dermatol. 2015;14(9):1029–1034.
9. Fabi S, Alexiades M, Chatrath V, et al. Facial aesthetic priorities and concerns: a physician and patient perception global survey. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(4):NP218–NP229.
10. Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P, Johnson FR. Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):2.
11. Zeidler K, Chiu A, Sadeghpour M, et al. Aesthetic concerns and treatment interests for face and body in a large sample of aesthetically-inclined adults from the United States. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2026;19(8 Suppl 2):5–16.
12. Sherber N, Bharti G, Downie J, et al. Demographic survey of aesthetic interests and concerns (MOSAIC): US survey study of facial and body aesthetic concerns and treatment interests among White women. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2026;19(8 Suppl 2):47–56.
13. Fabi S, Beer J, Bharti G, et al. Demographic survey of aesthetic interests and concerns (MOSAIC): US survey study of facial and body aesthetic concerns and treatment interests of Hispanic and Latina women. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2026;19(8 Suppl 2):38–46.
14. Chiu A, Rahman Z, Munavalli G, et al. Demographic survey of aesthetic interests and concerns (MOSAIC): US survey study of facial and body aesthetcic concerns and treatment interests among Asian women. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2026;19(8 Suppl 2):17–27.
15. Alexis A, Boyd C, Burgess C, et al. Demographic survey of aesthetic interests and concerns (MOSAIC): US survey study of facial and body aesthetic concerns and treatment interests among Black women. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2026;19(8 Suppl 2):28–37.
16. Chiu A, Mariwalla K, Hui-Austin A, et al. Understanding the female Asian American facial aesthetic patient. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(7):633–641.
17. Fabi S, Montes JR, Aguilera SB, et al. Understanding the female Hispanic and Latino American facial aesthetic patient. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(7):623–632.
18. Narurkar V, Shamban A, Sissins P, et al. Facial treatment preferences in aesthetically aware women. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(Suppl 1):S153–S160.
19. Donnelly F. US Census Data: concepts and applications for supporting research. Libr Technol Rep. 2022;58(4):5–37.
20. Morton DJ, Kritz-Silverstein D, Riley DJ, Barrett-Connor EL, Wingard DL. Premature graying, balding, and low bone mineral density in older women and men: the Rancho Bernardo study. J Aging Health. 2007;19(2):275–285.
21. Huang CH, Fu Y, Chi CC. Health-related quality of life, depression, and self-esteem in patients with androgenetic alopecia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(8):963–970.
22. Aukerman EL, Jafferany M. The psychological consequences of androgenetic alopecia: a systematic review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;22(1):89–95.
23. Michaud T, Gassia V, Belhaouari L. Facial dynamics and emotional expressions in facial aging treatments. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2015;14(1):9–21.