Experiences of Social Media Users with Over the Counter Red Light Therapy Devices

J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2025;18(7):8–10.

by Erum N. Ilyas, MD, MBE, FAAD; Alexander J. Barna, MPH; Alexis Arza, BS; and Carolyn Giordano, PhD, FASAHP, FNAP

All authors are with the Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

FUNDING: No funding was provided for this article.

DISCLOSURES: The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.

Abstract: The rising popularity of over-the-counter red-light therapy (RLT) devices has sparked interest in their efficacy and consumer behavior, particularly as they are increasingly promoted on social media. This cross-sectional study analyzed responses from a survey of 226 participants, with 88.5 percent identifying as female and 83.6 percent of Hispanic or Latino origin. The majority (60.4%) reported learning about RLT devices through social media, and 90.0 percent were willing to purchase one, with most respondents willing to spend between $101 to $300 USD (48.9%). The top motivations for use included anti-aging (50.2%), improving skin texture (37.9%), and reducing dark spots (30.8%). Significant associations were found between Hispanic ethnicity, male gender, and increasing age with a higher likelihood of considering RLT devices (p<0.001). Respondents were also skeptical of the value of higher-priced devices, with 58.8 percent doubting their superior efficacy. These findings highlight significant demographic influences on the interest in RLT devices, emphasizing the need for transparent product information and realistic consumer expectations to ensure satisfaction and trust in the technology. Keywords: Phototherapy, red light therapy, light therapy, social media, survey

Introduction

The market for over the counter (OTC) cosmetic devices is quickly growing, in both the types of products available for purchase and the number of consumers interested in purchasing these devices for at-home use. One category of product that has gained attention in recent years is low-energy red light that is used for its skin rejuvenation.¹ This type of device is of notable interest and is predicted to dominate the home device field, given the majority of current consumer skin care spending is based around anti-aging products.² Current market research shows the global light therapy market to reach around $800 million USD by 2031.³ Although there is a boom in the light therapy industry, United States Food and Drug Administration approval variations have led to consumer confusion regarding device safety and efficacy. Patients are often interested in these products and seek advice from their dermatologist or plastic surgeon to help understand the efficacy and safety of using these devices.

The rise of social media in the last 20 years has created an evolving landscape that provides patients and consumers access to evidence-based medical information from physicians, however, it also provides access to medical misinformation, commission-based sales driven recommendations,^4–10 or other content that lacks sufficient evidence. In 2010, 43 percent of adults in the United States used at least one type of social media; by 2020 this number grew to 72 percent, and continues to rise.¹¹ Previous qualitative analysis on dermatologic topics on social media has shown that a majority of posts emphasize communicating advice and improving general wellbeing, however, there is a large portion of posts that lack evidence and promote recommendations that lack evidence.¹²

The purpose of this study was to identify social media users’ and common consumers’ knowledge and experience of OTC red light therapy devices for skin and dermatologic use. Information gathered from this survey will provide clinicians with an understanding of consumers’ interest and experience with OTC red light therapy devices. The primary objectives of this study are to learn more about how consumers first learned of red-light therapy devices and their willingness to purchase and use these devices.

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional, self-reported anonymous survey distributed on social media (Instagram, Facebook, Linkedin, X) from May 2024 to July 2024. Inclusion criteria included social media users over 18 years of age. Survey responses were voluntary and collected anonymously without any identifiable data using Qualtrics. Responses were password protected with only study investigators having access to the data collected. This anonymous survey consisted of 23 multiple-choice questions, multiple select, short answer, and slide bar questions regarding patient demographics and respondent opinions and experiences with at-home red-light-therapy devices.

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 29 (IBM, Armonk New York). Percentages were calculated for all categorical variables. Chi-square test for association was used to determine the relationships between categorical variables. All tests were performed two-tailed and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 226 survey respondents were included in the analysis. Respondents varied in age, with the majority being 24 to 34 years old (39.4%). Female participants made up 88.5 percent of respondents (Table 1). Self-identified race of respondents included White/Caucasian (89.0%), Black/African American (1.8%), American Indian/Native American/Alaska Native (0.9%), Asian (7.0%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (0.4%), other (3.5%), prefer not to say (0.4%). Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin accounted for 83.6 percent of respondents. Educational background included high school/ GED (9.3%), some college (15.1%), bachelor’s degree (40.4%), master’s degree (23.1%), doctoral degree (8.0%). All demographics are listed in Table 1.

Social media was the most likely source for hearing about RLT devices (60.4%), followed by family/friend (18.1%), websites/blogs (13.2%), dermatologist/doctor (11.5%), esthetician (10.1%), and other (10.1%). Most respondents indicated that they have previously tried red-light therapy or were interested in trying red-light therapy (75.6%). In terms of purchasing, 90.0 percent indicated that they would or might be willing to purchase an at-home red-light therapy device. Respondents were willing to spend up to $1,021 USD on devices, with price groupings of $100 or less (22.5%), $101 to $300 (48.9%), $301 to 500 (15.9%), and $500+ (10.1%).

The most common skin concerns respondents expressed desire to address with RLT were anti-aging (50.2%), improve skin texture (37.9%), reduce dark spots (30.8%), and reduce acne (20.7%). A majority indicated they were expecting to see results within 1 to 3 months of use (44.1%). Most respondents did not believe that higher priced devices offered better results (58.8%), did not have a preference for product brand (75.7%), and were not sure if having a device with multiple wavelengths was important (75.0%).

Significant associations were found between being Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino and considering buying a RLT device (χ2(2)=63.48, p<0.001), male gender and considering buying a RLT device (χ2(2)=40.94, p<0.001), and increasing age and considering buying a RLT device (χ2(8)=193.56, p<0.001) (Table 2). Increasing age was also associated with preference for using a daily device rather than daily cream to achieve skincare results (χ2(4)=79.02, p<0.001) (Table 2).

Discussion

The findings of this study highlight trends in consumer behavior and attitudes toward at-home RLT devices, emphasizing both the widespread interest and significant demographic influences. Notably, the high percentage of respondents willing to purchase RLT devices (90.0%) underscores the growing demand for such technologies, driven largely by social media (60.4%), which emerged as the dominant source of information. The strong influence of social media highlights its pivotal role in shaping consumer perceptions and decisions, making it a powerful platform for education and marketing. However, it also raises significant concerns about the potential for misinformation, where low-quality products can be misrepresented as high quality, exploiting consumer trust.

The significant associations observed between Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin, male gender, and increasing age with the likelihood of considering an RLT device suggest targeted marketing strategies could further tap into these demographic groups. Additionally, the skepticism about higher-priced devices offering superior results, coupled with uncertainty regarding the importance of multiple wavelengths, indicates that consumers prioritize affordability and simplicity over perceived technological advancements. This preference for affordable, uncomplicated products, combined with the expectation of quick results (44.1% within 1–3 months), highlights a demand for efficient and accessible skincare solutions designed for easy integration into everyday life. This significant gap between consumer expectations for rapid results and the actual performance of RLT devices, in which further research is needed to determine length of treatment for results, highlights concerns about whether such high expectations can be realistically met. Additionally, it underscores the need for more transparent product information to align consumer expectations with the true efficacy of the devices. Manufacturers and marketers must address this gap by providing clearer evidence of efficacy and setting realistic expectations to avoid consumer dissatisfaction and potential mistrust.

This survey offers insights into patients’ current attitudes and perceptions regarding red light devices, which can guide dermatologists in counseling patients interested in using them. For instance, given that many respondents were uncertain about the significance of devices with multiple wavelength capabilities, it would be essential to address this feature during consultations. Additionally, discussing the expected time frame for visible results and recommending products that best align with patients’ specific goals would be equally important.

The educational background of respondents also plays a critical role in shaping their perceptions of RLT devices. With 40.4 percent holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, it is plausible that these individuals possess a more nuanced understanding of skincare technologies, which may influence their willingness to invest in such products. Future research could explore whether higher educational attainment correlates with more informed choices about RLT devices and greater skepticism towards unsupported claims.

Limitations. A limitation of this study is that it surveyed a predominantly female population, which may have influenced the results. The male survey respondents might have been more inclined to use these products, potentially skewing the findings towards a higher interest in RLT devices among men. A second limitation is that the survey was conducted on social media, limiting the generalizability due to unknown differences between social media users and non-users. Future research should aim to include a more balanced gender distribution to enhance the generalizability of the findings and better understand the preferences and behaviors of different demographic groups.

References

1. Hession MT, Markova A, Graber EM. A review of hand-held, home-use cosmetic laser and light devices. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(3):307–320.
2. Bernstein EF, Island TC. Lasers and energy-based devices for the consumer: the future of esthetic energy-based devices. In: Laser and Light Source Treatments for the Skin. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2014:186.
3. Americans’ social media use. Published January 31, 2024. Accessed March 10, 2024. https://www. pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-social-media-use/.
4. Helios Red Therapy. Affiliates. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://heliosredtherapy.com/en/pages/affiliates.
5. Koze Health. Register affiliate account. Accessed April 16, 2025. https://af.uppromote.com/koze-health/register.
6. Red Light Rising. Affiliates. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://redlightrising.refersion.com/.
7. Vital Red Light. Affiliate program. Accessed 11 Sept 2024. https://vitalredlight.com/affiliates/.
8. Mito Red Light. Affiliate support. Accessed 11 Sept 2024. https://mitoredlight.com/pages/affiliate-program-agreement.
9. Red Light Therapy Home. Partners. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://partners.redlighttherapyhome.com.
10. Solbasium. Innovators program. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://solbasium.com/pages/innovators-program-1.
11. Light therapy market size, share, competitive landscape and trend analysis report, by product, by application, by light type : global opportunity analysis and industry forecast, 2021-2031. Oct 2022. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/light-therapy-market-A11212.
12. Reddy A. Skincare in social media: analyzing prominent themes in online dermatologic discussions. Cureus. 2021;13(5):e14890.