ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Integrating Psychological Insights into Aesthetic Medicine: A Cross-Generational Analysis of Patient Archetypes (IMPACT Study).
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Persian Version of the Nurse Intuition Patient Deterioration Scale: A Methodological Study.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Global Insights Into Confidence and Self-Perception in Aesthetic Medicine: A 15-Country Survey Analysis.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAesthetic medicine has evolved significantly, accommodating diverse demographics and motivations influenced by societal shifts and technological advancements. The IMPACT (integrative multigenerational psychological analysis for cosmetic treatment) study refines patient archetypes, integrating psychological theories to tailor treatments, especially for younger demographics and LGBTQIA + communities.
methodsThis cross-sectional study utilized a comprehensive, validated survey with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.89 and a Content Validity Index (CVI) of 0.92, distributed across a globally diverse, generationally stratified sample. Techniques like regression analysis, ANOVA, Bayesian modelling, and factor analysis were employed to analyse the data, focusing on developing nuanced patient archetypes.
resultsAmong 5645 participants, 5340 complete responses highlighted significant generational differences in aesthetic preferences. Millennials showed a strong preference for non-invasive procedures (β = 0.65, p < 0.001). ANOVA results confirmed significant variances across generations [F (3, 5118) = 157.6, p < 0.001], with post-hoc analyses delineating specific inter-group differences. Bayesian modelling provided insights into the probability of non-invasive preferences among younger cohorts at over 92% certainty. Factor analysis revealed key dimensions such as 'Generational Influence' and 'Technological Adoption,' which helped in defining archetypes including Dynamic Self-Identity, Digital Native, Stability Seeker, Classic Conservatism, and Holistic Health, collectively explaining up to 78% of the variance in responses.
conclusionThe IMPACT study underscores the influence of generational identity and digital exposure on aesthetic preferences, advocating for personalized, archetype-based treatment approaches. This aligns with enhancing patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes, promoting an adaptive aesthetic medicine practice that meets the evolving needs of modern patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
39187591What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.