Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36447650›Full record

ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2022

Factors Influencing Trust and Trustworthiness: Cosmetic Injectable Patient Experience Exploratory Study (CIPEES)-Part 3.

Cara B McDonald, Izolda Heydenrych

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Are We in an Ethical Dilemma in Aesthetic Medicine?Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A 360° Approach to Patient Care in Aesthetic Facial Rejuvenation.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cara B McDonaldDermatologist, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Izolda HeydenrychDermatologist in private practice, Cape Town, South Africa.
Right to Care · ZASt Vincent's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite the widely recognized importance of trust in professional relationships, it remains elusive, complex, multidimensional, and difficult to quantify due to the lack of validated tools. Objectives: The authors sought to explore both the important factors for building trust with cosmetic injectable patients and strategies for improving levels of trustworthiness in aesthetic practitioners. Methods: In order to explore factors in building trust with cosmetic injectable practitioners, a global study was conducted via an online survey. The Cosmetic Injectable Patient Experience Exploratory Study (CIPEES) survey assessed the relative importance of qualifications and training; reviewing of previous work (before and after photos); reputation; connection; time spent; online presence; and personal appearance of the practitioner in developing trust in a cosmetic practitioner. Results: The CIPEES survey collected 1488 responses across 75 countries, with 66% of participants completing all 15 questions. The respondents were 95.6% female and 4.4% male, with ages ranging from 18 to >65 years old (median 33 years old). The number 1 ranked reason for being able to trust a cosmetic injector was qualifications and training, followed by the reputation of the practitioner, and time spent by the practitioner with the survey respondent. Practitioner online presence was considered the least important factor in helping develop trust. Conclusions: The CIPEES survey results support patient trust being built through credibility, reliability, and intimacy, with low levels of practitioner self-orientation. The trustworthiness equation provides a framework for identifying practitioner weaknesses in patient relationships and actionable methods of improving trustworthiness.

Identifiers

PMID36447650
PMCPMC9687811
OpenAlexW4308447723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.