ArticleSkin appendage disorders2026
Financial Burden of Scarring Alopecia: Insights from the Cicatricial Alopecia Patient Assessment and Impact Report-Scarring Alopecia Foundation Survey Study on Economic and Psychosocial Impact.
Article in Skin appendage disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Alopecia treatments can incur significant patient costs; however, this monetary impact has yet to be characterized in scarring alopecia (SA) patients. Our study aims to characterize the financial burden of SA and its psychosocial impact. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using survey data collected by the Scarring Alopecia Foundation between December 2, 2022, and December 16, 2022. Financial burden metrics and quality of life impacts were analyzed using RStudio. Results: A total of 1,047 individuals (97.4% female, mean age 57.8 years) completed the survey. Most patients (51.4%) spent USD 1-100 monthly on medical treatments, followed by USD 101-250 (22.8%). Annual costs for nonprescription treatments were most commonly <USD 100 (37%), followed by USD 101-500 (26.5%). Annual costs for nonmedical items were more evenly distributed, yet nearly one in five patients spent >USD 1,000. No differences were seen between general dermatologist and hair loss specialist patients. Most patients felt only somewhat supported or not supported by insurance with no difference between public and private coverage. Additionally, no financial metrics were significantly associated with differences in quality of life. Conclusion: Regardless of provider type, patients with SA face substantial out-of-pocket costs for nonmedical items with limited insurance support. Further advocacy is needed to lessen the financial burden faced by SA patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.