Evaluation of psychological well-being and social impact of atrophic acne scarring: A multinational, mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most people with acne are at risk of developing acne scars, but the impact of these scars on patients' quality of life is poorly researched. OBJECTIVE: To assess the perspective of patients with acne scars and the impact of these scars on their emotional well-being and social functioning. METHODS: A 60-minute interview of 30 adults with acne scars informed and contextualized the development of a cross-sectional survey of 723 adults with atrophic acne scars. RESULTS: The main themes identified in the qualitative interviews included acceptability to self and others, social functioning, and emotional well-being. In the cross-sectional survey, 31.6%, 49.6%, and 18.8% of the participants had mild, moderate, and severe/very severe acne scarring. The survey revealed that 25.7% of the participants felt less attractive, 27.5% were embarrassed or self-conscious because of their scars, 8.3% reported being verbally and/or physically abused because of their scars on a regular basis, and 15.9% felt that they were unfairly dismissed from work. In addition, 37.5% of the participants believed that their scars affected people's perceptions about them, and 19.7% of the participants were very bothered about hiding their scars daily. Moreover, 35.5% of the participants avoided public appearances, and 43.2% felt that their scars had negatively impacted their relationships. LIMITATIONS: The temporal evaluation of the impact was not estimated. CONCLUSION: Even mild atrophic acne scarring can evoke substantial emotional, social, and functional concerns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".