Evaluation of Psychological Wellbeing and Social Impact of Combined Facial and Truncal Acne: a Multi-national, Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Half of the individuals with facial acne develop truncal acne, but the impact of combined facial and truncal acne (CA) on patients' quality of life is poorly researched. METHODS: A 60-min interview of 30 participants with CA was conducted that formed the basis for a cross-sectional survey of 694 adolescents and adults with CA. RESULTS: The main themes identified from the qualitative interviews among CA subjects included acceptability to self and others, social functioning and emotional wellbeing. Feelings of embarrassment, self-consciousness and low confidence were experienced often or all the time by over 50% of participants, and were more frequent in those who perceived their acne to be out of control (P = 0.003). Half of patients reported feeling stigmatised because of their CA, and 65.4% believed that others associated their truncal acne with unhealthy or unhygienic habits. Perceived stigma was associated with more feelings of embarrassment (P = 0.005), self-consciousness (P = 0.034) and low self-confidence (P = 0.017). Overall, 64% participants reported that CA interfered with daily life, 46.4% often or always avoided social interaction, 48.6% were often concerned about talking to unfamiliar people and 47.4% were uncomfortable showing affection. Further, 32% and 24.4% participants ≥ 16 years old avoided dating or having romantic/intimate relationships because of their facial and truncal acne, respectively. Social and leisure activities were more frequently negatively impacted among those with perceived uncontrolled CA than among those with controlled CA. Avoiding undressing in front of spouse/partner/friends/relatives was more commonly reported by participants with perceived uncontrolled truncal acne than by those with controlled truncal acne (90.5% versus 80.6%, P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: CA is associated with considerable psychological morbidity, with several exacerbating (e.g. perceived stigma) and attenuating factors (e.g. acne being perceived as being under control) that should be accounted for in CA management.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".