Skin-Lightening Product Use Among South Asian Americans: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite their potential for adverse health effects, skin-lightening products remain popular among South Asian Americans. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates attitudes toward skin tone and the prevalence and adverse effects of skin-lightening product use among South Asian Americans. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study, recruiting and surveying 175 women or nonbinary individuals meeting the following inclusion criteria: (1) lived in the United States, (2) identified as South Asian, and (3) were raised by parents born in South Asian countries. RESULTS: Of the 175 participants, 55 (31%) respondents used a skin-lightening product before. Parental pressure to use skin-lightening products and decreased time spent in the United States were significantly associated with skin-lightening product use (odds ratio [OR] 8.51, 95% CI 3.33-21.78, P<.001, and OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.96, P=.03, respectively). Although only 6 of the 55 (11%) users reported being aware of the potential side effects of skin-lightening products, 33 (60%) reported adverse effects, with acne, skin sensitivity, and dry skin being the most common. Users and nonusers equally endorsed statements associating lighter skin with increased attractiveness (P=.31), marriageability (P=.94), social status (P=.98), self-esteem (P=.73), and respect received from others (P=.74). CONCLUSIONS: The use of skin-lightening products among South Asian Americans is common and linked to social and psychological factors. Parental pressure and cultural beauty standards may play a significant role in perpetuating this practice. This study highlights the need for educational campaigns about the potential health risks associated with skin-lightening and increased efforts to challenge harmful beauty standards.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".