Perceptions About Aging and Aesthetics: A Global Study of Adults Aged 50 to 80 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Aesthetic treatments are associated with positive psychological and psychosocial outcomes, but most data are from adults <60 years. As the global population ages, there is an opportunity to better understand perceptions about aging among older adults and whether engaging with aesthetic medicine influences these perceptions. Objectives: This global survey sought to understand the psychology of aging among older adults with varying relationships to aesthetic medicine. Methods: This online survey (July-September 2022) queried adults (50-80 years) in 8 countries. Respondents were divided into 3 groups: those that had ever received aesthetic treatments (aesthetics receivers); those naive to aesthetic medicine but considering (naive considerers); and those naive and not considering (naive non-considerers). Respondents were queried about perceptions and expectations of aging and perceptions of aesthetic treatments. Results: Among 7588 total respondents, 39.8% were aesthetic receivers, 28.7% were naive considerers, and 31.5% were naive non-considerers. Overall, satisfaction with psychological self-perceptions (eg, level of self-confidence) was high (∼80%) regardless of respondents' engagement with aesthetic medicine. Naive non-considerers had the most positive view on aging, but there was strong agreement across all groups that aging was associated with benefits (eg, more time for hobbies/leisure) and potential challenges (eg, changes in mobility, losing independence). Most respondents (83%), regardless of their relationship with aesthetic medicine, agreed that aesthetic treatments had emotional benefits (eg, feeling like the best version of oneself). Conclusions: The data from this multi-country survey of older adults gives key insights into perceptions of aging and aesthetic medicine among a previously underrepresented population. Level of Evidence 5: (Therapeutic).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".