Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To evaluate the motivations, expectations, concerns, and the role of social media in the decision-making process of blepharoplasty candidates.</p> Methods <p>A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 60 adults considering or planning blepharoplasty. Participants completed the Original Blepharoplasty Candidates Questionnaire, which assessed demographics, surgical motivations, expectations, concerns, and social media influence. Descriptive statistics were calculated, subgroup comparisons were performed using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests, and logistic regression was used to identify predictors of decisional indecision.</p> Results <p>Functional necessity was the leading motivation (48.3%), while only 16.7% reported purely cosmetic reasons. Women more often cited aesthetic concerns (27.6%), whereas men more frequently reported combined functional and aesthetic motivations (48.4%; p = 0.024). Nearly half expected visual field improvement (48.3%), and 60.0% anticipated feeling “much better” postoperatively. Safety (45.0%) and loss of natural appearance (25.0%) were the most common concerns. Although 68.3% denied full indecision, one-third expressed partial hesitation. Logistic regression identified male sex, younger age, and social media influence as independent predictors of indecision (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Social media had limited overall impact, with 80.0% not using it for information, though 56.7% were uncertain about the naturalness of posted results.</p> Conclusions <p>Blepharoplasty candidates are primarily motivated by functional needs, while aesthetic concerns vary by sex and age. Social media exerts little influence overall but may increase uncertainty in younger, male patients.</p> Level of Evidence IV <p>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Motivations, Concerns, and the Role of Social Media in Upper Blepharoplasty Candidates: A Cross-Sectional Survey

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月9日

查看全文
  • Bedia Kesimal,
  • Sücattin İlker Kocamış

摘要

Purpose

To evaluate the motivations, expectations, concerns, and the role of social media in the decision-making process of blepharoplasty candidates.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 60 adults considering or planning blepharoplasty. Participants completed the Original Blepharoplasty Candidates Questionnaire, which assessed demographics, surgical motivations, expectations, concerns, and social media influence. Descriptive statistics were calculated, subgroup comparisons were performed using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests, and logistic regression was used to identify predictors of decisional indecision.

Results

Functional necessity was the leading motivation (48.3%), while only 16.7% reported purely cosmetic reasons. Women more often cited aesthetic concerns (27.6%), whereas men more frequently reported combined functional and aesthetic motivations (48.4%; p = 0.024). Nearly half expected visual field improvement (48.3%), and 60.0% anticipated feeling “much better” postoperatively. Safety (45.0%) and loss of natural appearance (25.0%) were the most common concerns. Although 68.3% denied full indecision, one-third expressed partial hesitation. Logistic regression identified male sex, younger age, and social media influence as independent predictors of indecision (p < 0.05). Social media had limited overall impact, with 80.0% not using it for information, though 56.7% were uncertain about the naturalness of posted results.

Conclusions

Blepharoplasty candidates are primarily motivated by functional needs, while aesthetic concerns vary by sex and age. Social media exerts little influence overall but may increase uncertainty in younger, male patients.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.