People considering cosmetic surgery – such as a breast augmentation, liposuction or face lift – should have extra protection following the release this week of new safety and quality standards for providers, from small day-clinics through to larger medical organisations.

The new standards cover issues including how these surgeries are advertised, psychological assessments before surgery, the need for people to be informed of risks associated with the procedure, and the type of care people can expect during and afterwards. The idea is for uniform standards across Australia.

The move is part of sweeping reforms of the cosmetic surgery industry and the regulation of medical practitioners, including who is allowed to call themselves a surgeon.

It is heartening to see these reforms, but some may say they should have come much sooner for what’s considered a highly unregulated area of medicine.

Why do people want cosmetic surgery?

Australians spent an estimated A$473 million on cosmetic surgery procedures in 2023.

The major reason people want cosmetic surgery relates to concerns about their body image. Comments from their partners, friends or family about their appearance is another reason.

The way cosmetic surgery is portrayed on social media is also a factor. It’s often portrayed as an “easy” and “accessible” fix for concerns about someone’s appearance. So such aesthetic procedures have become far more normalised.

The use of “before” and “after” images online is also a powerful influence. Some people may think their appearance is worse than the “before” photo and so they think cosmetic intervention is even more necessary.

People don’t always get the results they expect

Most people are satisfied with their surgical outcomes and feel better about the body part that was previously concerning them.

However, people have often paid a sizeable sum of money for these surgeries and sometimes experienced considerable pain as they recover. So a positive evaluation may be needed to justify these experiences.

People who are likely to be unhappy with their results are those with unrealistic expectations for the outcomes, including the recovery period. This can occur if people are not provided with sufficient information throughout the surgical process, but particularly before making their final decision to proceed.

What’s changing?

According to the new standards, services need to ensure their own advertising is not misleading, does not create unreasonable expectations of benefits, does not use patient testimonials, and doesn’t offer any gifts or inducements.

For some clinics, this will mean very little change as they were not using these approaches anyway, but for others this may mean quite a shift in their advertising strategy.

It will likely be a major challenge for clinics to monitor all of their patient communication to ensure they adhere to the standards.

It is also not quite clear how the advertising standards will be monitored, given the expanse of the internet.

What about the mental health assessment?

The new standards say clinics must have processes to ensure the assessment of a patient’s general health, including psychological health, and that information from a patient’s referring doctor be used “where available”.

According to the guidelines from the Medical Board of Australia, which the standards are said to complement, all patients must have a referral, “preferably from their usual general practitioner or if that is not possible, from another general practitioner or other specialist medical practitioner”.

While this is a step in the right direction, we may be relying on medical professionals who may not specialise in assessing body image concerns and related mental health conditions. They may also have had very little prior contact with the patient to make their clinical impressions.

So these doctors need further training to ensure they can perform assessments efficiently and effectively. People considering surgery may also not be forthcoming with these practitioners, and may view them as “gatekeepers” to surgery they really want to have.

Ideally, mental health assessments should be performed by health professionals who are extensively trained in the area. They also know what other areas should be explored with the patient, such as the potential impact of trauma on body image concerns.

Of course, there are not enough mental health professionals, particularly psychologists, to conduct these assessments so there is no easy solution.

Ultimately, this area of health would likely benefit from a standard multidisciplinary approach where all health professionals involved (such as the cosmetic surgeon, general practitioner, dermatologist, psychologist) work together with the patient to come up with a plan to best address their bodily concerns.

In this way, patients would likely not view any of the health professionals as “gatekeepers” but rather members of their treating team.

If you’re considering cosmetic surgery

The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, which developed the new standards, recommended taking these four steps if you’re considering cosmetic surgery:

1. have an independent physical and mental health assessment before you commit to cosmetic surgery

2. make an informed decision knowing the risks

3. choose your practitioner, knowing their training and qualifications

4. discuss your care after your operation and where you can go for support.

My ultimate hope is people safely receive the care to help them best overcome their bodily concerns whether it be medical, psychological or a combination.

Gemma Sharp, Associate Professor, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow & Senior Clinical Psychologist, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The war in Ukraine has had impacts around the world. Supply chains have been disrupted, the cost of living has soared and we’ve seen the fastest-growing refugee crisis since World War II. All of these are in addition to the devastating humanitarian and economic impacts within Ukraine.

Our international team was conducting a global study on wellbeing in the lead up to and after the Russian invasion. This provided a unique opportunity to examine the psychological impact of the outbreak of war.

As we explain in a new study published in Nature Communications, we learned the toll on people’s wellbeing was evident across nations, not just in Ukraine. These effects appear to have been temporary – at least for the average person.

But people with certain psychological vulnerabilities struggled to recover from the shock of the war.

Tracking wellbeing during the outbreak of war

People who took part in our study completed a rigorous “experience-sampling” protocol. Specifically, we asked them to report their momentary wellbeing four times per day for a whole month.

Data collection began in October 2021 and continued throughout 2022. So we had been tracking wellbeing around the world during the weeks surrounding the outbreak of war in February 2022.

We also collected measures of personality, along with various sociodemographic variables (including age, gender, political views). This enabled us to assess whether different people responded differently to the crisis. We could also compare these effects across countries.

Our analyses focused primarily on 1,341 participants living in 17 European countries, excluding Ukraine itself (44,894 experience-sampling reports in total). We also expanded these analyses to capture the experiences of 1,735 people living in 43 countries around the world (54,851 experience-sampling reports) – including in Australia.

A global dip in wellbeing

On February 24 2022, the day Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a sharp decline in wellbeing around the world. There was no decline in the month leading up to the outbreak of war, suggesting the change in wellbeing was not already occurring for some other reason.

However, there was a gradual increase in wellbeing during the month after the Russian invasion, suggestive of a “return to baseline” effect. Such effects are commonly reported in psychological research: situations and events that impact our wellbeing often (though not always) do so temporarily.

Unsurprisingly, people in Europe experienced a sharper dip in wellbeing compared to people living elsewhere around the world. Presumably the war was much more salient for those closest to the conflict, compared to those living on an entirely different continent.

Interestingly, day-to-day fluctuations in wellbeing mirrored the salience of the war on social media as events unfolded. Specifically, wellbeing was lower on days when there were more tweets mentioning Ukraine on Twitter/X.

Our results indicate that, on average, it took around two months for people to return to their baseline levels of wellbeing after the invasion.

Different people, different recoveries

There are strong links between our wellbeing and our individual personalities.

However, the dip in wellbeing following the Russian invasion was fairly uniform across individuals. None of the individual factors assessed in our study, including personality and sociodemographic factors, predicted people’s response to the outbreak of war.

On the other hand, personality did play a role in how quickly people recovered. Individual differences in people’s recovery were linked to a personality trait called “stability”. Stability is a broad dimension of personality that combines low neuroticism with high agreeableness and conscientiousness (three traits from the Big Five personality framework).

Stability is so named because it reflects the stability of one’s overall psychological functioning. This can be illustrated by breaking stability down into its three components:

1. low neuroticism describes emotional stability. People low in this trait experience less intense negative emotions such as anxiety, fear or anger, in response to negative events
2. high agreeableness describes social stability. People high in this trait are generally more cooperative, kind, and motivated to maintain social harmony
3. high conscientiousness describes motivational stability. People high in this trait show more effective patterns of goal-directed self-regulation.

So, our data show that people with less stable personalities fared worse in terms of recovering from the impact the war in Ukraine had on wellbeing.

In a supplementary analysis, we found the effect of stability was driven specifically by neuroticism and agreeableness. The fact that people higher in neuroticism recovered more slowly accords with a wealth of research linking this trait with coping difficulties and poor mental health.

These effects of personality on recovery were stronger than those of sociodemographic factors, such as age, gender or political views, which were not statistically significant.

Overall, our findings suggest that people with certain psychological vulnerabilities will often struggle to recover from the shock of global events such as the outbreak of war in Ukraine.

Luke Smillie, Professor in Personality Psychology, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.