Sivanne Mendelson

Aesthetic Medicine is advanced as an integrated, evidence-based framework for patient-centered care that unites physical, psychological, social, and aesthetic dimensions of health. Drawing on Clinical Health Psychology, the paper introduces Aesthetic Health Psychology as a specialization that embeds psychological theory, assessment, and intervention within aesthetic medicine and surgery, emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration rather than professional mistrust. The paper argues that integrating Aesthetic Health Psychology into aesthetic medicine can enhance ethical practice, improve patient-reported outcomes, and support equity-focused implementation across diverse procedures and settings. It further suggests a practical framework for implementation. Three interrelated models are proposed: the Aesthetic Biopsychosocial Model, which conceptualizes aesthetics as a distinct health domain alongside biological, psychological, and social factors; the Aesthetic Health Care Process Model, which structures care as a five-stage journey supported by systematic screening for body dysmorphic disorder and the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures; and the Aesthetic Health Systems Model, which situates aesthetic care within institutional, policy, and cultural contexts. Idealized but clinically grounded vignettes from elective cosmetic, reconstructive, and gender-affirming settings illustrate how these models address non-linear trajectories of adaptation, evolving expectations, complications, and stigma. These concepts jointly define both the motivation for Aesthetic Health Psychology and its practical implications, from the use of brief, selective aesthetic screening during primary health care visits to the design of equity-focused implementation strategies across aesthetic procedures and settings.

This study investigated attitudes that young adults have toward individuals with amputation of the upper limb (AUL). Previous studies have found that people tend to feel sympathy toward these individuals, but they are also perceived as less competent in various situations. However, it is unclear if these perceptions are influenced by factors such as the cause of amputation, the gender of the amputee, whether they use a prosthesis or not, or the type of prosthesis. The survey included 469 participants from a university in the Southeastern United States. Participants rated pictures of individuals with or without amputation, and with and without prostheses after reading a brief background scenario. Images were rated using a semantic differential for competence and warmth, and a scale of functional ability. Factorial analysis of variances produced significant main effects indicating individuals with AULs who used prostheses were rated with higher competence and ability than individuals with AULs who did not use prostheses. Females were rated with lower competence and ability, and higher warmth regardless of AULs status. Higher ability ratings were obtained for individuals with advanced technology prostheses as compared to body-powered prostheses. Our research shows that people generally hold positive attitudes toward individuals with AUL when they use prostheses. However, traditional stereotypes persist for those who do not. Negative biases toward women should be accounted for in disability stigma studies. The cause of amputation did not influence ratings. Prostheses that appear to be advanced technology positively influenced ratings of functional ability when compared to traditional body-powered types. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: Women experience more severe gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms compared to men. The onset of puberty and the menstrual cycle may influence these differences. Additionally, health anxiety is an important construct that has been shown to play a role in increased symptomatology across many medical conditions. Using standardized clinical measures often employed to assess disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) we aimed to identify differences of GI functioning across menstrual cycle phases and to evaluate the role of health anxiety in this relationship. Methods: Six hundred three participants completed a survey including functional GI assessment scales (PROMIS-GI®), an abdominal pain scale and map, and a health anxiety measure. They were grouped by menstrual cycle phases (Menses, Follicular, Early-Luteal, and Premenstrual) based on self-reported start date of most recent period. Multivariate analyses of covariance were conducted to identify differences between menstrual cycle phase and scores on the symptom scales. Heath anxiety was included as a covariate in all analyses. Results: No significant differences were found between menstrual cycle group and PROMIS-GI scores. Higher GI-symptom and pain levels were found as health anxiety increased. Pain in the hypogastric region of the abdomen was significantly higher during the Menses phase when compared to Early-Luteal and Premenstrual phases. A subset of participants with DGBI diagnoses demonstrated significantly higher GI-symptom severity on several PROMIS-GI scales when compared to matched controls who did not have those diagnoses. In addition, participants with DGBI diagnoses reported significantly greater pain across multiple abdominal regions than their non-diagnosed counterparts. Conclusions: GI symptom levels as measured by the PROMIS-GI scales in otherwise healthy women were not dependent on menstrual cycle phase. Yet, the PROMIS-GI scales were sensitive to symptom differences in women with DGBI diagnoses. Overall, this study demonstrated that the PROMIS-GI measures are unlikely to be affected by gynecological functioning in healthy young women. We argue that the abdominal pain map is an essential addition to classification and diagnosis.