AGA practitioner challenges: A mixed-methods pilot survey.

BACKGROUND: Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) practitioner care may be hampered by commercial biases and hair loss' omission from most medical curricula.

AIM AND METHOD: Between November 2020 and September 2021, 34 AGA professionals (86% British; 62% trichologists), participated in a pilot, mixed-methods, survey. Practitioner views on: 1a-1j) AGA's commercial influences (e.g., participants were quantitatively assessed on their understanding of a popular, commercially-funded, AGA study) and 2a-2h) constraints on evidenced-based AGA responding (e.g., ethical dilemmas) were assessed. Quantitative responses are reported descriptively whilst qualitative responses are categorized alongside illustrative quotes.

RESULTS: On average, (1a-1d) 42% of participants were misled by the popular AGA study and (1e) participants underestimated the extent of commercial biases in AGA research as 25%; (2a-2e). Participants also indicated that AGA treatment limitations and misinformation ethically challenged them (e.g., "[It's difficult to know when] to treat or not without being able to confirm the outcome"). (2c) Most (77%) indicated society played a powerful role in exacerbating AGA distress (e.g., "Society is hyper critical of appearance") and 30% indicated greater "treatment" accessibility was needed: (e.g., "hair loss product [should] give clear indication of what the active ingredients are and how effective they are").

CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited sample size, these finding cohere with previous identified challenges of the AGA practitioner role. Evidence based guidance and research scrutiny tools would help practitioners overcome such challenges.