UK esthetics associations: A robust safety net or credibility accessories?

Background: Currently, safe practice in the UK esthetics industry is largely reliant on self-regulatory bodies. If these bodies do not maintain high standards of safety guidelines and properly accredit practitioners, patient safety may be at risk. To our knowledge, no studies have addressed cosmetic self-regulatory bodies and their websites on Google, the most com- monly used information source. This study aimed to map self-regulatory bodies on Google and evaluate their roles in the current UK esthetics industry.Method: We conducted a systematic search of Google Search results using eight search terms. The first 100 search results were screened against our eligibility criteria. We searched each website of a self-regulatory body for their requirements to join registers, membership fees, and features listed on the UK government's criteria for an effective self-regulatory body.Results: We identified 22 self-regulating bodies for the UK esthetics industry. Only 15% of registers required an in-person assessment of cosmetic skills to qualify for membership. Of the self-regulatory bodies, 65% did not set clear standards and guidelines for practice. No qualifi- cations were required by 14% of surgical and 31% of non-surgical bodies. The mean membership fee was & POUND;331.Conclusion: This study uncovered important information about the self-regulation of the es- thetics industry in the UK. A significant majority of self-regulatory bodies did not meet best practices, potentially putting patients at risk. We recommend further studies screening a higher number of pages in a Google Search to scope all other existing self-regulatory bodies, due to the creation of Google "filter bubbles."& COPY; 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.