4.4 Article

Body Piercing: A National Survey in France

期刊

DERMATOLOGY
卷 235, 期 1, 页码 71-78

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000494350

关键词

Body piercing; Complication; Epidemiology; France; Infection; Skin diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There are no recent data available in France regarding body piercing (BP). Objective: We examined the demographics, motivations, quality of life, cutaneous conditions, and cutaneous side effects after BP within the French population. Methods: A representative sample of 5,000 individuals (aged 15 and over) from the general population responded to a survey online between April and August 2017. Data regarding demographics, BP characteristics (location, age at first piercing, hesitation, regrets, motivations, cutaneous side effects), tobacco, skin conditions (acne, contact eczema, atopic eczema, rosacea, psoriasis, vitiligo), and tattoos were collected. Respondents also filled an SF-12 quality of life questionnaire. Results: Overall, 12% of the respondents reported at least one BP (women: 19.4%, men: 8.4%, p < 0.01). The prevalence was highest among those aged between 25 and 34 years (25.8%). Individuals with BP were more likely to smoke (p < 0.01). The most common body parts for piercings were the external part of the ear (42%), the navel (24%), the tongue (15%), and the nose (11%). Gender differences included localization (belly button and nose for women, eyebrows for men) and motivations (embellishment of the body for women, individuality and sexuality for men). A total of 33.6% of the study participants reported having skin problems after BP, primarily infection (44%). Individuals with BPs were more likely to report having contact eczema, atopic dermatitis, and acne. BP was associated with a lower mental quality of life score. Conclusion: This is the largest epidemiological study on BP in France to date. It allows us to draw a precise current snapshot of French individuals with BP. (C) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据