Diversity in Medicine

More women die from pregnancy complications in the United States than in any other developed country. The United States is the only industrialized nation with a rising maternal mortality rate.

Those 2 sentences should stop us all in our tracks.

In fact, the United States ranks 47th globally with the worst maternal mortality rate. More than half these deaths are likely preventable, with suicide and drug overdose the leading causes of maternal death in many states. All this occurs despite our advanced medical system, premier medical colleges and universities, embrace of high-tech medical advances, and high percentage of gross domestic product spent on health care.

Need more numbers? According to a 2016 report in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the United States saw a 26% increase in the maternalmortality rate (unadjusted) in only 15 years: from 18.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014 (FIGURE 1).¹

Considerable variations by race and by state

The racial disparities in maternal mortality are staggering and have not improved in more than 20 years: African American women are 3.4 times more likely to die than non-Hispanic white women of pregnancy-related complications. In 2011–2013, the maternal mortality ratio for non-Hispanic white women was 12.7 deaths per 100,000 live births compared with 43.5 deaths for non-Hispanic black women (FIGURE 2).² American Indian or Alaska Native women, Asian women, and some Latina women also experience higher rates than non-Hispanic white women. The rate for American Indian or Alaska Native women is 16.9 deaths per 100,000 live births.³

Some states are doing better than others, showing that there is nothing inevitable about the maternal mortality crisis. Texas, for example, has seen the highest rate of maternal mortality increase. Its rate doubled from 2010 to 2012, while California reduced its maternal death rate by 30%, from 21.5 to 15.1, during roughly the same period.¹

This is a challenge of epic proportions, and one that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), under the leadership of President Haywood Brown, MD, and Incoming President Lisa Hollier, MD, is determined to meet, ensuring that a high maternal death rate does not become our nation’s new normal.

Dr. Brown put it this way, “ACOG collaborative initiatives such as Levels of Maternal Care (LOMC) and implementation of OB safety bundles for hemorrhage, hypertension, and thromboembolism through the AIM [Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health] Program target maternal morbidity and mortality at the community level. Bundles have also been developed to address the disparity in maternal mortality and for the opiate crisis.”

ACOG is making strides in putting in place nationwide meaningful, evidence-driven systems and care approaches that are proven to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity, saving mothers’ lives and keeping families whole.

Read about the AIM Program’s initiatives

ACOG’s AIM Program established to make an impact

The AIM Program (www.safehealthcare foreverywoman.org) is bringing together clinicians, public health officials, hospital administrators, patient safety organizations, and advocates to eliminate preventable maternal mortality throughout the United States. With funding and support from the US Health Resources and Services Administration, AIM is striving to:

• reduce maternal mortality by 1,000 deaths by 2018
• reduce severe maternal morbidity
• assist states and hospitals to improve outcomes
• create and encourage use of maternal safety bundles (evidence-based tool kits to guide the best care).

AIM offers participating physicians and hospitals online learning modules, checklists, work plans, and links to tool kits and published resources. Implementation data is shared with hospitals and states to further improve care. Physicians participating in AIM can receive Part IV maintenance of certification; continuing education units will soon be offered for nurses. In the future, AIM-participating hospitals may be able to receive reduced liability protection costs, too.

To date, 17 states are participating in the AIM initiative (FIGURE 3), with more states ready to enroll.⁴ States must demonstrate a commitment to lasting change to participate. Each AIM state must have an active maternal mortality review committee (MMRC); committed leadership from public health, hospital associations, and provider associations; and a commitment to report AIM data.

• reducing disparities in maternity care
• severe hypertension in pregnancy
• safe reduction of primary cesarean birth
• prevention of venous thromboembolism
• obstetric hemorrhage
• maternal mental health
• patient, family, and staff support following a severe maternal event
• postpartum care basics
• obstetric care of women with opioid use disorder (in use by Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia).

Read about how active MMRCS are critical to success

Review committees are critical to success

In use in many states, MMRCs are groups of local ObGyns, nurses, social workers, and other health care professionals who review specific cases of maternal deaths from their local area and recommend local solutions to prevent future deaths. MMRCs can be a critically important source of data to help us understand the underlying causes of maternal mortality.

Remember California’s success in reducing its maternal mortality rate, previously mentioned? That state was an early adopter of an active MMRC and has worked to bring best practices to maternity care throughout the state.

While every state should have an active MMRC, not every state does. ACOG is working with states, local leaders, and state and federal legislatures to help develop MMRCs in every state.

Dr. Brown pointed out that, “For several decades, Indiana had a legislatively authorized multidisciplinary maternal mortality review committee that I actively participated in and led in the late 1990s. The authorization for the program lapsed in the early 2000s, and the Indiana MMRC had to shut down. Bolstering the federal government’s capacity to help states like Indiana rebuild MMRCs, or start them from scratch, will help state public health officials, hospitals, and physicians take better care of moms and babies.”

Dr. Hollier explained, “In Texas, I chair our Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force, which was legislatively authorized in 2013 in response to the rising rate of maternal death. The detailed state-based maternal mortality reviews provide critical information: verification of vital statistics data, assessment of the causes and contributing factors, and determination of pregnancy relatedness. These reviews identify opportunities for prevention and implementation of the most appropriate interventions to reduce maternal mortality on a local level. Support of essential review functions at the federal level would also enable data to be combined across jurisdictions for national learning that was previously not possible.”

Pending legislation will strengthen efforts

ACOG is working to enact into law the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, HR 1318 and S1112. This is bipartisan legislation under which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would help states create or expand MMRCs and will require the Department of Health and Human Services to research ways to reduce disparities in maternal health outcomes.

Acknowledgement
The author thanks Jean Mahoney, ACOG’s Senior Director, AIM, for her generous assistance.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

More women die from pregnancy complications in the United States than in any other developed country. The United States is the only industrialized nation with a rising maternal mortality rate.

Those 2 sentences should stop us all in our tracks.

In fact, the United States ranks 47th globally with the worst maternal mortality rate. More than half these deaths are likely preventable, with suicide and drug overdose the leading causes of maternal death in many states. All this occurs despite our advanced medical system, premier medical colleges and universities, embrace of high-tech medical advances, and high percentage of gross domestic product spent on health care.

Need more numbers? According to a 2016 report in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the United States saw a 26% increase in the maternalmortality rate (unadjusted) in only 15 years: from 18.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014 (FIGURE 1).¹

Considerable variations by race and by state

The racial disparities in maternal mortality are staggering and have not improved in more than 20 years: African American women are 3.4 times more likely to die than non-Hispanic white women of pregnancy-related complications. In 2011–2013, the maternal mortality ratio for non-Hispanic white women was 12.7 deaths per 100,000 live births compared with 43.5 deaths for non-Hispanic black women (FIGURE 2).² American Indian or Alaska Native women, Asian women, and some Latina women also experience higher rates than non-Hispanic white women. The rate for American Indian or Alaska Native women is 16.9 deaths per 100,000 live births.³

Some states are doing better than others, showing that there is nothing inevitable about the maternal mortality crisis. Texas, for example, has seen the highest rate of maternal mortality increase. Its rate doubled from 2010 to 2012, while California reduced its maternal death rate by 30%, from 21.5 to 15.1, during roughly the same period.¹

This is a challenge of epic proportions, and one that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), under the leadership of President Haywood Brown, MD, and Incoming President Lisa Hollier, MD, is determined to meet, ensuring that a high maternal death rate does not become our nation’s new normal.

Dr. Brown put it this way, “ACOG collaborative initiatives such as Levels of Maternal Care (LOMC) and implementation of OB safety bundles for hemorrhage, hypertension, and thromboembolism through the AIM [Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health] Program target maternal morbidity and mortality at the community level. Bundles have also been developed to address the disparity in maternal mortality and for the opiate crisis.”

ACOG is making strides in putting in place nationwide meaningful, evidence-driven systems and care approaches that are proven to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity, saving mothers’ lives and keeping families whole.

Read about the AIM Program’s initiatives

ACOG’s AIM Program established to make an impact

The AIM Program (www.safehealthcare foreverywoman.org) is bringing together clinicians, public health officials, hospital administrators, patient safety organizations, and advocates to eliminate preventable maternal mortality throughout the United States. With funding and support from the US Health Resources and Services Administration, AIM is striving to:

• reduce maternal mortality by 1,000 deaths by 2018
• reduce severe maternal morbidity
• assist states and hospitals to improve outcomes
• create and encourage use of maternal safety bundles (evidence-based tool kits to guide the best care).

AIM offers participating physicians and hospitals online learning modules, checklists, work plans, and links to tool kits and published resources. Implementation data is shared with hospitals and states to further improve care. Physicians participating in AIM can receive Part IV maintenance of certification; continuing education units will soon be offered for nurses. In the future, AIM-participating hospitals may be able to receive reduced liability protection costs, too.

To date, 17 states are participating in the AIM initiative (FIGURE 3), with more states ready to enroll.⁴ States must demonstrate a commitment to lasting change to participate. Each AIM state must have an active maternal mortality review committee (MMRC); committed leadership from public health, hospital associations, and provider associations; and a commitment to report AIM data.

• reducing disparities in maternity care
• severe hypertension in pregnancy
• safe reduction of primary cesarean birth
• prevention of venous thromboembolism
• obstetric hemorrhage
• maternal mental health
• patient, family, and staff support following a severe maternal event
• postpartum care basics
• obstetric care of women with opioid use disorder (in use by Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia).

Read about how active MMRCS are critical to success

Review committees are critical to success

In use in many states, MMRCs are groups of local ObGyns, nurses, social workers, and other health care professionals who review specific cases of maternal deaths from their local area and recommend local solutions to prevent future deaths. MMRCs can be a critically important source of data to help us understand the underlying causes of maternal mortality.

Remember California’s success in reducing its maternal mortality rate, previously mentioned? That state was an early adopter of an active MMRC and has worked to bring best practices to maternity care throughout the state.

While every state should have an active MMRC, not every state does. ACOG is working with states, local leaders, and state and federal legislatures to help develop MMRCs in every state.

Dr. Brown pointed out that, “For several decades, Indiana had a legislatively authorized multidisciplinary maternal mortality review committee that I actively participated in and led in the late 1990s. The authorization for the program lapsed in the early 2000s, and the Indiana MMRC had to shut down. Bolstering the federal government’s capacity to help states like Indiana rebuild MMRCs, or start them from scratch, will help state public health officials, hospitals, and physicians take better care of moms and babies.”

Dr. Hollier explained, “In Texas, I chair our Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force, which was legislatively authorized in 2013 in response to the rising rate of maternal death. The detailed state-based maternal mortality reviews provide critical information: verification of vital statistics data, assessment of the causes and contributing factors, and determination of pregnancy relatedness. These reviews identify opportunities for prevention and implementation of the most appropriate interventions to reduce maternal mortality on a local level. Support of essential review functions at the federal level would also enable data to be combined across jurisdictions for national learning that was previously not possible.”

Pending legislation will strengthen efforts

ACOG is working to enact into law the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, HR 1318 and S1112. This is bipartisan legislation under which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would help states create or expand MMRCs and will require the Department of Health and Human Services to research ways to reduce disparities in maternal health outcomes.

Acknowledgement
The author thanks Jean Mahoney, ACOG’s Senior Director, AIM, for her generous assistance.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

More women die from pregnancy complications in the United States than in any other developed country. The United States is the only industrialized nation with a rising maternal mortality rate.

Those 2 sentences should stop us all in our tracks.

In fact, the United States ranks 47th globally with the worst maternal mortality rate. More than half these deaths are likely preventable, with suicide and drug overdose the leading causes of maternal death in many states. All this occurs despite our advanced medical system, premier medical colleges and universities, embrace of high-tech medical advances, and high percentage of gross domestic product spent on health care.

Need more numbers? According to a 2016 report in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the United States saw a 26% increase in the maternalmortality rate (unadjusted) in only 15 years: from 18.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014 (FIGURE 1).¹

Considerable variations by race and by state

The racial disparities in maternal mortality are staggering and have not improved in more than 20 years: African American women are 3.4 times more likely to die than non-Hispanic white women of pregnancy-related complications. In 2011–2013, the maternal mortality ratio for non-Hispanic white women was 12.7 deaths per 100,000 live births compared with 43.5 deaths for non-Hispanic black women (FIGURE 2).² American Indian or Alaska Native women, Asian women, and some Latina women also experience higher rates than non-Hispanic white women. The rate for American Indian or Alaska Native women is 16.9 deaths per 100,000 live births.³

Some states are doing better than others, showing that there is nothing inevitable about the maternal mortality crisis. Texas, for example, has seen the highest rate of maternal mortality increase. Its rate doubled from 2010 to 2012, while California reduced its maternal death rate by 30%, from 21.5 to 15.1, during roughly the same period.¹

This is a challenge of epic proportions, and one that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), under the leadership of President Haywood Brown, MD, and Incoming President Lisa Hollier, MD, is determined to meet, ensuring that a high maternal death rate does not become our nation’s new normal.

Dr. Brown put it this way, “ACOG collaborative initiatives such as Levels of Maternal Care (LOMC) and implementation of OB safety bundles for hemorrhage, hypertension, and thromboembolism through the AIM [Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health] Program target maternal morbidity and mortality at the community level. Bundles have also been developed to address the disparity in maternal mortality and for the opiate crisis.”

ACOG is making strides in putting in place nationwide meaningful, evidence-driven systems and care approaches that are proven to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity, saving mothers’ lives and keeping families whole.

Read about the AIM Program’s initiatives

ACOG’s AIM Program established to make an impact

The AIM Program (www.safehealthcare foreverywoman.org) is bringing together clinicians, public health officials, hospital administrators, patient safety organizations, and advocates to eliminate preventable maternal mortality throughout the United States. With funding and support from the US Health Resources and Services Administration, AIM is striving to:

• reduce maternal mortality by 1,000 deaths by 2018
• reduce severe maternal morbidity
• assist states and hospitals to improve outcomes
• create and encourage use of maternal safety bundles (evidence-based tool kits to guide the best care).

AIM offers participating physicians and hospitals online learning modules, checklists, work plans, and links to tool kits and published resources. Implementation data is shared with hospitals and states to further improve care. Physicians participating in AIM can receive Part IV maintenance of certification; continuing education units will soon be offered for nurses. In the future, AIM-participating hospitals may be able to receive reduced liability protection costs, too.

To date, 17 states are participating in the AIM initiative (FIGURE 3), with more states ready to enroll.⁴ States must demonstrate a commitment to lasting change to participate. Each AIM state must have an active maternal mortality review committee (MMRC); committed leadership from public health, hospital associations, and provider associations; and a commitment to report AIM data.

• reducing disparities in maternity care
• severe hypertension in pregnancy
• safe reduction of primary cesarean birth
• prevention of venous thromboembolism
• obstetric hemorrhage
• maternal mental health
• patient, family, and staff support following a severe maternal event
• postpartum care basics
• obstetric care of women with opioid use disorder (in use by Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia).

Read about how active MMRCS are critical to success

Review committees are critical to success

In use in many states, MMRCs are groups of local ObGyns, nurses, social workers, and other health care professionals who review specific cases of maternal deaths from their local area and recommend local solutions to prevent future deaths. MMRCs can be a critically important source of data to help us understand the underlying causes of maternal mortality.

Remember California’s success in reducing its maternal mortality rate, previously mentioned? That state was an early adopter of an active MMRC and has worked to bring best practices to maternity care throughout the state.

While every state should have an active MMRC, not every state does. ACOG is working with states, local leaders, and state and federal legislatures to help develop MMRCs in every state.

Dr. Brown pointed out that, “For several decades, Indiana had a legislatively authorized multidisciplinary maternal mortality review committee that I actively participated in and led in the late 1990s. The authorization for the program lapsed in the early 2000s, and the Indiana MMRC had to shut down. Bolstering the federal government’s capacity to help states like Indiana rebuild MMRCs, or start them from scratch, will help state public health officials, hospitals, and physicians take better care of moms and babies.”

Dr. Hollier explained, “In Texas, I chair our Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force, which was legislatively authorized in 2013 in response to the rising rate of maternal death. The detailed state-based maternal mortality reviews provide critical information: verification of vital statistics data, assessment of the causes and contributing factors, and determination of pregnancy relatedness. These reviews identify opportunities for prevention and implementation of the most appropriate interventions to reduce maternal mortality on a local level. Support of essential review functions at the federal level would also enable data to be combined across jurisdictions for national learning that was previously not possible.”

Pending legislation will strengthen efforts

ACOG is working to enact into law the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, HR 1318 and S1112. This is bipartisan legislation under which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would help states create or expand MMRCs and will require the Department of Health and Human Services to research ways to reduce disparities in maternal health outcomes.

Acknowledgement
The author thanks Jean Mahoney, ACOG’s Senior Director, AIM, for her generous assistance.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Shampoo is a staple in hair grooming that is ever-evolving along with cultural trends. The global shampoo market is expected to reach an estimated value of $25.73 billion by 2019. A major driver of this upward trend in market growth is the increasing demand for natural and organic hair shampoos.¹ Society today has a growing fixation on healthy living practices, and as of late, the ingredients in shampoos and other cosmetic products have become one of the latest targets in the health-consciousness craze. In the age of the Internet where information—and misinformation—is widely accessible and dispersed, the general public often strives to self-educate on specialized matters that are out of their expertise. As a result, individuals have developed an aversion to using certain shampoos out of fear that the ingredients, often referred to as “chemicals” by patients due to their complex names, are unnatural and therefore unhealthy.^1,2 Product developers are working to meet the demand by reformulating shampoos with labels that indicate sulfate free or paraben free, despite the lack of proof that these formulations are an improvement over traditional approaches to hair health. Additionally, alternative methods of cleansing the hair and scalp, also known as the no-shampoo or “no-poo” method, have begun to gain popularity.^2,3

It is essential that dermatologists acknowledge the concerns that their patients have about common shampoo ingredients to dispel the myths that may misinform patient decision-making. This article reviews the controversy surrounding the use of sulfates and parabens in shampoos as well as commonly used shampoo alternatives. Due to the increased prevalence of dry hair shafts in the skin of color population, especially black women, this group is particularly interested in products that will minimize breakage and dryness of the hair. To that end, this population has great interest in the removal of chemical ingredients that may cause damage to the hair shafts, despite the lack of data to support sulfates and paraben damage to hair shafts or scalp skin. Blogs and uninformed hairstylists may propagate these beliefs in a group of consumers who are desperate for new approaches to hair fragility and breakage.

Surfactants and Sulfates

The cleansing ability of a shampoo depends on the surface activity of its detergents. Surface-active ingredients, or surfactants, reduce the surface tension between water and dirt, thus facilitating the removal of environmental dirt from the hair and scalp,⁴ which is achieved by a molecular structure containing both a hydrophilic and a lipophilic group. Sebum and dirt are bound by the lipophilic ends of the surfactant, becoming the center of a micelle structure with the hydrophilic molecule ends pointing outward. Dirt particles become water soluble and are removed from the scalp and hair shaft upon rinsing with water.⁴

Surfactants are classified according to the electric charge of the hydrophilic polar group as either anionic, cationic, amphoteric (zwitterionic), or nonionic.⁵ Each possesses different hair conditioning and cleansing qualities, and multiple surfactants are used in shampoos in differing ratios to accommodate different hair types. In most shampoos, the base consists of anionic and amphoteric surfactants. Depending on individual product requirements, nonionic and cationic surfactants are used to either modify the effects of the surfactants or as conditioning agents.^4,5

One subcategory of surfactants that receives much attention is the group of anionic surfactants known as sulfates. Sulfates, particularly sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), recently have developed a negative reputation as cosmetic ingredients, as reports from various unscientific sources have labeled them as hazardous to one’s health; SLS has been described as a skin and scalp irritant, has been linked to cataract formation, and has even been wrongly labeled as carcinogenic.⁶ The origins of some of these claims are not clear, though they likely arose from the misinterpretation of complex scientific studies that are easily accessible to laypeople. The link between SLS and ocular irritation or cataract formation is a good illustration of this unsubstantiated fear. A study by Green et al⁷ showed that corneal exposure to extremely high concentrations of SLS following physical or chemical damage to the eye can result in a slowed healing process. The results of this study have since been wrongly quoted to state that SLS-containing products lead to blindness or severe corneal damage.⁸ A different study tested for possible ocular irritation in vivo by submerging the lens of an eye into a 20% SLS solution, which accurately approximates the concentration of SLS in rinse-off consumer products.⁹ However, to achieve ocular irritation, the eyes of laboratory animals were exposed to SLS constantly for 14 days, which would not occur in practical use.⁹ Similarly, a third study achieved cataract formation in a laboratory only by immersing the lens of an eye into a highly concentrated solution of SLS.¹⁰ Such studies are not appropriate representations of how SLS-containing products are used by consumers and have unfortunately been vulnerable to misinterpretation by the general public.

There is no known study that has shown SLS to be carcinogenic. One possible origin of this idea may be from the wrongful interpretation of studies that used SLS as a vehicle substance to test agents that were deemed to be carcinogenic.¹¹ Another possible source of the idea that SLS is carcinogenic comes from its association with 1,4-dioxane, a by-product of the synthesis of certain sulfates such as sodium laureth sulfate due to a process known as ethoxylation.^6,12 Although SLS does not undergo this process in its formation and is not linked to 1,4-dioxane, there is potential for cross-contamination of SLS with 1,4-dioxane, which cannot be overlooked. 1,4-Dioxane is classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer,¹³ but screening of SLS for this substance prior to its use in commercial products is standard.

Sulfates are inexpensive detergents that are responsible for lather formation in shampoos as well as in many household cleaning agents.⁵ Sulfates, similar to all anionic surfactants, are characterized by a negatively charged hydrophilic polar group. The best-known and most commonly used anionic surfactants are sulfated fatty alcohols, alkyl sulfates, and their polyethoxylated analogues alkyl ether sulfates.^5,6 Sodium lauryl sulfate (also known as sodium laurilsulfate or sodium dodecyl sulfate) is the most common of them all, found in shampoo and conditioner formulations. Ammonium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate are other sulfates commonly used in shampoos and household cleansing products. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a nonvolatile, water-soluble compound. Its partition coefficient (P₀), a measure of a substance’s hydrophilic or lipophilic nature, is low at 1.6, making it a rather hydrophilic substance.⁶ Hydrophilic substances tend to have low bioaccumulation profiles in the body. Additionally, SLS is readily biodegradable. It can be derived from both synthetic and naturally occurring sources; for example, palm kernel oil, petrolatum, and coconut oil are all sources of lauric acid, the starting ingredient used to synthesize SLS. Sodium lauryl sulfate is created by reacting lauryl alcohol with sulfur trioxide gas, followed by neutralization with sodium carbonate (also a naturally occurring compound).⁶ Sodium lauryl sulfate and other sulfate-containing shampoos widely replaced the usage of traditional soaps formulated from animal or vegetable fats, as these latter formations created a film of insoluble calcium salts on the hair strands upon contact with water, resulting in tangled, dull-appearing hair.⁵ Additionally, sulfates were preferred to the alkaline pH of traditional soap, which can be harsh on hair strands and cause irritation of the skin and mucous membranes.¹⁴ Because they are highly water soluble, sulfates enable the formulation of clear shampoos. They exhibit remarkable cleaning properties and lather formation.^5,14

Because sulfates are potent surfactants, they can remove dirt and debris as well as naturally produced healthy oils from the hair and scalp. As a result, sulfates can leave the hair feeling dry and stripped of moisture.^4,5 Sulfates are used as the primary detergents in the formulation of deep-cleaning shampoos, which are designed for people who accumulate a heavy buildup of dirt, sebum, and debris from frequent use of styling products. Due to their potent detergency, these shampoos typically are not used on a daily basis but rather at longer intervals.¹⁵ A downside to sulfates is that they can have cosmetically unpleasant properties, which can be compensated for by including appropriate softening additives in shampoo formulations.⁴ A number of anionic surfactants such as olefin sulfonate, alkyl sulfosuccinate, acyl peptides, and alkyl ether carboxylates are well tolerated by the skin and are used together with other anionic and amphoteric surfactants to optimize shampoo properties. Alternatively, sulfate-free shampoos are cleansers compounded by the removal of the anionic group and switched for surfactants with less detergency.^4,5

Preservatives and Parabens

Parabens refer to a group of esters of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid commonly used as preservatives in foods, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics whose widespread use dates back to 1923.¹⁶ Concerns over the presence of parabens in shampoos and other cosmetics have been raised by patients for their reputed estrogenic and antiandrogenic effects and suspected involvement in carcinogenesis via endocrine modulation.^16,17 In in vitro studies done on yeast assays, parabens have shown weak estrogenic activity that increases in proportion to both the length and increased branching of the alkyl side chains in the paraben’s molecular structure.¹⁸ They are 10,000-fold less potent than 17β-estradiol. In in vivo animal studies, parabens show weak estrogenic activity and are 100,000-fold less potent than 17β-estradiol.¹⁸ 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid, a common metabolite, showed no estrogenic activity when tested both in vitro and in vivo.¹⁹ Some concerning research has implicated a link between parabens used in underarm cosmetics, such as deodorants and antiperspirants, and breast cancer¹⁶; however, the studies have been conflicting, and there is simply not enough data to assert that parabens cause breast cancer.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review expert panel first reviewed parabens in 1984 and concluded that “methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the present practices of use.”²⁰ They extended this statement to include isopropylparaben and isobutylparaben in a later review.²¹ In 2005, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (now known as the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety) in Europe stated that methylparaben and ethylparaben can be used at levels up to 0.4% in products.²² This decision was reached due to reports of decreased sperm counts and testosterone levels in male juvenile rats exposed to these parabens; however, these reults were not successfully replicated in larger studies.^16,22 In 2010, the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety revisited its stance on parabens, and they then revised their recommendations to say that concentrations of propylparaben and butylparaben should not exceed concentrations of 0.19%, based on “the conservative choice for the calculation of the [Margin-of-Safety] of butyl- and propylparaben.”²³ However, in 2011 the use of propylparaben and butylparaben was banned in Denmark for cosmetic products used in children 3 years or younger,¹⁶ and the European Commission subsequently amended their directive in 2014, banning isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, phenylparaben, benzylparaben, and pentylparaben due to lack of data available to evaluate the human risk of these products.²⁴

Contrary to the trends in Europe, there currently are no regulations against the use of parabens in shampoos or other cosmetics in the United States. The American Cancer Society found that there is no evidence to suggest that the current levels of parabens in cosmetic products (eg, antiperspirants) increase one’s risk of breast cancer.²⁵ Parabens are readily absorbed into the body both transdermally and through ingestion but also are believed to be rapidly transformed into harmless and nonspecific metabolites; they are readily metabolized by the liver and excreted in urine, and there is no measured accumulation in tissues.¹⁷

Parabens continue to be the most widely used preservatives in personal care products, usually in conjunction with other preservatives. Parabens are good biocides; short-chain esters (eg, methylparabens, ethylparabens) are effective against gram-positive bacteria and are weakly effective against gram-negative bacteria. Long-chain paraben esters (eg, propylparabens, butylparabens) are effective against mold and yeast. The addition of other preservatives creates a broad spectrum of antimicrobial defense in consumer products. Other preservatives include formaldehyde releasers or phenoxyethanol, as well as chelating agents such as EDTA, which improve the stability of these cosmetic products when exposed to air.¹⁶ Parabens are naturally occurring substances found in foods such as blueberries, barley, strawberries, yeast, olives, and grapes. As a colorless, odorless, and inexpensive substance, their use has been heavily favored in cosmetic and food products.¹⁶

Shampoo Alternatives and the No-Poo Method

Although research has not demonstrated any long-term danger to using shampoo, certain chemicals found in shampoos have the potential to irritate the scalp. Commonly cited allergens in shampoos include cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, vitamin E (tocopherol), parabens, and benzophenones.⁵ Additionally, the rising use of formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and isothiazolinones due to mounting pressures to move away from parabens has led to an increase in cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).¹⁶ However, the irritability (rather than allergenicity) of these substances often is established during patch testing, a method of detecting delayed-type allergic reactions, which is important to note because patch testing requires a substance to be exposed to the skin for 24 to 48 hours, whereas exposure to shampoo ingredients may last a matter of minutes at most and occur in lesser concentrations because the ingredients are diluted by water in the rinsing process. Given these differences, it is unlikely that a patient would develop a true allergic response from regular shampoo use. Nevertheless, in patients who are already sensitized, exposure could conceivably trigger ACD, and patients must be cognizant of the composition of their shampoos.¹⁶

The no-poo method refers to the avoidance of commercial shampoo products when cleansing the hair and scalp and encompasses different methods of cleansing the hair, such as the use of household items (eg, baking soda, apple cider vinegar [ACV]), the use of conditioners to wash the hair (also known as conditioner-only washing or co-washing), treating the scalp with tea tree oil, or simply rinsing the hair with water. Proponents of the no-poo method believe that abstaining from shampoo use leads to healthier hair, retained natural oils, and less exposure to supposedly dangerous chemicals such as parabens or sulfates.^2,3,26-28 However, there are no known studies in the literature that assess or support the hypotheses of the no-poo method.

Baking Soda and ACV
Baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) is a substance commonly found in the average household. It has been used in toothpaste formulas and cosmetic products and is known for its acid-neutralizing properties. Baking soda has been shown to have some antifungal and viricidal properties through an unknown mechanism of action.²⁸ It has gained popularity for its use as a means of reducing the appearance of excessive greasiness of the hair shafts. Users also have reported that when washing their hair with baking soda, they are able to achieve a clean scalp and hair that feels soft to the touch.^2,3,26,27,29 Despite these reports, users must beware of using baking soda without adequately diluting it with water. Baking soda is a known alkaline irritant.^26,30 With a pH of 9, baking soda causes the cuticle layer of the hair fiber to open, increasing the capacity for water absorption. Water penetrates the scales that open, breaking the hydrogen bonds of the keratin molecule.³¹ Keratin is a spiral helical molecule that keeps its shape due to hydrogen, disulfide, and ionic bonds, as well as Van der Waals force.³⁰ Hydrolysis of these bonds due to exposure to baking soda lowers the elasticity of the hair and increases the negative electrical net charge of the hair fiber surface, which leads to increased friction between fibers, cuticle damage, hair fragility, and fiber breakage.^32,33

Apple cider vinegar is an apple-derived acetic acid solution with a pH ranging from 3.1 to 5.²⁸ The pH range of ACV is considered to be ideal for hair by no-poo proponents, as it is similar to the natural pH of the scalp. Its acidic properties are responsible for its antimicrobial abilities, particularly its effectiveness against gram-negative bacteria.³⁰ The acetic acid of ACV can partially interrupt oil interfaces, which contributes to its mild ability to remove product residue and scalp buildup from the hair shaft; the acetic acid also tightens the cuticles on hair fibers.³³ Apple cider vinegar is used as a means of cleansing the hair and scalp by no-poo proponents^2,3,26; other uses for ACV include using it as a rinse following washing and/or conditioning of the hair or as a means of preserving color in color-treated hair. There also is evidence that ACV may have antifungal properties.²⁸ However, consumers must be aware that if it is not diluted in water, ACV may be too caustic for direct application to the hair and may lead to damage; it can be irritating to eyes, mucus membranes, and acutely inflamed skin. Also, vinegar rinses used on processed or chemically damaged hair may lead to increased hair fragility.^2,3

Hair fibers have a pH of 3.67, while the scalp has a pH between 4.5 and 6.2. This slightly acidic film acts as a barrier to viruses, bacteria, and other potential contaminants.³³ Studies have shown that the pH of skin increases in proportion to the pH of the cleanser used.³⁴ Therefore, due to the naturally acidic pH of the scalp, acid-balanced shampoos generally are recommended. Shampoos should not have a pH higher than 5.5, as hair shafts can swell due to alkalinization, which can be prevented by pH balancing the shampoo through the addition of an acidic substance (eg, glycolic acid, citric acid) to lower the pH down to approximately 5.5. Apple cider vinegar often is used for this purpose. However, one study revealed that 82% of shampoos already have an acidic pH.³⁴

Conditioner-Only Washing (Co-washing)
Conditioner-only washing, or co-washing, is a widely practiced method of hair grooming. It is popular among individuals who find that commercial shampoos strip too much of the natural hair oils away, leaving the hair rough or unmanageable. Co-washing is not harmful to the hair; however, the molecular structure and function of a conditioner and that of a shampoo are very different.^5,35,36 Conditioners are not formulated to remove dirt and buildup in the hair but rather to add substances to the hair, and thus cannot provide extensive cleansing of the hair and scalp; therefore, it is inappropriate to use co-washing as a replacement for shampooing. Quaternary conditioning agents are an exception because they contain amphoteric detergents comprised of both anionic and cationic groups, which allow them both the ability to remove dirt and sebum with its anionic group, typically found in shampoos, as well as the ability to coat and condition the hair due to the high affinity of the cationic group for the negatively charged hair fibers.^36,37 Amphoteric detergents are commonly found in 2-in-1 conditioning cleansers, among other ingredients, such as hydrolyzed animal proteins that temporarily plug surface defects on the hair fiber, and dimethicone, a synthetic oil that creates a thin film over the hair shaft, increasing shine and manageability. Of note, these conditioning shampoos are ideal for individuals with minimal product buildup on the hair and scalp and are not adequate scalp cleansers for individuals who either wash their hair infrequently or who regularly use hairstyling products.^36,37

Tea Tree Oil
Tea tree oil is an essential oil extracted from the Melaleuca alternifolia plant of the Myrtaceae family. It is native to the coast of northeastern Australia. A holy grail of natural cosmetics, tea tree oil is widely known for its antiviral, antifungal, and antiseptic properties.³⁸ Although not used as a stand-alone cleanser, it is often added to a number of cosmetic products, including shampoos and co-washes. Although deemed safe for topical use, it has been shown to be quite toxic when ingested. Symptoms of ingestion include nausea, vomiting, hallucinations, and coma. The common concern with tea tree oil is its ability to cause ACD. In particular, it is believed that the oxidation products of tea tree oil are allergenic rather than the tea tree oil itself. The evaluation of tea tree oil as a potential contact allergen has been quite difficult; it consists of more than 100 distinct compounds and is often mislabeled, or does not meet the guidelines of the International Organization for Standardization. Nonetheless, the prevalence of ACD due to tea tree oil is low (approximately 1.4%). Despite its low prevalence, tea tree oil should remain in the differential as an ACD-inducing agent. Patch testing with the patient’s supply of tea tree oil is advised when possible.³⁸

Conclusion

It is customary that the ingredients used in shampoos undergo periodic testing and monitoring to assure the safety of their use. Although it is encouraging that patients are proactive in their efforts to stay abreast of the literature, it is still important that cosmetic scientists, dermatologists, and other experts remain at the forefront of educating the public about these substances. Not doing so can result in the propagation of misinformation and unnecessary fears, which can lead to the adaptation of unhygienic or even unsafe hair care practices. As dermatologists, we must ensure that patients are educated about the benefits and hazards of off-label use of household ingredients to the extent that evidence-based medicine permits. Patients must be informed that not all synthetic substances are harmful, and likewise not all naturally occurring substances are safe.

Shampoo is a staple in hair grooming that is ever-evolving along with cultural trends. The global shampoo market is expected to reach an estimated value of $25.73 billion by 2019. A major driver of this upward trend in market growth is the increasing demand for natural and organic hair shampoos.¹ Society today has a growing fixation on healthy living practices, and as of late, the ingredients in shampoos and other cosmetic products have become one of the latest targets in the health-consciousness craze. In the age of the Internet where information—and misinformation—is widely accessible and dispersed, the general public often strives to self-educate on specialized matters that are out of their expertise. As a result, individuals have developed an aversion to using certain shampoos out of fear that the ingredients, often referred to as “chemicals” by patients due to their complex names, are unnatural and therefore unhealthy.^1,2 Product developers are working to meet the demand by reformulating shampoos with labels that indicate sulfate free or paraben free, despite the lack of proof that these formulations are an improvement over traditional approaches to hair health. Additionally, alternative methods of cleansing the hair and scalp, also known as the no-shampoo or “no-poo” method, have begun to gain popularity.^2,3

It is essential that dermatologists acknowledge the concerns that their patients have about common shampoo ingredients to dispel the myths that may misinform patient decision-making. This article reviews the controversy surrounding the use of sulfates and parabens in shampoos as well as commonly used shampoo alternatives. Due to the increased prevalence of dry hair shafts in the skin of color population, especially black women, this group is particularly interested in products that will minimize breakage and dryness of the hair. To that end, this population has great interest in the removal of chemical ingredients that may cause damage to the hair shafts, despite the lack of data to support sulfates and paraben damage to hair shafts or scalp skin. Blogs and uninformed hairstylists may propagate these beliefs in a group of consumers who are desperate for new approaches to hair fragility and breakage.

Surfactants and Sulfates

The cleansing ability of a shampoo depends on the surface activity of its detergents. Surface-active ingredients, or surfactants, reduce the surface tension between water and dirt, thus facilitating the removal of environmental dirt from the hair and scalp,⁴ which is achieved by a molecular structure containing both a hydrophilic and a lipophilic group. Sebum and dirt are bound by the lipophilic ends of the surfactant, becoming the center of a micelle structure with the hydrophilic molecule ends pointing outward. Dirt particles become water soluble and are removed from the scalp and hair shaft upon rinsing with water.⁴

Surfactants are classified according to the electric charge of the hydrophilic polar group as either anionic, cationic, amphoteric (zwitterionic), or nonionic.⁵ Each possesses different hair conditioning and cleansing qualities, and multiple surfactants are used in shampoos in differing ratios to accommodate different hair types. In most shampoos, the base consists of anionic and amphoteric surfactants. Depending on individual product requirements, nonionic and cationic surfactants are used to either modify the effects of the surfactants or as conditioning agents.^4,5

One subcategory of surfactants that receives much attention is the group of anionic surfactants known as sulfates. Sulfates, particularly sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), recently have developed a negative reputation as cosmetic ingredients, as reports from various unscientific sources have labeled them as hazardous to one’s health; SLS has been described as a skin and scalp irritant, has been linked to cataract formation, and has even been wrongly labeled as carcinogenic.⁶ The origins of some of these claims are not clear, though they likely arose from the misinterpretation of complex scientific studies that are easily accessible to laypeople. The link between SLS and ocular irritation or cataract formation is a good illustration of this unsubstantiated fear. A study by Green et al⁷ showed that corneal exposure to extremely high concentrations of SLS following physical or chemical damage to the eye can result in a slowed healing process. The results of this study have since been wrongly quoted to state that SLS-containing products lead to blindness or severe corneal damage.⁸ A different study tested for possible ocular irritation in vivo by submerging the lens of an eye into a 20% SLS solution, which accurately approximates the concentration of SLS in rinse-off consumer products.⁹ However, to achieve ocular irritation, the eyes of laboratory animals were exposed to SLS constantly for 14 days, which would not occur in practical use.⁹ Similarly, a third study achieved cataract formation in a laboratory only by immersing the lens of an eye into a highly concentrated solution of SLS.¹⁰ Such studies are not appropriate representations of how SLS-containing products are used by consumers and have unfortunately been vulnerable to misinterpretation by the general public.

There is no known study that has shown SLS to be carcinogenic. One possible origin of this idea may be from the wrongful interpretation of studies that used SLS as a vehicle substance to test agents that were deemed to be carcinogenic.¹¹ Another possible source of the idea that SLS is carcinogenic comes from its association with 1,4-dioxane, a by-product of the synthesis of certain sulfates such as sodium laureth sulfate due to a process known as ethoxylation.^6,12 Although SLS does not undergo this process in its formation and is not linked to 1,4-dioxane, there is potential for cross-contamination of SLS with 1,4-dioxane, which cannot be overlooked. 1,4-Dioxane is classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer,¹³ but screening of SLS for this substance prior to its use in commercial products is standard.

Sulfates are inexpensive detergents that are responsible for lather formation in shampoos as well as in many household cleaning agents.⁵ Sulfates, similar to all anionic surfactants, are characterized by a negatively charged hydrophilic polar group. The best-known and most commonly used anionic surfactants are sulfated fatty alcohols, alkyl sulfates, and their polyethoxylated analogues alkyl ether sulfates.^5,6 Sodium lauryl sulfate (also known as sodium laurilsulfate or sodium dodecyl sulfate) is the most common of them all, found in shampoo and conditioner formulations. Ammonium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate are other sulfates commonly used in shampoos and household cleansing products. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a nonvolatile, water-soluble compound. Its partition coefficient (P₀), a measure of a substance’s hydrophilic or lipophilic nature, is low at 1.6, making it a rather hydrophilic substance.⁶ Hydrophilic substances tend to have low bioaccumulation profiles in the body. Additionally, SLS is readily biodegradable. It can be derived from both synthetic and naturally occurring sources; for example, palm kernel oil, petrolatum, and coconut oil are all sources of lauric acid, the starting ingredient used to synthesize SLS. Sodium lauryl sulfate is created by reacting lauryl alcohol with sulfur trioxide gas, followed by neutralization with sodium carbonate (also a naturally occurring compound).⁶ Sodium lauryl sulfate and other sulfate-containing shampoos widely replaced the usage of traditional soaps formulated from animal or vegetable fats, as these latter formations created a film of insoluble calcium salts on the hair strands upon contact with water, resulting in tangled, dull-appearing hair.⁵ Additionally, sulfates were preferred to the alkaline pH of traditional soap, which can be harsh on hair strands and cause irritation of the skin and mucous membranes.¹⁴ Because they are highly water soluble, sulfates enable the formulation of clear shampoos. They exhibit remarkable cleaning properties and lather formation.^5,14

Because sulfates are potent surfactants, they can remove dirt and debris as well as naturally produced healthy oils from the hair and scalp. As a result, sulfates can leave the hair feeling dry and stripped of moisture.^4,5 Sulfates are used as the primary detergents in the formulation of deep-cleaning shampoos, which are designed for people who accumulate a heavy buildup of dirt, sebum, and debris from frequent use of styling products. Due to their potent detergency, these shampoos typically are not used on a daily basis but rather at longer intervals.¹⁵ A downside to sulfates is that they can have cosmetically unpleasant properties, which can be compensated for by including appropriate softening additives in shampoo formulations.⁴ A number of anionic surfactants such as olefin sulfonate, alkyl sulfosuccinate, acyl peptides, and alkyl ether carboxylates are well tolerated by the skin and are used together with other anionic and amphoteric surfactants to optimize shampoo properties. Alternatively, sulfate-free shampoos are cleansers compounded by the removal of the anionic group and switched for surfactants with less detergency.^4,5

Preservatives and Parabens

Parabens refer to a group of esters of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid commonly used as preservatives in foods, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics whose widespread use dates back to 1923.¹⁶ Concerns over the presence of parabens in shampoos and other cosmetics have been raised by patients for their reputed estrogenic and antiandrogenic effects and suspected involvement in carcinogenesis via endocrine modulation.^16,17 In in vitro studies done on yeast assays, parabens have shown weak estrogenic activity that increases in proportion to both the length and increased branching of the alkyl side chains in the paraben’s molecular structure.¹⁸ They are 10,000-fold less potent than 17β-estradiol. In in vivo animal studies, parabens show weak estrogenic activity and are 100,000-fold less potent than 17β-estradiol.¹⁸ 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid, a common metabolite, showed no estrogenic activity when tested both in vitro and in vivo.¹⁹ Some concerning research has implicated a link between parabens used in underarm cosmetics, such as deodorants and antiperspirants, and breast cancer¹⁶; however, the studies have been conflicting, and there is simply not enough data to assert that parabens cause breast cancer.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review expert panel first reviewed parabens in 1984 and concluded that “methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the present practices of use.”²⁰ They extended this statement to include isopropylparaben and isobutylparaben in a later review.²¹ In 2005, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (now known as the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety) in Europe stated that methylparaben and ethylparaben can be used at levels up to 0.4% in products.²² This decision was reached due to reports of decreased sperm counts and testosterone levels in male juvenile rats exposed to these parabens; however, these reults were not successfully replicated in larger studies.^16,22 In 2010, the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety revisited its stance on parabens, and they then revised their recommendations to say that concentrations of propylparaben and butylparaben should not exceed concentrations of 0.19%, based on “the conservative choice for the calculation of the [Margin-of-Safety] of butyl- and propylparaben.”²³ However, in 2011 the use of propylparaben and butylparaben was banned in Denmark for cosmetic products used in children 3 years or younger,¹⁶ and the European Commission subsequently amended their directive in 2014, banning isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, phenylparaben, benzylparaben, and pentylparaben due to lack of data available to evaluate the human risk of these products.²⁴

Contrary to the trends in Europe, there currently are no regulations against the use of parabens in shampoos or other cosmetics in the United States. The American Cancer Society found that there is no evidence to suggest that the current levels of parabens in cosmetic products (eg, antiperspirants) increase one’s risk of breast cancer.²⁵ Parabens are readily absorbed into the body both transdermally and through ingestion but also are believed to be rapidly transformed into harmless and nonspecific metabolites; they are readily metabolized by the liver and excreted in urine, and there is no measured accumulation in tissues.¹⁷

Parabens continue to be the most widely used preservatives in personal care products, usually in conjunction with other preservatives. Parabens are good biocides; short-chain esters (eg, methylparabens, ethylparabens) are effective against gram-positive bacteria and are weakly effective against gram-negative bacteria. Long-chain paraben esters (eg, propylparabens, butylparabens) are effective against mold and yeast. The addition of other preservatives creates a broad spectrum of antimicrobial defense in consumer products. Other preservatives include formaldehyde releasers or phenoxyethanol, as well as chelating agents such as EDTA, which improve the stability of these cosmetic products when exposed to air.¹⁶ Parabens are naturally occurring substances found in foods such as blueberries, barley, strawberries, yeast, olives, and grapes. As a colorless, odorless, and inexpensive substance, their use has been heavily favored in cosmetic and food products.¹⁶

Shampoo Alternatives and the No-Poo Method

Although research has not demonstrated any long-term danger to using shampoo, certain chemicals found in shampoos have the potential to irritate the scalp. Commonly cited allergens in shampoos include cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, vitamin E (tocopherol), parabens, and benzophenones.⁵ Additionally, the rising use of formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and isothiazolinones due to mounting pressures to move away from parabens has led to an increase in cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).¹⁶ However, the irritability (rather than allergenicity) of these substances often is established during patch testing, a method of detecting delayed-type allergic reactions, which is important to note because patch testing requires a substance to be exposed to the skin for 24 to 48 hours, whereas exposure to shampoo ingredients may last a matter of minutes at most and occur in lesser concentrations because the ingredients are diluted by water in the rinsing process. Given these differences, it is unlikely that a patient would develop a true allergic response from regular shampoo use. Nevertheless, in patients who are already sensitized, exposure could conceivably trigger ACD, and patients must be cognizant of the composition of their shampoos.¹⁶

The no-poo method refers to the avoidance of commercial shampoo products when cleansing the hair and scalp and encompasses different methods of cleansing the hair, such as the use of household items (eg, baking soda, apple cider vinegar [ACV]), the use of conditioners to wash the hair (also known as conditioner-only washing or co-washing), treating the scalp with tea tree oil, or simply rinsing the hair with water. Proponents of the no-poo method believe that abstaining from shampoo use leads to healthier hair, retained natural oils, and less exposure to supposedly dangerous chemicals such as parabens or sulfates.^2,3,26-28 However, there are no known studies in the literature that assess or support the hypotheses of the no-poo method.

Baking Soda and ACV
Baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) is a substance commonly found in the average household. It has been used in toothpaste formulas and cosmetic products and is known for its acid-neutralizing properties. Baking soda has been shown to have some antifungal and viricidal properties through an unknown mechanism of action.²⁸ It has gained popularity for its use as a means of reducing the appearance of excessive greasiness of the hair shafts. Users also have reported that when washing their hair with baking soda, they are able to achieve a clean scalp and hair that feels soft to the touch.^2,3,26,27,29 Despite these reports, users must beware of using baking soda without adequately diluting it with water. Baking soda is a known alkaline irritant.^26,30 With a pH of 9, baking soda causes the cuticle layer of the hair fiber to open, increasing the capacity for water absorption. Water penetrates the scales that open, breaking the hydrogen bonds of the keratin molecule.³¹ Keratin is a spiral helical molecule that keeps its shape due to hydrogen, disulfide, and ionic bonds, as well as Van der Waals force.³⁰ Hydrolysis of these bonds due to exposure to baking soda lowers the elasticity of the hair and increases the negative electrical net charge of the hair fiber surface, which leads to increased friction between fibers, cuticle damage, hair fragility, and fiber breakage.^32,33

Apple cider vinegar is an apple-derived acetic acid solution with a pH ranging from 3.1 to 5.²⁸ The pH range of ACV is considered to be ideal for hair by no-poo proponents, as it is similar to the natural pH of the scalp. Its acidic properties are responsible for its antimicrobial abilities, particularly its effectiveness against gram-negative bacteria.³⁰ The acetic acid of ACV can partially interrupt oil interfaces, which contributes to its mild ability to remove product residue and scalp buildup from the hair shaft; the acetic acid also tightens the cuticles on hair fibers.³³ Apple cider vinegar is used as a means of cleansing the hair and scalp by no-poo proponents^2,3,26; other uses for ACV include using it as a rinse following washing and/or conditioning of the hair or as a means of preserving color in color-treated hair. There also is evidence that ACV may have antifungal properties.²⁸ However, consumers must be aware that if it is not diluted in water, ACV may be too caustic for direct application to the hair and may lead to damage; it can be irritating to eyes, mucus membranes, and acutely inflamed skin. Also, vinegar rinses used on processed or chemically damaged hair may lead to increased hair fragility.^2,3

Hair fibers have a pH of 3.67, while the scalp has a pH between 4.5 and 6.2. This slightly acidic film acts as a barrier to viruses, bacteria, and other potential contaminants.³³ Studies have shown that the pH of skin increases in proportion to the pH of the cleanser used.³⁴ Therefore, due to the naturally acidic pH of the scalp, acid-balanced shampoos generally are recommended. Shampoos should not have a pH higher than 5.5, as hair shafts can swell due to alkalinization, which can be prevented by pH balancing the shampoo through the addition of an acidic substance (eg, glycolic acid, citric acid) to lower the pH down to approximately 5.5. Apple cider vinegar often is used for this purpose. However, one study revealed that 82% of shampoos already have an acidic pH.³⁴

Conditioner-Only Washing (Co-washing)
Conditioner-only washing, or co-washing, is a widely practiced method of hair grooming. It is popular among individuals who find that commercial shampoos strip too much of the natural hair oils away, leaving the hair rough or unmanageable. Co-washing is not harmful to the hair; however, the molecular structure and function of a conditioner and that of a shampoo are very different.^5,35,36 Conditioners are not formulated to remove dirt and buildup in the hair but rather to add substances to the hair, and thus cannot provide extensive cleansing of the hair and scalp; therefore, it is inappropriate to use co-washing as a replacement for shampooing. Quaternary conditioning agents are an exception because they contain amphoteric detergents comprised of both anionic and cationic groups, which allow them both the ability to remove dirt and sebum with its anionic group, typically found in shampoos, as well as the ability to coat and condition the hair due to the high affinity of the cationic group for the negatively charged hair fibers.^36,37 Amphoteric detergents are commonly found in 2-in-1 conditioning cleansers, among other ingredients, such as hydrolyzed animal proteins that temporarily plug surface defects on the hair fiber, and dimethicone, a synthetic oil that creates a thin film over the hair shaft, increasing shine and manageability. Of note, these conditioning shampoos are ideal for individuals with minimal product buildup on the hair and scalp and are not adequate scalp cleansers for individuals who either wash their hair infrequently or who regularly use hairstyling products.^36,37

Tea Tree Oil
Tea tree oil is an essential oil extracted from the Melaleuca alternifolia plant of the Myrtaceae family. It is native to the coast of northeastern Australia. A holy grail of natural cosmetics, tea tree oil is widely known for its antiviral, antifungal, and antiseptic properties.³⁸ Although not used as a stand-alone cleanser, it is often added to a number of cosmetic products, including shampoos and co-washes. Although deemed safe for topical use, it has been shown to be quite toxic when ingested. Symptoms of ingestion include nausea, vomiting, hallucinations, and coma. The common concern with tea tree oil is its ability to cause ACD. In particular, it is believed that the oxidation products of tea tree oil are allergenic rather than the tea tree oil itself. The evaluation of tea tree oil as a potential contact allergen has been quite difficult; it consists of more than 100 distinct compounds and is often mislabeled, or does not meet the guidelines of the International Organization for Standardization. Nonetheless, the prevalence of ACD due to tea tree oil is low (approximately 1.4%). Despite its low prevalence, tea tree oil should remain in the differential as an ACD-inducing agent. Patch testing with the patient’s supply of tea tree oil is advised when possible.³⁸

Conclusion

It is customary that the ingredients used in shampoos undergo periodic testing and monitoring to assure the safety of their use. Although it is encouraging that patients are proactive in their efforts to stay abreast of the literature, it is still important that cosmetic scientists, dermatologists, and other experts remain at the forefront of educating the public about these substances. Not doing so can result in the propagation of misinformation and unnecessary fears, which can lead to the adaptation of unhygienic or even unsafe hair care practices. As dermatologists, we must ensure that patients are educated about the benefits and hazards of off-label use of household ingredients to the extent that evidence-based medicine permits. Patients must be informed that not all synthetic substances are harmful, and likewise not all naturally occurring substances are safe.

Shampoo is a staple in hair grooming that is ever-evolving along with cultural trends. The global shampoo market is expected to reach an estimated value of $25.73 billion by 2019. A major driver of this upward trend in market growth is the increasing demand for natural and organic hair shampoos.¹ Society today has a growing fixation on healthy living practices, and as of late, the ingredients in shampoos and other cosmetic products have become one of the latest targets in the health-consciousness craze. In the age of the Internet where information—and misinformation—is widely accessible and dispersed, the general public often strives to self-educate on specialized matters that are out of their expertise. As a result, individuals have developed an aversion to using certain shampoos out of fear that the ingredients, often referred to as “chemicals” by patients due to their complex names, are unnatural and therefore unhealthy.^1,2 Product developers are working to meet the demand by reformulating shampoos with labels that indicate sulfate free or paraben free, despite the lack of proof that these formulations are an improvement over traditional approaches to hair health. Additionally, alternative methods of cleansing the hair and scalp, also known as the no-shampoo or “no-poo” method, have begun to gain popularity.^2,3

It is essential that dermatologists acknowledge the concerns that their patients have about common shampoo ingredients to dispel the myths that may misinform patient decision-making. This article reviews the controversy surrounding the use of sulfates and parabens in shampoos as well as commonly used shampoo alternatives. Due to the increased prevalence of dry hair shafts in the skin of color population, especially black women, this group is particularly interested in products that will minimize breakage and dryness of the hair. To that end, this population has great interest in the removal of chemical ingredients that may cause damage to the hair shafts, despite the lack of data to support sulfates and paraben damage to hair shafts or scalp skin. Blogs and uninformed hairstylists may propagate these beliefs in a group of consumers who are desperate for new approaches to hair fragility and breakage.

Surfactants and Sulfates

The cleansing ability of a shampoo depends on the surface activity of its detergents. Surface-active ingredients, or surfactants, reduce the surface tension between water and dirt, thus facilitating the removal of environmental dirt from the hair and scalp,⁴ which is achieved by a molecular structure containing both a hydrophilic and a lipophilic group. Sebum and dirt are bound by the lipophilic ends of the surfactant, becoming the center of a micelle structure with the hydrophilic molecule ends pointing outward. Dirt particles become water soluble and are removed from the scalp and hair shaft upon rinsing with water.⁴

Surfactants are classified according to the electric charge of the hydrophilic polar group as either anionic, cationic, amphoteric (zwitterionic), or nonionic.⁵ Each possesses different hair conditioning and cleansing qualities, and multiple surfactants are used in shampoos in differing ratios to accommodate different hair types. In most shampoos, the base consists of anionic and amphoteric surfactants. Depending on individual product requirements, nonionic and cationic surfactants are used to either modify the effects of the surfactants or as conditioning agents.^4,5

One subcategory of surfactants that receives much attention is the group of anionic surfactants known as sulfates. Sulfates, particularly sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), recently have developed a negative reputation as cosmetic ingredients, as reports from various unscientific sources have labeled them as hazardous to one’s health; SLS has been described as a skin and scalp irritant, has been linked to cataract formation, and has even been wrongly labeled as carcinogenic.⁶ The origins of some of these claims are not clear, though they likely arose from the misinterpretation of complex scientific studies that are easily accessible to laypeople. The link between SLS and ocular irritation or cataract formation is a good illustration of this unsubstantiated fear. A study by Green et al⁷ showed that corneal exposure to extremely high concentrations of SLS following physical or chemical damage to the eye can result in a slowed healing process. The results of this study have since been wrongly quoted to state that SLS-containing products lead to blindness or severe corneal damage.⁸ A different study tested for possible ocular irritation in vivo by submerging the lens of an eye into a 20% SLS solution, which accurately approximates the concentration of SLS in rinse-off consumer products.⁹ However, to achieve ocular irritation, the eyes of laboratory animals were exposed to SLS constantly for 14 days, which would not occur in practical use.⁹ Similarly, a third study achieved cataract formation in a laboratory only by immersing the lens of an eye into a highly concentrated solution of SLS.¹⁰ Such studies are not appropriate representations of how SLS-containing products are used by consumers and have unfortunately been vulnerable to misinterpretation by the general public.

There is no known study that has shown SLS to be carcinogenic. One possible origin of this idea may be from the wrongful interpretation of studies that used SLS as a vehicle substance to test agents that were deemed to be carcinogenic.¹¹ Another possible source of the idea that SLS is carcinogenic comes from its association with 1,4-dioxane, a by-product of the synthesis of certain sulfates such as sodium laureth sulfate due to a process known as ethoxylation.^6,12 Although SLS does not undergo this process in its formation and is not linked to 1,4-dioxane, there is potential for cross-contamination of SLS with 1,4-dioxane, which cannot be overlooked. 1,4-Dioxane is classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer,¹³ but screening of SLS for this substance prior to its use in commercial products is standard.

Sulfates are inexpensive detergents that are responsible for lather formation in shampoos as well as in many household cleaning agents.⁵ Sulfates, similar to all anionic surfactants, are characterized by a negatively charged hydrophilic polar group. The best-known and most commonly used anionic surfactants are sulfated fatty alcohols, alkyl sulfates, and their polyethoxylated analogues alkyl ether sulfates.^5,6 Sodium lauryl sulfate (also known as sodium laurilsulfate or sodium dodecyl sulfate) is the most common of them all, found in shampoo and conditioner formulations. Ammonium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate are other sulfates commonly used in shampoos and household cleansing products. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a nonvolatile, water-soluble compound. Its partition coefficient (P₀), a measure of a substance’s hydrophilic or lipophilic nature, is low at 1.6, making it a rather hydrophilic substance.⁶ Hydrophilic substances tend to have low bioaccumulation profiles in the body. Additionally, SLS is readily biodegradable. It can be derived from both synthetic and naturally occurring sources; for example, palm kernel oil, petrolatum, and coconut oil are all sources of lauric acid, the starting ingredient used to synthesize SLS. Sodium lauryl sulfate is created by reacting lauryl alcohol with sulfur trioxide gas, followed by neutralization with sodium carbonate (also a naturally occurring compound).⁶ Sodium lauryl sulfate and other sulfate-containing shampoos widely replaced the usage of traditional soaps formulated from animal or vegetable fats, as these latter formations created a film of insoluble calcium salts on the hair strands upon contact with water, resulting in tangled, dull-appearing hair.⁵ Additionally, sulfates were preferred to the alkaline pH of traditional soap, which can be harsh on hair strands and cause irritation of the skin and mucous membranes.¹⁴ Because they are highly water soluble, sulfates enable the formulation of clear shampoos. They exhibit remarkable cleaning properties and lather formation.^5,14

Because sulfates are potent surfactants, they can remove dirt and debris as well as naturally produced healthy oils from the hair and scalp. As a result, sulfates can leave the hair feeling dry and stripped of moisture.^4,5 Sulfates are used as the primary detergents in the formulation of deep-cleaning shampoos, which are designed for people who accumulate a heavy buildup of dirt, sebum, and debris from frequent use of styling products. Due to their potent detergency, these shampoos typically are not used on a daily basis but rather at longer intervals.¹⁵ A downside to sulfates is that they can have cosmetically unpleasant properties, which can be compensated for by including appropriate softening additives in shampoo formulations.⁴ A number of anionic surfactants such as olefin sulfonate, alkyl sulfosuccinate, acyl peptides, and alkyl ether carboxylates are well tolerated by the skin and are used together with other anionic and amphoteric surfactants to optimize shampoo properties. Alternatively, sulfate-free shampoos are cleansers compounded by the removal of the anionic group and switched for surfactants with less detergency.^4,5

Preservatives and Parabens

Parabens refer to a group of esters of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid commonly used as preservatives in foods, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics whose widespread use dates back to 1923.¹⁶ Concerns over the presence of parabens in shampoos and other cosmetics have been raised by patients for their reputed estrogenic and antiandrogenic effects and suspected involvement in carcinogenesis via endocrine modulation.^16,17 In in vitro studies done on yeast assays, parabens have shown weak estrogenic activity that increases in proportion to both the length and increased branching of the alkyl side chains in the paraben’s molecular structure.¹⁸ They are 10,000-fold less potent than 17β-estradiol. In in vivo animal studies, parabens show weak estrogenic activity and are 100,000-fold less potent than 17β-estradiol.¹⁸ 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid, a common metabolite, showed no estrogenic activity when tested both in vitro and in vivo.¹⁹ Some concerning research has implicated a link between parabens used in underarm cosmetics, such as deodorants and antiperspirants, and breast cancer¹⁶; however, the studies have been conflicting, and there is simply not enough data to assert that parabens cause breast cancer.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review expert panel first reviewed parabens in 1984 and concluded that “methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the present practices of use.”²⁰ They extended this statement to include isopropylparaben and isobutylparaben in a later review.²¹ In 2005, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (now known as the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety) in Europe stated that methylparaben and ethylparaben can be used at levels up to 0.4% in products.²² This decision was reached due to reports of decreased sperm counts and testosterone levels in male juvenile rats exposed to these parabens; however, these reults were not successfully replicated in larger studies.^16,22 In 2010, the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety revisited its stance on parabens, and they then revised their recommendations to say that concentrations of propylparaben and butylparaben should not exceed concentrations of 0.19%, based on “the conservative choice for the calculation of the [Margin-of-Safety] of butyl- and propylparaben.”²³ However, in 2011 the use of propylparaben and butylparaben was banned in Denmark for cosmetic products used in children 3 years or younger,¹⁶ and the European Commission subsequently amended their directive in 2014, banning isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, phenylparaben, benzylparaben, and pentylparaben due to lack of data available to evaluate the human risk of these products.²⁴

Contrary to the trends in Europe, there currently are no regulations against the use of parabens in shampoos or other cosmetics in the United States. The American Cancer Society found that there is no evidence to suggest that the current levels of parabens in cosmetic products (eg, antiperspirants) increase one’s risk of breast cancer.²⁵ Parabens are readily absorbed into the body both transdermally and through ingestion but also are believed to be rapidly transformed into harmless and nonspecific metabolites; they are readily metabolized by the liver and excreted in urine, and there is no measured accumulation in tissues.¹⁷

Parabens continue to be the most widely used preservatives in personal care products, usually in conjunction with other preservatives. Parabens are good biocides; short-chain esters (eg, methylparabens, ethylparabens) are effective against gram-positive bacteria and are weakly effective against gram-negative bacteria. Long-chain paraben esters (eg, propylparabens, butylparabens) are effective against mold and yeast. The addition of other preservatives creates a broad spectrum of antimicrobial defense in consumer products. Other preservatives include formaldehyde releasers or phenoxyethanol, as well as chelating agents such as EDTA, which improve the stability of these cosmetic products when exposed to air.¹⁶ Parabens are naturally occurring substances found in foods such as blueberries, barley, strawberries, yeast, olives, and grapes. As a colorless, odorless, and inexpensive substance, their use has been heavily favored in cosmetic and food products.¹⁶

Shampoo Alternatives and the No-Poo Method

Although research has not demonstrated any long-term danger to using shampoo, certain chemicals found in shampoos have the potential to irritate the scalp. Commonly cited allergens in shampoos include cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, vitamin E (tocopherol), parabens, and benzophenones.⁵ Additionally, the rising use of formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and isothiazolinones due to mounting pressures to move away from parabens has led to an increase in cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).¹⁶ However, the irritability (rather than allergenicity) of these substances often is established during patch testing, a method of detecting delayed-type allergic reactions, which is important to note because patch testing requires a substance to be exposed to the skin for 24 to 48 hours, whereas exposure to shampoo ingredients may last a matter of minutes at most and occur in lesser concentrations because the ingredients are diluted by water in the rinsing process. Given these differences, it is unlikely that a patient would develop a true allergic response from regular shampoo use. Nevertheless, in patients who are already sensitized, exposure could conceivably trigger ACD, and patients must be cognizant of the composition of their shampoos.¹⁶

The no-poo method refers to the avoidance of commercial shampoo products when cleansing the hair and scalp and encompasses different methods of cleansing the hair, such as the use of household items (eg, baking soda, apple cider vinegar [ACV]), the use of conditioners to wash the hair (also known as conditioner-only washing or co-washing), treating the scalp with tea tree oil, or simply rinsing the hair with water. Proponents of the no-poo method believe that abstaining from shampoo use leads to healthier hair, retained natural oils, and less exposure to supposedly dangerous chemicals such as parabens or sulfates.^2,3,26-28 However, there are no known studies in the literature that assess or support the hypotheses of the no-poo method.

Baking Soda and ACV
Baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) is a substance commonly found in the average household. It has been used in toothpaste formulas and cosmetic products and is known for its acid-neutralizing properties. Baking soda has been shown to have some antifungal and viricidal properties through an unknown mechanism of action.²⁸ It has gained popularity for its use as a means of reducing the appearance of excessive greasiness of the hair shafts. Users also have reported that when washing their hair with baking soda, they are able to achieve a clean scalp and hair that feels soft to the touch.^2,3,26,27,29 Despite these reports, users must beware of using baking soda without adequately diluting it with water. Baking soda is a known alkaline irritant.^26,30 With a pH of 9, baking soda causes the cuticle layer of the hair fiber to open, increasing the capacity for water absorption. Water penetrates the scales that open, breaking the hydrogen bonds of the keratin molecule.³¹ Keratin is a spiral helical molecule that keeps its shape due to hydrogen, disulfide, and ionic bonds, as well as Van der Waals force.³⁰ Hydrolysis of these bonds due to exposure to baking soda lowers the elasticity of the hair and increases the negative electrical net charge of the hair fiber surface, which leads to increased friction between fibers, cuticle damage, hair fragility, and fiber breakage.^32,33

Apple cider vinegar is an apple-derived acetic acid solution with a pH ranging from 3.1 to 5.²⁸ The pH range of ACV is considered to be ideal for hair by no-poo proponents, as it is similar to the natural pH of the scalp. Its acidic properties are responsible for its antimicrobial abilities, particularly its effectiveness against gram-negative bacteria.³⁰ The acetic acid of ACV can partially interrupt oil interfaces, which contributes to its mild ability to remove product residue and scalp buildup from the hair shaft; the acetic acid also tightens the cuticles on hair fibers.³³ Apple cider vinegar is used as a means of cleansing the hair and scalp by no-poo proponents^2,3,26; other uses for ACV include using it as a rinse following washing and/or conditioning of the hair or as a means of preserving color in color-treated hair. There also is evidence that ACV may have antifungal properties.²⁸ However, consumers must be aware that if it is not diluted in water, ACV may be too caustic for direct application to the hair and may lead to damage; it can be irritating to eyes, mucus membranes, and acutely inflamed skin. Also, vinegar rinses used on processed or chemically damaged hair may lead to increased hair fragility.^2,3

Hair fibers have a pH of 3.67, while the scalp has a pH between 4.5 and 6.2. This slightly acidic film acts as a barrier to viruses, bacteria, and other potential contaminants.³³ Studies have shown that the pH of skin increases in proportion to the pH of the cleanser used.³⁴ Therefore, due to the naturally acidic pH of the scalp, acid-balanced shampoos generally are recommended. Shampoos should not have a pH higher than 5.5, as hair shafts can swell due to alkalinization, which can be prevented by pH balancing the shampoo through the addition of an acidic substance (eg, glycolic acid, citric acid) to lower the pH down to approximately 5.5. Apple cider vinegar often is used for this purpose. However, one study revealed that 82% of shampoos already have an acidic pH.³⁴

Conditioner-Only Washing (Co-washing)
Conditioner-only washing, or co-washing, is a widely practiced method of hair grooming. It is popular among individuals who find that commercial shampoos strip too much of the natural hair oils away, leaving the hair rough or unmanageable. Co-washing is not harmful to the hair; however, the molecular structure and function of a conditioner and that of a shampoo are very different.^5,35,36 Conditioners are not formulated to remove dirt and buildup in the hair but rather to add substances to the hair, and thus cannot provide extensive cleansing of the hair and scalp; therefore, it is inappropriate to use co-washing as a replacement for shampooing. Quaternary conditioning agents are an exception because they contain amphoteric detergents comprised of both anionic and cationic groups, which allow them both the ability to remove dirt and sebum with its anionic group, typically found in shampoos, as well as the ability to coat and condition the hair due to the high affinity of the cationic group for the negatively charged hair fibers.^36,37 Amphoteric detergents are commonly found in 2-in-1 conditioning cleansers, among other ingredients, such as hydrolyzed animal proteins that temporarily plug surface defects on the hair fiber, and dimethicone, a synthetic oil that creates a thin film over the hair shaft, increasing shine and manageability. Of note, these conditioning shampoos are ideal for individuals with minimal product buildup on the hair and scalp and are not adequate scalp cleansers for individuals who either wash their hair infrequently or who regularly use hairstyling products.^36,37

Tea Tree Oil
Tea tree oil is an essential oil extracted from the Melaleuca alternifolia plant of the Myrtaceae family. It is native to the coast of northeastern Australia. A holy grail of natural cosmetics, tea tree oil is widely known for its antiviral, antifungal, and antiseptic properties.³⁸ Although not used as a stand-alone cleanser, it is often added to a number of cosmetic products, including shampoos and co-washes. Although deemed safe for topical use, it has been shown to be quite toxic when ingested. Symptoms of ingestion include nausea, vomiting, hallucinations, and coma. The common concern with tea tree oil is its ability to cause ACD. In particular, it is believed that the oxidation products of tea tree oil are allergenic rather than the tea tree oil itself. The evaluation of tea tree oil as a potential contact allergen has been quite difficult; it consists of more than 100 distinct compounds and is often mislabeled, or does not meet the guidelines of the International Organization for Standardization. Nonetheless, the prevalence of ACD due to tea tree oil is low (approximately 1.4%). Despite its low prevalence, tea tree oil should remain in the differential as an ACD-inducing agent. Patch testing with the patient’s supply of tea tree oil is advised when possible.³⁸

Conclusion

It is customary that the ingredients used in shampoos undergo periodic testing and monitoring to assure the safety of their use. Although it is encouraging that patients are proactive in their efforts to stay abreast of the literature, it is still important that cosmetic scientists, dermatologists, and other experts remain at the forefront of educating the public about these substances. Not doing so can result in the propagation of misinformation and unnecessary fears, which can lead to the adaptation of unhygienic or even unsafe hair care practices. As dermatologists, we must ensure that patients are educated about the benefits and hazards of off-label use of household ingredients to the extent that evidence-based medicine permits. Patients must be informed that not all synthetic substances are harmful, and likewise not all naturally occurring substances are safe.

The approach to the treatment of common skin disorders and cosmetic concerns in patients with skin of color (SOC) requires the clinician to understand the biological differences, nuances, and special considerations that are unique to patients with darker skin types.^1-3 This article addresses 4 common facial concerns in SOC patients—acne, rosacea, facial hyperpigmentation, and cosmetic enhancement—and provides treatment recommendations and management pearls to assist the clinician with optimal outcomes for SOC patients.

Acne in SOC Patients

Acne vulgaris is one of the most common conditions that dermatologists treat and is estimated to affect 40 to 50 million individuals in the United States.¹ Many of these acne patients are individuals with SOC.^2-4 A study of 2835 females (aged 10–70 years) conducted in 4 different cities—Los Angeles, California; London, United Kingdom; Akita, Japan; and Rome, Italy—demonstrated acne prevalence of 37% in blacks, 32% in Hispanics, 30% in Asians, 24% in whites, and 23% in Continental Indians.⁵ Blacks, Hispanics, and Continental Indians demonstrated equal prevalence with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Asians displayed more inflammatory acne lesions than comedones. In contrast, whites demonstrated more comedones than inflammatory acne. Dyspigmentation, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), and atrophic scars were more common in black and Hispanic females than other ethnicities.⁵ This study illustrated that acne-induced PIH is a common sequela in SOC patients and is the main reason they seek treatment.^6,7

The pathogenesis of acne is the same in all racial and ethnic groups: (1) follicular hyperkeratinization and the formation of a microcomedone caused by abnormal desquamation of the keratinocytes within the sebaceous follicle, (2) production of sebum by circulating androgens, (3) proliferation of Propionibacterium acnes, and (4) inflammation. Subclinical inflammation is present throughout all stages of acne, including normal-appearing skin, inflammatory lesions, comedones, and scarring, and may contribute to PIH in acne patients with SOC (Figure 1).⁸ A thorough history should be obtained from acne patients, including answers to the following questions⁷:

• What skin and hair care products do you use?
• Do you use sunscreen daily?
• What cosmetic products or makeup do you use?
• Do you use any ethnic skin care products, including skin lightening creams?
• Do you have a history of keloids?

It is important to ask these questions to assess if the SOC patient has developed pomade acne,⁹ acne cosmetica,¹⁰ or a potential risk of skin irritation from the use of skin care practices. It is best to take total control of the patient’s skin care regimen and discontinue use of toners, astringents, witch hazel, exfoliants, and rubbing alcohol, which may lead to skin dryness and irritation, particularly when combined with topical acne medications.

Treatment
Treatment of acne in SOC patients is similar to generally recommended treatments, with special considerations. Consider the following key points when treating acne in SOC patients:

• Treat acne early and aggressively to prevent or minimize subsequent PIH and acne scarring.
• Balance aggressive treatment with nonirritating topical skin care.
• Most importantly, target PIH in addition to acne and choose a regimen that limits skin irritation that might exacerbate existing PIH.⁷

Develop a maintenance program to control future breakouts. Topical agents can be used as monotherapy or in fixed combinations and may include benzoyl peroxide, antibiotics, dapsone, azelaic acid (AZA), and retinoids. Similar to white patients, topical retinoids remain a first-line treatment for acne in patients with SOC.^11,12

Tolerability must be managed in SOC acne patients. Therapeutic maneuvers that can be instituted should include a discussion on using gentle skin care, initiating therapy with a retinoid applied every other night starting with a low concentration and gradually titrating up, and applying a moisturizer before or after applying acne medication. Oral therapies consist of antibiotics (doxycycline, minocycline), retinoids (isotretinoin), and hormonal modulators (oral contraceptives, spironolactone). Isotretinoin, recommended for patients with nodulocystic acne, may play a possible role in treating acne-induced PIH.¹³

Two common procedural therapies for acne include comedone extraction and intralesional corticosteroid injection. A 6- to 8-week course of a topical retinoid prior to comedonal extraction may facilitate the procedure and is recommended in SOC patients to help reduce cutaneous trauma and PIH.¹¹ Inflammatory acne lesions can be treated with intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide 2.5 or 5.0 mg/mL, which usually reduces inflammation within 2 to 5 days.¹¹

Treatment of acne-induced PIH includes sun protection, topical and oral medications, chemical peels, lasers, and energy devices. Treatment of hypertrophic scarring and keloids involves intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide 20, 30, or 40 mg/mL every 4 weeks until the lesion is flat.¹¹

Superficial chemical peels can be used to treat acne and PIH in SOC patients,¹⁴ such as salicylic acid (20%–30%), glycolic acid (20%–70%), trichloroacetic acid (15%–30%), and Jessner peels.

Acne Scarring
Surgical approaches to acne scarring in patients with SOC include elliptical excision, punch excision, punch elevation, punch autografting, dermal grafting, dermal planning, subcutaneous incision (subcision), dermabrasion, microneedling, fillers, and laser skin resurfacing. The treatment of choice depends on the size, type, and depth of the scar and the clinician’s preference.

Lasers
Fractional photothermolysis has emerged as a treatment option for acne scars in SOC patients. This procedure produces microscopic columns of thermal injury in the epidermis and dermis, sparing the surrounding tissue and minimizing downtime and adverse events. Because fractional photothermolysis does not target melanin and produces limited epidermal injury, darker Fitzpatrick skin types (IV–VI) can be safely and effectively treated with this procedure.¹⁵

Rosacea in SOC Patients

Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects the vasculature and pilosebaceous units of the face. It commonly is seen in Fitzpatrick skin types I and II; however, rosacea can occur in all skin types (Figure 2). Triggers include emotional stress, extreme environmental temperatures, hot and spicy foods, red wine or alcohol, and topical irritants or allergens found in common cosmetic products.¹⁶

Data suggest that 4% of rosacea patients in the United States are of African, Latino, or Asian descent.¹¹ National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data revealed that of 31.5 million rosacea visits, 2% of patients were black, 2.3% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3.9% were Hispanic or Latino. In a 5-year longitudinal study of 2587 rosacea patients enrolled in Medicaid in North Carolina who were prescribed at least 1 topical treatment for rosacea, 16.27% were black and 10% were of a race other than white.¹⁷

Although the pathogenesis of rosacea is unclear, hypotheses include immune system abnormalities, neurogenic dysregulation, presence of microorganisms (eg, Demodex folliculorum), UV damage, and skin barrier dysfunction.¹⁸

The 4 major subtypes of rosacea are erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular rosacea.¹⁶ Interestingly, rosacea in SOC patients may present with hypopigmentation surrounding the borders of the facial erythema. For phymatous rosacea, isotretinoin may reduce incipient rhinophyma but must be carefully monitored and pregnancy must be excluded. Surgical or laser therapy may be indicated to recontour the nose if severe.

There are several skin conditions that can present with facial erythema in patients with SOC, including seborrheic dermatitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and contact dermatitis. It is important to note that the detection of facial erythema in darker skin types may be difficult; therefore, laboratory evaluation (antinuclear antibodies), patch testing, and skin biopsy should be considered if the clinical diagnosis is unclear.

Treatment
Treatment of rosacea in SOC patients does not differ from other racial groups. Common strategies include gentle skin care, sun protection (sun protection factor 30+), and barrier repair creams. Topical agents include metronidazole, AZA, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, ivermectin, and retinoids.¹⁶ Oral treatments include antibiotics in the tetracycline family (eg, subantimicrobial dose doxycycline) and isotretinoin.¹⁶ Persistent erythema associated with rosacea can be treated with brimonidine¹⁹ and oxymetazoline.²⁰ Vascular lasers and intense pulsed light may be used to address the vascular components of rosacea²¹; however, the latter is not recommended in Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI.

Facial Hyperpigmentation in SOC Patients

Hyperpigmentation disorders can be divided into conditions that affect Fitzpatrick skin types I through III and IV though VI. Mottled hyperpigmentation (photodamage) and solar lentigines occur in patients with lighter skin types as compared to melasma, PIH, and age-related (UV-induced) hyperpigmentation, which occur more commonly in patients with darker skin types. Facial hyperpigmentation is a common concern in SOC patients. In a survey of cosmetic concerns of 100 women with SOC, hyperpigmentation or dark spots (86%) and blotchy uneven skin (80%) were the top concerns.²² In addition, facial hyperpigmentation has been shown to negatively impact quality of life.²³

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation occurs from a pathophysiological response to inflammation, cutaneous irritation or injury, and subsequent melanocyte lability. Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is a common presenting concern in patients with SOC and is seen as a result of many inflammatory skin disorders (eg, acne, eczema) and dermatologic procedures (eg, adverse reaction to electrodesiccation, microdermabrasion, chemical peels, laser surgery).²⁴

Melasma is an acquired idiopathic disorder of hyperpigmentation and often referred to as the mask of pregnancy (Figure 3). It occurs on sun-exposed areas of skin, mainly in women with Fitzpatrick skin types III through V. Associated factors or triggers include pregnancy, hormonal treatments, exposure to UV radiation, and medications.²⁵ Hereditary factors play a role in more than 40% of cases.²⁶

Other not-so-common facial dyschromias include contact dermatitis, acanthosis nigricans, exogenous ochronosis, lichen planus pigmentosus (associated with frontal fibrosing alopecia),²⁷ drug-induced hyperpigmentation (associated with minocycline or diltiazem),^28,29 and UV-induced (age-related) hyperpigmentation.

Treatment
The treatment of hyperpigmentation should provide the following: (1) protection from sun exposure; (2) inhibition of tyrosinase, the enzyme responsible for the conversion of tyrosine to melanin; (3) inhibition of melanosome transfer from the melanocyte to the keratinocyte; (4) removal of melanin from the epidermis through exfoliation; and (5) destruction or disruption of melanin in the dermis.³⁰ Therapies for facial hyperpigmentation are listed in Table 1.

Topical therapies include prescription medications and nonprescription cosmeceuticals. Prescription medications include hydroquinone (HQ), topical retinoids, and AZA. Hydroquinone, a tyrosinase inhibitor, is the gold standard for skin lightening and often is used as a first-line therapy. It is used as a monotherapy (HQ 4%) or as a fixed combination with tretinoin 0.05% and fluocinolone 0.01%.³¹ Use caution with HQ in high concentrations (6% and higher) and low concentrations (2% [over-the-counter strength]) used long-term due to the potential risk of exogenous ochronosis.

Topical retinoids have been shown to be effective therapeutic agents for melasma and PIH. Tretinoin,³² tazarotene,³³ and adapalene³⁴ all have demonstrated efficacy for acne and acne-induced PIH in SOC patients. Patients must be monitored for the development of retinoid dermatitis and worsening of hyperpigmentation.

Azelaic acid is a naturally occurring dicarboxylic acid obtained from cultures of Malassezia furfur. Azelaic acid inhibits tyrosinase activity, DNA synthesis, and mitochondrial enzymes, thus blocking direct cytotoxic effects toward melanocytes. Azelaic acid is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for acne in a 20% cream formulation and rosacea in 15% gel and foam formulations, and it is used off label for melasma and PIH.³⁵

Oral tranexamic acid is currently used as a hemostatic agent due to its ability to inhibit the plasminogen-plasmin pathway. In melasma, it blocks the interaction between melanocytes and keratinocytes in the epidermis and modulates the vascular component of melasma in the dermis. In an open-label study, 561 Asian melasma patients were treated with oral tranexamic acid 250 mg twice daily for 4 months. Results demonstrated improvement in 90% of patients, and 7.1% reported adverse effects (eg, abdominal bloating and pain, nausea, vomiting, headache, tinnitus, numbness, menstrual irregularities).³⁶ Coagulation screening should be monitored monthly, and any patient with a history of clotting abnormalities should be excluded from off-label treatment with oral tranexamic acid.

Nonprescription cosmeceuticals are available over-the-counter or are office dispensed.³⁷ For optimal results, cosmeceutical agents for skin lightening are used in combination. Most of these combinations are HQ free and have additive benefits such as a multimodal skin lightening agent containing key ingredients that correct and prevent skin pigmentation via several pathways affecting melanogenesis.³⁸ It is an excellent alternative to HQ for mottled and diffuse UV-induced hyperpigmentation and can be used for maintenance therapy in patients with melasma.

Photoprotection is an essential component of therapy for melasma and PIH, but there is a paucity of data on the benefits for SOC patients. Halder et al³⁹ performed a randomized prospective study of 89 black and Hispanic patients who applied sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 30 or 60 daily for 8 weeks. Clinical grading, triplicate L*A*B chromameter, and clinical photography were taken at baseline and weeks 4 and 8. The results demonstrated skin lightening in both black and Hispanic patients and support the use of sunscreen in the prevention and management of dyschromia in SOC patients.³⁹ Visible light also may play a role in melasma development, and thus use of sunscreens or makeup containing iron oxides are recommended.⁴⁰

Procedural treatments for facial hyperpigmentation include microdermabrasion, chemical peels, lasers, energy-based devices, and microneedling. There are many types and formulations of chemical peeling agents available; however, superficial and medium-depth chemical peels are recommended for SOC patients (Table 2). Deep chemical peels are not recommended for SOC patients due to the potential increased risk for PIH and scarring.

Cosmetic Enhancement in SOC Patients

Cosmetic procedures are gaining popularity in the SOC population and account for more than 20% of cosmetic procedures in the United States.⁴¹ Facial cosmetic concerns in SOC include dyschromia, benign growths (dermatosis papulosa nigra), hyperkinetic facial lines, volume loss, and skin laxity.⁴² Key principles to consider when treating SOC patients are the impact of ethnicity on aging and facial structure, the patient’s desired cosmetic outcome, tissue reaction to anticipated treatments, and the patient’s expectations for recommended therapies.

Aging in SOC Patients
Skin aging can be classified as intrinsic aging or extrinsic aging. Intrinsic aging is genetic and involves subsurface changes such as volume loss, muscle atrophy, and resorption of bony structure. Extrinsic aging (or photoaging) involves surface changes of the epidermis/dermis and manifests as mottled pigmentation, textural changes, and fine wrinkling. Due to the photoprotection of melanin (black skin=SPF 13.4), skin aging in SOC patients is delayed by 10 to 20 years.⁴³ In addition, SOC patients have more reactive collagen and can benefit from noninvasive cosmetic procedures such as fillers and skin-tightening procedures.⁴²

Cosmetic Treatments and Procedures
Dermatosis papulosa nigra (benign growths of skin that have a genetic predisposition)⁴⁴ occur mainly on the face but can involve the entire body. Treatment modalities include electrodesiccation, cryotherapy, scissor excision, and laser surgery.⁴⁵

Treatment of hyperkinetic facial lines with botulinum toxin type A is a safe and effective procedure in patients with SOC. Grimes and Shabazz⁴⁶ performed a 4-month, randomized, double-blind study that evaluated the treatment of glabellar lines in women with Fitzpatrick skin types V and VI. The results demonstrated that the duration of effects was the same in the patients who received either 20 or 30 U of botulinum toxin type A.⁴⁶ Dynamic rhytides (furrows and frown/scowl lines arising from laughing, frowning, or smiling) can be treated safely in patients with SOC using botulinum toxin type A off label for relaxation of the upper and lower hyperkinetic muscles that result in these unwanted signs of aging. Botulinum toxin type A often is used for etched-in crow’s-feet, which rarely are evident in SOC patients.⁴⁷ Facial shaping also can be accomplished by injecting botulinum toxin type A in combination with soft-tissue dermal fillers.⁴⁷

Although black individuals do not experience perioral rhytides at the frequency of white individuals, they experience a variety of other cosmetic issues related to skin sagging and sinking. Currently available hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers have been shown to be safe in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI.⁴⁸ Two studies evaluated fillers in patients with SOC, specifically HA⁴⁹ and calcium hydroxylapatite,⁵⁰ focused on treatment of the nasolabial folds and the potential risk for dyspigmentation and keloidal scarring. Taylor et al⁴⁹ noted that the risk of hyperpigmentation was 6% to 9% for large- and small-particle HA, respectively, and was associated with the serial or multiple puncture injection technique. No hypertrophic or keloidal scarring occurred in both studies.^49,50

Facial contouring applications with fillers include glabellar lines, temples, nasal bridge, tear troughs, malar and submalar areas, nasolabial folds, radial lines, lips, marionette lines, mental crease, and chin. Hyaluronic acid fillers also can be used for lip enhancement.⁴⁷ Although white women are looking to increase the size of their lips, black women are seeking augmentation to restore their lip size to that of their youth. Black individuals do not experience the same frequency of perioral rhytides as white patients, but they experience a variety of other issues related to skin sagging and sinking. Unlike white women, enhancement of the vermilion border rarely is performed in black women due to development of rhytides, predominantly in the body of the lip below the vermilion border in response to volume loss in the upper lip while the lower lip usually maintains its same appearance.⁴⁷

Facial enhancement utilizing poly-L-lactic acid can be used safely in SOC patients.⁵¹ Poly-L-lactic acid microparticles induce collagen formation, leading to dermal thickening over 3 to 6 months; however, multiple sessions are required to achieve optimal aesthetic results.

Patients with more reactive collagen can benefit from noninvasive cosmetic procedures such as skin-tightening procedures.⁵² Radiofrequency and microfocused ultrasound are cosmetic procedures used to provide skin tightening and facial lifting. They are safe and effective treatments for patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI.⁵³ Histologically, there is less thinning of collagen bundles and elastic tissue in ethnic skin. Due to stimulation of collagen by these procedures, most SOC patients will experience a more enhanced response, requiring fewer treatment sessions than white individuals.

Conclusion

Medical and aesthetic facial concerns in SOC patients vary and can be a source of emotional and psychological distress that can negatively impact quality of life. The approach to the treatment of SOC patients should be a balance between tolerability and efficacy, considering the potential risk for PIH.

The approach to the treatment of common skin disorders and cosmetic concerns in patients with skin of color (SOC) requires the clinician to understand the biological differences, nuances, and special considerations that are unique to patients with darker skin types.^1-3 This article addresses 4 common facial concerns in SOC patients—acne, rosacea, facial hyperpigmentation, and cosmetic enhancement—and provides treatment recommendations and management pearls to assist the clinician with optimal outcomes for SOC patients.

Acne in SOC Patients

Acne vulgaris is one of the most common conditions that dermatologists treat and is estimated to affect 40 to 50 million individuals in the United States.¹ Many of these acne patients are individuals with SOC.^2-4 A study of 2835 females (aged 10–70 years) conducted in 4 different cities—Los Angeles, California; London, United Kingdom; Akita, Japan; and Rome, Italy—demonstrated acne prevalence of 37% in blacks, 32% in Hispanics, 30% in Asians, 24% in whites, and 23% in Continental Indians.⁵ Blacks, Hispanics, and Continental Indians demonstrated equal prevalence with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Asians displayed more inflammatory acne lesions than comedones. In contrast, whites demonstrated more comedones than inflammatory acne. Dyspigmentation, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), and atrophic scars were more common in black and Hispanic females than other ethnicities.⁵ This study illustrated that acne-induced PIH is a common sequela in SOC patients and is the main reason they seek treatment.^6,7

The pathogenesis of acne is the same in all racial and ethnic groups: (1) follicular hyperkeratinization and the formation of a microcomedone caused by abnormal desquamation of the keratinocytes within the sebaceous follicle, (2) production of sebum by circulating androgens, (3) proliferation of Propionibacterium acnes, and (4) inflammation. Subclinical inflammation is present throughout all stages of acne, including normal-appearing skin, inflammatory lesions, comedones, and scarring, and may contribute to PIH in acne patients with SOC (Figure 1).⁸ A thorough history should be obtained from acne patients, including answers to the following questions⁷:

• What skin and hair care products do you use?
• Do you use sunscreen daily?
• What cosmetic products or makeup do you use?
• Do you use any ethnic skin care products, including skin lightening creams?
• Do you have a history of keloids?

It is important to ask these questions to assess if the SOC patient has developed pomade acne,⁹ acne cosmetica,¹⁰ or a potential risk of skin irritation from the use of skin care practices. It is best to take total control of the patient’s skin care regimen and discontinue use of toners, astringents, witch hazel, exfoliants, and rubbing alcohol, which may lead to skin dryness and irritation, particularly when combined with topical acne medications.

Treatment
Treatment of acne in SOC patients is similar to generally recommended treatments, with special considerations. Consider the following key points when treating acne in SOC patients:

• Treat acne early and aggressively to prevent or minimize subsequent PIH and acne scarring.
• Balance aggressive treatment with nonirritating topical skin care.
• Most importantly, target PIH in addition to acne and choose a regimen that limits skin irritation that might exacerbate existing PIH.⁷

Develop a maintenance program to control future breakouts. Topical agents can be used as monotherapy or in fixed combinations and may include benzoyl peroxide, antibiotics, dapsone, azelaic acid (AZA), and retinoids. Similar to white patients, topical retinoids remain a first-line treatment for acne in patients with SOC.^11,12

Tolerability must be managed in SOC acne patients. Therapeutic maneuvers that can be instituted should include a discussion on using gentle skin care, initiating therapy with a retinoid applied every other night starting with a low concentration and gradually titrating up, and applying a moisturizer before or after applying acne medication. Oral therapies consist of antibiotics (doxycycline, minocycline), retinoids (isotretinoin), and hormonal modulators (oral contraceptives, spironolactone). Isotretinoin, recommended for patients with nodulocystic acne, may play a possible role in treating acne-induced PIH.¹³

Two common procedural therapies for acne include comedone extraction and intralesional corticosteroid injection. A 6- to 8-week course of a topical retinoid prior to comedonal extraction may facilitate the procedure and is recommended in SOC patients to help reduce cutaneous trauma and PIH.¹¹ Inflammatory acne lesions can be treated with intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide 2.5 or 5.0 mg/mL, which usually reduces inflammation within 2 to 5 days.¹¹

Treatment of acne-induced PIH includes sun protection, topical and oral medications, chemical peels, lasers, and energy devices. Treatment of hypertrophic scarring and keloids involves intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide 20, 30, or 40 mg/mL every 4 weeks until the lesion is flat.¹¹

Superficial chemical peels can be used to treat acne and PIH in SOC patients,¹⁴ such as salicylic acid (20%–30%), glycolic acid (20%–70%), trichloroacetic acid (15%–30%), and Jessner peels.

Acne Scarring
Surgical approaches to acne scarring in patients with SOC include elliptical excision, punch excision, punch elevation, punch autografting, dermal grafting, dermal planning, subcutaneous incision (subcision), dermabrasion, microneedling, fillers, and laser skin resurfacing. The treatment of choice depends on the size, type, and depth of the scar and the clinician’s preference.

Lasers
Fractional photothermolysis has emerged as a treatment option for acne scars in SOC patients. This procedure produces microscopic columns of thermal injury in the epidermis and dermis, sparing the surrounding tissue and minimizing downtime and adverse events. Because fractional photothermolysis does not target melanin and produces limited epidermal injury, darker Fitzpatrick skin types (IV–VI) can be safely and effectively treated with this procedure.¹⁵

Rosacea in SOC Patients

Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects the vasculature and pilosebaceous units of the face. It commonly is seen in Fitzpatrick skin types I and II; however, rosacea can occur in all skin types (Figure 2). Triggers include emotional stress, extreme environmental temperatures, hot and spicy foods, red wine or alcohol, and topical irritants or allergens found in common cosmetic products.¹⁶

Data suggest that 4% of rosacea patients in the United States are of African, Latino, or Asian descent.¹¹ National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data revealed that of 31.5 million rosacea visits, 2% of patients were black, 2.3% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3.9% were Hispanic or Latino. In a 5-year longitudinal study of 2587 rosacea patients enrolled in Medicaid in North Carolina who were prescribed at least 1 topical treatment for rosacea, 16.27% were black and 10% were of a race other than white.¹⁷

Although the pathogenesis of rosacea is unclear, hypotheses include immune system abnormalities, neurogenic dysregulation, presence of microorganisms (eg, Demodex folliculorum), UV damage, and skin barrier dysfunction.¹⁸

The 4 major subtypes of rosacea are erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular rosacea.¹⁶ Interestingly, rosacea in SOC patients may present with hypopigmentation surrounding the borders of the facial erythema. For phymatous rosacea, isotretinoin may reduce incipient rhinophyma but must be carefully monitored and pregnancy must be excluded. Surgical or laser therapy may be indicated to recontour the nose if severe.

There are several skin conditions that can present with facial erythema in patients with SOC, including seborrheic dermatitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and contact dermatitis. It is important to note that the detection of facial erythema in darker skin types may be difficult; therefore, laboratory evaluation (antinuclear antibodies), patch testing, and skin biopsy should be considered if the clinical diagnosis is unclear.

Treatment
Treatment of rosacea in SOC patients does not differ from other racial groups. Common strategies include gentle skin care, sun protection (sun protection factor 30+), and barrier repair creams. Topical agents include metronidazole, AZA, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, ivermectin, and retinoids.¹⁶ Oral treatments include antibiotics in the tetracycline family (eg, subantimicrobial dose doxycycline) and isotretinoin.¹⁶ Persistent erythema associated with rosacea can be treated with brimonidine¹⁹ and oxymetazoline.²⁰ Vascular lasers and intense pulsed light may be used to address the vascular components of rosacea²¹; however, the latter is not recommended in Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI.

Facial Hyperpigmentation in SOC Patients

Hyperpigmentation disorders can be divided into conditions that affect Fitzpatrick skin types I through III and IV though VI. Mottled hyperpigmentation (photodamage) and solar lentigines occur in patients with lighter skin types as compared to melasma, PIH, and age-related (UV-induced) hyperpigmentation, which occur more commonly in patients with darker skin types. Facial hyperpigmentation is a common concern in SOC patients. In a survey of cosmetic concerns of 100 women with SOC, hyperpigmentation or dark spots (86%) and blotchy uneven skin (80%) were the top concerns.²² In addition, facial hyperpigmentation has been shown to negatively impact quality of life.²³

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation occurs from a pathophysiological response to inflammation, cutaneous irritation or injury, and subsequent melanocyte lability. Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is a common presenting concern in patients with SOC and is seen as a result of many inflammatory skin disorders (eg, acne, eczema) and dermatologic procedures (eg, adverse reaction to electrodesiccation, microdermabrasion, chemical peels, laser surgery).²⁴

Melasma is an acquired idiopathic disorder of hyperpigmentation and often referred to as the mask of pregnancy (Figure 3). It occurs on sun-exposed areas of skin, mainly in women with Fitzpatrick skin types III through V. Associated factors or triggers include pregnancy, hormonal treatments, exposure to UV radiation, and medications.²⁵ Hereditary factors play a role in more than 40% of cases.²⁶

Other not-so-common facial dyschromias include contact dermatitis, acanthosis nigricans, exogenous ochronosis, lichen planus pigmentosus (associated with frontal fibrosing alopecia),²⁷ drug-induced hyperpigmentation (associated with minocycline or diltiazem),^28,29 and UV-induced (age-related) hyperpigmentation.

Treatment
The treatment of hyperpigmentation should provide the following: (1) protection from sun exposure; (2) inhibition of tyrosinase, the enzyme responsible for the conversion of tyrosine to melanin; (3) inhibition of melanosome transfer from the melanocyte to the keratinocyte; (4) removal of melanin from the epidermis through exfoliation; and (5) destruction or disruption of melanin in the dermis.³⁰ Therapies for facial hyperpigmentation are listed in Table 1.

Topical therapies include prescription medications and nonprescription cosmeceuticals. Prescription medications include hydroquinone (HQ), topical retinoids, and AZA. Hydroquinone, a tyrosinase inhibitor, is the gold standard for skin lightening and often is used as a first-line therapy. It is used as a monotherapy (HQ 4%) or as a fixed combination with tretinoin 0.05% and fluocinolone 0.01%.³¹ Use caution with HQ in high concentrations (6% and higher) and low concentrations (2% [over-the-counter strength]) used long-term due to the potential risk of exogenous ochronosis.

Topical retinoids have been shown to be effective therapeutic agents for melasma and PIH. Tretinoin,³² tazarotene,³³ and adapalene³⁴ all have demonstrated efficacy for acne and acne-induced PIH in SOC patients. Patients must be monitored for the development of retinoid dermatitis and worsening of hyperpigmentation.

Azelaic acid is a naturally occurring dicarboxylic acid obtained from cultures of Malassezia furfur. Azelaic acid inhibits tyrosinase activity, DNA synthesis, and mitochondrial enzymes, thus blocking direct cytotoxic effects toward melanocytes. Azelaic acid is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for acne in a 20% cream formulation and rosacea in 15% gel and foam formulations, and it is used off label for melasma and PIH.³⁵

Oral tranexamic acid is currently used as a hemostatic agent due to its ability to inhibit the plasminogen-plasmin pathway. In melasma, it blocks the interaction between melanocytes and keratinocytes in the epidermis and modulates the vascular component of melasma in the dermis. In an open-label study, 561 Asian melasma patients were treated with oral tranexamic acid 250 mg twice daily for 4 months. Results demonstrated improvement in 90% of patients, and 7.1% reported adverse effects (eg, abdominal bloating and pain, nausea, vomiting, headache, tinnitus, numbness, menstrual irregularities).³⁶ Coagulation screening should be monitored monthly, and any patient with a history of clotting abnormalities should be excluded from off-label treatment with oral tranexamic acid.

Nonprescription cosmeceuticals are available over-the-counter or are office dispensed.³⁷ For optimal results, cosmeceutical agents for skin lightening are used in combination. Most of these combinations are HQ free and have additive benefits such as a multimodal skin lightening agent containing key ingredients that correct and prevent skin pigmentation via several pathways affecting melanogenesis.³⁸ It is an excellent alternative to HQ for mottled and diffuse UV-induced hyperpigmentation and can be used for maintenance therapy in patients with melasma.

Photoprotection is an essential component of therapy for melasma and PIH, but there is a paucity of data on the benefits for SOC patients. Halder et al³⁹ performed a randomized prospective study of 89 black and Hispanic patients who applied sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 30 or 60 daily for 8 weeks. Clinical grading, triplicate L*A*B chromameter, and clinical photography were taken at baseline and weeks 4 and 8. The results demonstrated skin lightening in both black and Hispanic patients and support the use of sunscreen in the prevention and management of dyschromia in SOC patients.³⁹ Visible light also may play a role in melasma development, and thus use of sunscreens or makeup containing iron oxides are recommended.⁴⁰

Procedural treatments for facial hyperpigmentation include microdermabrasion, chemical peels, lasers, energy-based devices, and microneedling. There are many types and formulations of chemical peeling agents available; however, superficial and medium-depth chemical peels are recommended for SOC patients (Table 2). Deep chemical peels are not recommended for SOC patients due to the potential increased risk for PIH and scarring.

Cosmetic Enhancement in SOC Patients

Cosmetic procedures are gaining popularity in the SOC population and account for more than 20% of cosmetic procedures in the United States.⁴¹ Facial cosmetic concerns in SOC include dyschromia, benign growths (dermatosis papulosa nigra), hyperkinetic facial lines, volume loss, and skin laxity.⁴² Key principles to consider when treating SOC patients are the impact of ethnicity on aging and facial structure, the patient’s desired cosmetic outcome, tissue reaction to anticipated treatments, and the patient’s expectations for recommended therapies.

Aging in SOC Patients
Skin aging can be classified as intrinsic aging or extrinsic aging. Intrinsic aging is genetic and involves subsurface changes such as volume loss, muscle atrophy, and resorption of bony structure. Extrinsic aging (or photoaging) involves surface changes of the epidermis/dermis and manifests as mottled pigmentation, textural changes, and fine wrinkling. Due to the photoprotection of melanin (black skin=SPF 13.4), skin aging in SOC patients is delayed by 10 to 20 years.⁴³ In addition, SOC patients have more reactive collagen and can benefit from noninvasive cosmetic procedures such as fillers and skin-tightening procedures.⁴²

Cosmetic Treatments and Procedures
Dermatosis papulosa nigra (benign growths of skin that have a genetic predisposition)⁴⁴ occur mainly on the face but can involve the entire body. Treatment modalities include electrodesiccation, cryotherapy, scissor excision, and laser surgery.⁴⁵

Treatment of hyperkinetic facial lines with botulinum toxin type A is a safe and effective procedure in patients with SOC. Grimes and Shabazz⁴⁶ performed a 4-month, randomized, double-blind study that evaluated the treatment of glabellar lines in women with Fitzpatrick skin types V and VI. The results demonstrated that the duration of effects was the same in the patients who received either 20 or 30 U of botulinum toxin type A.⁴⁶ Dynamic rhytides (furrows and frown/scowl lines arising from laughing, frowning, or smiling) can be treated safely in patients with SOC using botulinum toxin type A off label for relaxation of the upper and lower hyperkinetic muscles that result in these unwanted signs of aging. Botulinum toxin type A often is used for etched-in crow’s-feet, which rarely are evident in SOC patients.⁴⁷ Facial shaping also can be accomplished by injecting botulinum toxin type A in combination with soft-tissue dermal fillers.⁴⁷

Although black individuals do not experience perioral rhytides at the frequency of white individuals, they experience a variety of other cosmetic issues related to skin sagging and sinking. Currently available hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers have been shown to be safe in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI.⁴⁸ Two studies evaluated fillers in patients with SOC, specifically HA⁴⁹ and calcium hydroxylapatite,⁵⁰ focused on treatment of the nasolabial folds and the potential risk for dyspigmentation and keloidal scarring. Taylor et al⁴⁹ noted that the risk of hyperpigmentation was 6% to 9% for large- and small-particle HA, respectively, and was associated with the serial or multiple puncture injection technique. No hypertrophic or keloidal scarring occurred in both studies.^49,50

Facial contouring applications with fillers include glabellar lines, temples, nasal bridge, tear troughs, malar and submalar areas, nasolabial folds, radial lines, lips, marionette lines, mental crease, and chin. Hyaluronic acid fillers also can be used for lip enhancement.⁴⁷ Although white women are looking to increase the size of their lips, black women are seeking augmentation to restore their lip size to that of their youth. Black individuals do not experience the same frequency of perioral rhytides as white patients, but they experience a variety of other issues related to skin sagging and sinking. Unlike white women, enhancement of the vermilion border rarely is performed in black women due to development of rhytides, predominantly in the body of the lip below the vermilion border in response to volume loss in the upper lip while the lower lip usually maintains its same appearance.⁴⁷

Facial enhancement utilizing poly-L-lactic acid can be used safely in SOC patients.⁵¹ Poly-L-lactic acid microparticles induce collagen formation, leading to dermal thickening over 3 to 6 months; however, multiple sessions are required to achieve optimal aesthetic results.

Patients with more reactive collagen can benefit from noninvasive cosmetic procedures such as skin-tightening procedures.⁵² Radiofrequency and microfocused ultrasound are cosmetic procedures used to provide skin tightening and facial lifting. They are safe and effective treatments for patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI.⁵³ Histologically, there is less thinning of collagen bundles and elastic tissue in ethnic skin. Due to stimulation of collagen by these procedures, most SOC patients will experience a more enhanced response, requiring fewer treatment sessions than white individuals.

Conclusion

Medical and aesthetic facial concerns in SOC patients vary and can be a source of emotional and psychological distress that can negatively impact quality of life. The approach to the treatment of SOC patients should be a balance between tolerability and efficacy, considering the potential risk for PIH.

The approach to the treatment of common skin disorders and cosmetic concerns in patients with skin of color (SOC) requires the clinician to understand the biological differences, nuances, and special considerations that are unique to patients with darker skin types.^1-3 This article addresses 4 common facial concerns in SOC patients—acne, rosacea, facial hyperpigmentation, and cosmetic enhancement—and provides treatment recommendations and management pearls to assist the clinician with optimal outcomes for SOC patients.

Acne in SOC Patients

Acne vulgaris is one of the most common conditions that dermatologists treat and is estimated to affect 40 to 50 million individuals in the United States.¹ Many of these acne patients are individuals with SOC.^2-4 A study of 2835 females (aged 10–70 years) conducted in 4 different cities—Los Angeles, California; London, United Kingdom; Akita, Japan; and Rome, Italy—demonstrated acne prevalence of 37% in blacks, 32% in Hispanics, 30% in Asians, 24% in whites, and 23% in Continental Indians.⁵ Blacks, Hispanics, and Continental Indians demonstrated equal prevalence with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Asians displayed more inflammatory acne lesions than comedones. In contrast, whites demonstrated more comedones than inflammatory acne. Dyspigmentation, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), and atrophic scars were more common in black and Hispanic females than other ethnicities.⁵ This study illustrated that acne-induced PIH is a common sequela in SOC patients and is the main reason they seek treatment.^6,7

The pathogenesis of acne is the same in all racial and ethnic groups: (1) follicular hyperkeratinization and the formation of a microcomedone caused by abnormal desquamation of the keratinocytes within the sebaceous follicle, (2) production of sebum by circulating androgens, (3) proliferation of Propionibacterium acnes, and (4) inflammation. Subclinical inflammation is present throughout all stages of acne, including normal-appearing skin, inflammatory lesions, comedones, and scarring, and may contribute to PIH in acne patients with SOC (Figure 1).⁸ A thorough history should be obtained from acne patients, including answers to the following questions⁷:

• What skin and hair care products do you use?
• Do you use sunscreen daily?
• What cosmetic products or makeup do you use?
• Do you use any ethnic skin care products, including skin lightening creams?
• Do you have a history of keloids?

It is important to ask these questions to assess if the SOC patient has developed pomade acne,⁹ acne cosmetica,¹⁰ or a potential risk of skin irritation from the use of skin care practices. It is best to take total control of the patient’s skin care regimen and discontinue use of toners, astringents, witch hazel, exfoliants, and rubbing alcohol, which may lead to skin dryness and irritation, particularly when combined with topical acne medications.

Treatment
Treatment of acne in SOC patients is similar to generally recommended treatments, with special considerations. Consider the following key points when treating acne in SOC patients:

• Treat acne early and aggressively to prevent or minimize subsequent PIH and acne scarring.
• Balance aggressive treatment with nonirritating topical skin care.
• Most importantly, target PIH in addition to acne and choose a regimen that limits skin irritation that might exacerbate existing PIH.⁷

Develop a maintenance program to control future breakouts. Topical agents can be used as monotherapy or in fixed combinations and may include benzoyl peroxide, antibiotics, dapsone, azelaic acid (AZA), and retinoids. Similar to white patients, topical retinoids remain a first-line treatment for acne in patients with SOC.^11,12

Tolerability must be managed in SOC acne patients. Therapeutic maneuvers that can be instituted should include a discussion on using gentle skin care, initiating therapy with a retinoid applied every other night starting with a low concentration and gradually titrating up, and applying a moisturizer before or after applying acne medication. Oral therapies consist of antibiotics (doxycycline, minocycline), retinoids (isotretinoin), and hormonal modulators (oral contraceptives, spironolactone). Isotretinoin, recommended for patients with nodulocystic acne, may play a possible role in treating acne-induced PIH.¹³

Two common procedural therapies for acne include comedone extraction and intralesional corticosteroid injection. A 6- to 8-week course of a topical retinoid prior to comedonal extraction may facilitate the procedure and is recommended in SOC patients to help reduce cutaneous trauma and PIH.¹¹ Inflammatory acne lesions can be treated with intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide 2.5 or 5.0 mg/mL, which usually reduces inflammation within 2 to 5 days.¹¹

Treatment of acne-induced PIH includes sun protection, topical and oral medications, chemical peels, lasers, and energy devices. Treatment of hypertrophic scarring and keloids involves intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide 20, 30, or 40 mg/mL every 4 weeks until the lesion is flat.¹¹

Superficial chemical peels can be used to treat acne and PIH in SOC patients,¹⁴ such as salicylic acid (20%–30%), glycolic acid (20%–70%), trichloroacetic acid (15%–30%), and Jessner peels.

Acne Scarring
Surgical approaches to acne scarring in patients with SOC include elliptical excision, punch excision, punch elevation, punch autografting, dermal grafting, dermal planning, subcutaneous incision (subcision), dermabrasion, microneedling, fillers, and laser skin resurfacing. The treatment of choice depends on the size, type, and depth of the scar and the clinician’s preference.

Lasers
Fractional photothermolysis has emerged as a treatment option for acne scars in SOC patients. This procedure produces microscopic columns of thermal injury in the epidermis and dermis, sparing the surrounding tissue and minimizing downtime and adverse events. Because fractional photothermolysis does not target melanin and produces limited epidermal injury, darker Fitzpatrick skin types (IV–VI) can be safely and effectively treated with this procedure.¹⁵

Rosacea in SOC Patients

Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects the vasculature and pilosebaceous units of the face. It commonly is seen in Fitzpatrick skin types I and II; however, rosacea can occur in all skin types (Figure 2). Triggers include emotional stress, extreme environmental temperatures, hot and spicy foods, red wine or alcohol, and topical irritants or allergens found in common cosmetic products.¹⁶

Data suggest that 4% of rosacea patients in the United States are of African, Latino, or Asian descent.¹¹ National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data revealed that of 31.5 million rosacea visits, 2% of patients were black, 2.3% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3.9% were Hispanic or Latino. In a 5-year longitudinal study of 2587 rosacea patients enrolled in Medicaid in North Carolina who were prescribed at least 1 topical treatment for rosacea, 16.27% were black and 10% were of a race other than white.¹⁷

Although the pathogenesis of rosacea is unclear, hypotheses include immune system abnormalities, neurogenic dysregulation, presence of microorganisms (eg, Demodex folliculorum), UV damage, and skin barrier dysfunction.¹⁸

The 4 major subtypes of rosacea are erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular rosacea.¹⁶ Interestingly, rosacea in SOC patients may present with hypopigmentation surrounding the borders of the facial erythema. For phymatous rosacea, isotretinoin may reduce incipient rhinophyma but must be carefully monitored and pregnancy must be excluded. Surgical or laser therapy may be indicated to recontour the nose if severe.

There are several skin conditions that can present with facial erythema in patients with SOC, including seborrheic dermatitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and contact dermatitis. It is important to note that the detection of facial erythema in darker skin types may be difficult; therefore, laboratory evaluation (antinuclear antibodies), patch testing, and skin biopsy should be considered if the clinical diagnosis is unclear.

Treatment
Treatment of rosacea in SOC patients does not differ from other racial groups. Common strategies include gentle skin care, sun protection (sun protection factor 30+), and barrier repair creams. Topical agents include metronidazole, AZA, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, ivermectin, and retinoids.¹⁶ Oral treatments include antibiotics in the tetracycline family (eg, subantimicrobial dose doxycycline) and isotretinoin.¹⁶ Persistent erythema associated with rosacea can be treated with brimonidine¹⁹ and oxymetazoline.²⁰ Vascular lasers and intense pulsed light may be used to address the vascular components of rosacea²¹; however, the latter is not recommended in Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI.

Facial Hyperpigmentation in SOC Patients

Hyperpigmentation disorders can be divided into conditions that affect Fitzpatrick skin types I through III and IV though VI. Mottled hyperpigmentation (photodamage) and solar lentigines occur in patients with lighter skin types as compared to melasma, PIH, and age-related (UV-induced) hyperpigmentation, which occur more commonly in patients with darker skin types. Facial hyperpigmentation is a common concern in SOC patients. In a survey of cosmetic concerns of 100 women with SOC, hyperpigmentation or dark spots (86%) and blotchy uneven skin (80%) were the top concerns.²² In addition, facial hyperpigmentation has been shown to negatively impact quality of life.²³

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation occurs from a pathophysiological response to inflammation, cutaneous irritation or injury, and subsequent melanocyte lability. Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is a common presenting concern in patients with SOC and is seen as a result of many inflammatory skin disorders (eg, acne, eczema) and dermatologic procedures (eg, adverse reaction to electrodesiccation, microdermabrasion, chemical peels, laser surgery).²⁴

Melasma is an acquired idiopathic disorder of hyperpigmentation and often referred to as the mask of pregnancy (Figure 3). It occurs on sun-exposed areas of skin, mainly in women with Fitzpatrick skin types III through V. Associated factors or triggers include pregnancy, hormonal treatments, exposure to UV radiation, and medications.²⁵ Hereditary factors play a role in more than 40% of cases.²⁶

Other not-so-common facial dyschromias include contact dermatitis, acanthosis nigricans, exogenous ochronosis, lichen planus pigmentosus (associated with frontal fibrosing alopecia),²⁷ drug-induced hyperpigmentation (associated with minocycline or diltiazem),^28,29 and UV-induced (age-related) hyperpigmentation.

Treatment
The treatment of hyperpigmentation should provide the following: (1) protection from sun exposure; (2) inhibition of tyrosinase, the enzyme responsible for the conversion of tyrosine to melanin; (3) inhibition of melanosome transfer from the melanocyte to the keratinocyte; (4) removal of melanin from the epidermis through exfoliation; and (5) destruction or disruption of melanin in the dermis.³⁰ Therapies for facial hyperpigmentation are listed in Table 1.

Topical therapies include prescription medications and nonprescription cosmeceuticals. Prescription medications include hydroquinone (HQ), topical retinoids, and AZA. Hydroquinone, a tyrosinase inhibitor, is the gold standard for skin lightening and often is used as a first-line therapy. It is used as a monotherapy (HQ 4%) or as a fixed combination with tretinoin 0.05% and fluocinolone 0.01%.³¹ Use caution with HQ in high concentrations (6% and higher) and low concentrations (2% [over-the-counter strength]) used long-term due to the potential risk of exogenous ochronosis.

Topical retinoids have been shown to be effective therapeutic agents for melasma and PIH. Tretinoin,³² tazarotene,³³ and adapalene³⁴ all have demonstrated efficacy for acne and acne-induced PIH in SOC patients. Patients must be monitored for the development of retinoid dermatitis and worsening of hyperpigmentation.

Azelaic acid is a naturally occurring dicarboxylic acid obtained from cultures of Malassezia furfur. Azelaic acid inhibits tyrosinase activity, DNA synthesis, and mitochondrial enzymes, thus blocking direct cytotoxic effects toward melanocytes. Azelaic acid is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for acne in a 20% cream formulation and rosacea in 15% gel and foam formulations, and it is used off label for melasma and PIH.³⁵

Oral tranexamic acid is currently used as a hemostatic agent due to its ability to inhibit the plasminogen-plasmin pathway. In melasma, it blocks the interaction between melanocytes and keratinocytes in the epidermis and modulates the vascular component of melasma in the dermis. In an open-label study, 561 Asian melasma patients were treated with oral tranexamic acid 250 mg twice daily for 4 months. Results demonstrated improvement in 90% of patients, and 7.1% reported adverse effects (eg, abdominal bloating and pain, nausea, vomiting, headache, tinnitus, numbness, menstrual irregularities).³⁶ Coagulation screening should be monitored monthly, and any patient with a history of clotting abnormalities should be excluded from off-label treatment with oral tranexamic acid.

Nonprescription cosmeceuticals are available over-the-counter or are office dispensed.³⁷ For optimal results, cosmeceutical agents for skin lightening are used in combination. Most of these combinations are HQ free and have additive benefits such as a multimodal skin lightening agent containing key ingredients that correct and prevent skin pigmentation via several pathways affecting melanogenesis.³⁸ It is an excellent alternative to HQ for mottled and diffuse UV-induced hyperpigmentation and can be used for maintenance therapy in patients with melasma.

Photoprotection is an essential component of therapy for melasma and PIH, but there is a paucity of data on the benefits for SOC patients. Halder et al³⁹ performed a randomized prospective study of 89 black and Hispanic patients who applied sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 30 or 60 daily for 8 weeks. Clinical grading, triplicate L*A*B chromameter, and clinical photography were taken at baseline and weeks 4 and 8. The results demonstrated skin lightening in both black and Hispanic patients and support the use of sunscreen in the prevention and management of dyschromia in SOC patients.³⁹ Visible light also may play a role in melasma development, and thus use of sunscreens or makeup containing iron oxides are recommended.⁴⁰

Procedural treatments for facial hyperpigmentation include microdermabrasion, chemical peels, lasers, energy-based devices, and microneedling. There are many types and formulations of chemical peeling agents available; however, superficial and medium-depth chemical peels are recommended for SOC patients (Table 2). Deep chemical peels are not recommended for SOC patients due to the potential increased risk for PIH and scarring.

Cosmetic Enhancement in SOC Patients

Cosmetic procedures are gaining popularity in the SOC population and account for more than 20% of cosmetic procedures in the United States.⁴¹ Facial cosmetic concerns in SOC include dyschromia, benign growths (dermatosis papulosa nigra), hyperkinetic facial lines, volume loss, and skin laxity.⁴² Key principles to consider when treating SOC patients are the impact of ethnicity on aging and facial structure, the patient’s desired cosmetic outcome, tissue reaction to anticipated treatments, and the patient’s expectations for recommended therapies.

Aging in SOC Patients
Skin aging can be classified as intrinsic aging or extrinsic aging. Intrinsic aging is genetic and involves subsurface changes such as volume loss, muscle atrophy, and resorption of bony structure. Extrinsic aging (or photoaging) involves surface changes of the epidermis/dermis and manifests as mottled pigmentation, textural changes, and fine wrinkling. Due to the photoprotection of melanin (black skin=SPF 13.4), skin aging in SOC patients is delayed by 10 to 20 years.⁴³ In addition, SOC patients have more reactive collagen and can benefit from noninvasive cosmetic procedures such as fillers and skin-tightening procedures.⁴²

Cosmetic Treatments and Procedures
Dermatosis papulosa nigra (benign growths of skin that have a genetic predisposition)⁴⁴ occur mainly on the face but can involve the entire body. Treatment modalities include electrodesiccation, cryotherapy, scissor excision, and laser surgery.⁴⁵

Treatment of hyperkinetic facial lines with botulinum toxin type A is a safe and effective procedure in patients with SOC. Grimes and Shabazz⁴⁶ performed a 4-month, randomized, double-blind study that evaluated the treatment of glabellar lines in women with Fitzpatrick skin types V and VI. The results demonstrated that the duration of effects was the same in the patients who received either 20 or 30 U of botulinum toxin type A.⁴⁶ Dynamic rhytides (furrows and frown/scowl lines arising from laughing, frowning, or smiling) can be treated safely in patients with SOC using botulinum toxin type A off label for relaxation of the upper and lower hyperkinetic muscles that result in these unwanted signs of aging. Botulinum toxin type A often is used for etched-in crow’s-feet, which rarely are evident in SOC patients.⁴⁷ Facial shaping also can be accomplished by injecting botulinum toxin type A in combination with soft-tissue dermal fillers.⁴⁷

Although black individuals do not experience perioral rhytides at the frequency of white individuals, they experience a variety of other cosmetic issues related to skin sagging and sinking. Currently available hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers have been shown to be safe in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI.⁴⁸ Two studies evaluated fillers in patients with SOC, specifically HA⁴⁹ and calcium hydroxylapatite,⁵⁰ focused on treatment of the nasolabial folds and the potential risk for dyspigmentation and keloidal scarring. Taylor et al⁴⁹ noted that the risk of hyperpigmentation was 6% to 9% for large- and small-particle HA, respectively, and was associated with the serial or multiple puncture injection technique. No hypertrophic or keloidal scarring occurred in both studies.^49,50

Facial contouring applications with fillers include glabellar lines, temples, nasal bridge, tear troughs, malar and submalar areas, nasolabial folds, radial lines, lips, marionette lines, mental crease, and chin. Hyaluronic acid fillers also can be used for lip enhancement.⁴⁷ Although white women are looking to increase the size of their lips, black women are seeking augmentation to restore their lip size to that of their youth. Black individuals do not experience the same frequency of perioral rhytides as white patients, but they experience a variety of other issues related to skin sagging and sinking. Unlike white women, enhancement of the vermilion border rarely is performed in black women due to development of rhytides, predominantly in the body of the lip below the vermilion border in response to volume loss in the upper lip while the lower lip usually maintains its same appearance.⁴⁷

Facial enhancement utilizing poly-L-lactic acid can be used safely in SOC patients.⁵¹ Poly-L-lactic acid microparticles induce collagen formation, leading to dermal thickening over 3 to 6 months; however, multiple sessions are required to achieve optimal aesthetic results.

Patients with more reactive collagen can benefit from noninvasive cosmetic procedures such as skin-tightening procedures.⁵² Radiofrequency and microfocused ultrasound are cosmetic procedures used to provide skin tightening and facial lifting. They are safe and effective treatments for patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI.⁵³ Histologically, there is less thinning of collagen bundles and elastic tissue in ethnic skin. Due to stimulation of collagen by these procedures, most SOC patients will experience a more enhanced response, requiring fewer treatment sessions than white individuals.

Conclusion

Medical and aesthetic facial concerns in SOC patients vary and can be a source of emotional and psychological distress that can negatively impact quality of life. The approach to the treatment of SOC patients should be a balance between tolerability and efficacy, considering the potential risk for PIH.

Physician diversity benefits patient care: Patients are more satisfied during race-concordant visits, report their physicians as more engaged and responsive to their needs, and experience notably longer visits.^1,2 Nonwhite physicians (ie, races and ethnicities that are underrepresented in medicine [URM] with respect to the general population) are more likely to care for underserved communities. Furthermore, increased diversity in the learning environment supports preparedness of all trainees to serve diverse patients.³ For these reasons, a more diverse physician workforce can contribute to better access to care in all communities, thus addressing health disparities.^1,4

Increasing diversity in the dermatology workforce has been identified as an emerging priority.⁵ Dermatology is one of the least diverse specialties,⁵ and the representation of URM dermatologists is lower compared to other medical specialties and the general US population. The proportion of specialty leaders from underrepresented backgrounds may be even smaller. The lack of diversity in academic dermatology has negative consequences for patients and communities. Increasing the diversity of resident trainees is the only way to improve the diversity gap within the dermatology workforce.⁶

Recent commentary on this topic has highlighted several priorities for addressing the dermatology diversity gap,^6-11 including the following: (1) making diversity an explicit goal in dermatology; (2) ensuring early exposure to dermatology in medical school; (3) supporting mentorship programs for minority medical students; (4) increasing medical student diversity; (5) encouraging that all dermatology program directors and leaders train in implicit bias; and (6) reviewing residency admission criteria to ensure they are objective and equitable, not biased against any applicants.

The process of reviewing residency selection criteria has begun. In 2017, Chen and Shinkai⁷ called for our specialty to rethink the selection process. The authors argued that emphasis on test scores, grades, and publications systematically disadvantages underrepresented minorities and students from lower socioeconomic statuses. The authors proposed several solutions: (1) make diversity an explicit goal of the selection process, (2) shift away from test scores for all applicants, (3) change the interview format, (4) prioritize other competencies such as observation skills, and (5) recruit and retain faculty who support URM trainees.⁷

Several dermatology leadership groups have taken action to promote programs that aim to improve diversity within dermatology. The Dermatology Diversity Champions initiative includes 6 US dermatology residency programs that are committed to increasing diversity and collaborate to evaluate pilot approaches. The American Academy of Dermatology President’s Conference on Diversity in Dermatology in Chicago, Illinois, in August 2017, as well as the focus on diversity in residency training programs at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Professors of Dermatology in Chicago, Illinois, in October 2017, are strong indicators that our specialty as a whole is aware and eager to embrace diversity as a priority. The American Academy of Dermatology President’s Conference, which was comprised of representatives from many leadership organizations and interest groups within dermatology, identified 3 action items: (1) increase the pipeline of URM students into medical school, (2) increase interest in dermatology among URM medical students, and (3) increase URM representation in residency training programs.

There are many strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats/barriers (SWOT) to attaining this goal. Current strengths include strong support from dermatology leaders and activities that build on existing mentorship and diversity efforts by leaders within our specialty. SWOT analysis highlights several key opportunities of this mission, including connecting with the House of Medicine in shared efforts to improve diversity, as well as increased understanding of skin of color, health disparities, and implicit bias among physicians. Although faculty development will require time and financial investment, it will lead to tremendous benefits and opportunities for all dermatologists, including URM physicians. Other weaknesses and threats/barriers are outlined in the Figure.

Final Thoughts

We are far from reaching our goal of a diverse dermatology workforce, and the road ahead is long. We have a start and we have momentum. We can move forward by spreading the word that all types of diversity are a priority for our specialty. Making a true difference will require commitment and sustained efforts. Dermatology can lead the way as all of American medicine strives to attain workforce diversity.

Physician diversity benefits patient care: Patients are more satisfied during race-concordant visits, report their physicians as more engaged and responsive to their needs, and experience notably longer visits.^1,2 Nonwhite physicians (ie, races and ethnicities that are underrepresented in medicine [URM] with respect to the general population) are more likely to care for underserved communities. Furthermore, increased diversity in the learning environment supports preparedness of all trainees to serve diverse patients.³ For these reasons, a more diverse physician workforce can contribute to better access to care in all communities, thus addressing health disparities.^1,4

Increasing diversity in the dermatology workforce has been identified as an emerging priority.⁵ Dermatology is one of the least diverse specialties,⁵ and the representation of URM dermatologists is lower compared to other medical specialties and the general US population. The proportion of specialty leaders from underrepresented backgrounds may be even smaller. The lack of diversity in academic dermatology has negative consequences for patients and communities. Increasing the diversity of resident trainees is the only way to improve the diversity gap within the dermatology workforce.⁶

Recent commentary on this topic has highlighted several priorities for addressing the dermatology diversity gap,^6-11 including the following: (1) making diversity an explicit goal in dermatology; (2) ensuring early exposure to dermatology in medical school; (3) supporting mentorship programs for minority medical students; (4) increasing medical student diversity; (5) encouraging that all dermatology program directors and leaders train in implicit bias; and (6) reviewing residency admission criteria to ensure they are objective and equitable, not biased against any applicants.

The process of reviewing residency selection criteria has begun. In 2017, Chen and Shinkai⁷ called for our specialty to rethink the selection process. The authors argued that emphasis on test scores, grades, and publications systematically disadvantages underrepresented minorities and students from lower socioeconomic statuses. The authors proposed several solutions: (1) make diversity an explicit goal of the selection process, (2) shift away from test scores for all applicants, (3) change the interview format, (4) prioritize other competencies such as observation skills, and (5) recruit and retain faculty who support URM trainees.⁷

Several dermatology leadership groups have taken action to promote programs that aim to improve diversity within dermatology. The Dermatology Diversity Champions initiative includes 6 US dermatology residency programs that are committed to increasing diversity and collaborate to evaluate pilot approaches. The American Academy of Dermatology President’s Conference on Diversity in Dermatology in Chicago, Illinois, in August 2017, as well as the focus on diversity in residency training programs at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Professors of Dermatology in Chicago, Illinois, in October 2017, are strong indicators that our specialty as a whole is aware and eager to embrace diversity as a priority. The American Academy of Dermatology President’s Conference, which was comprised of representatives from many leadership organizations and interest groups within dermatology, identified 3 action items: (1) increase the pipeline of URM students into medical school, (2) increase interest in dermatology among URM medical students, and (3) increase URM representation in residency training programs.

There are many strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats/barriers (SWOT) to attaining this goal. Current strengths include strong support from dermatology leaders and activities that build on existing mentorship and diversity efforts by leaders within our specialty. SWOT analysis highlights several key opportunities of this mission, including connecting with the House of Medicine in shared efforts to improve diversity, as well as increased understanding of skin of color, health disparities, and implicit bias among physicians. Although faculty development will require time and financial investment, it will lead to tremendous benefits and opportunities for all dermatologists, including URM physicians. Other weaknesses and threats/barriers are outlined in the Figure.

Final Thoughts

We are far from reaching our goal of a diverse dermatology workforce, and the road ahead is long. We have a start and we have momentum. We can move forward by spreading the word that all types of diversity are a priority for our specialty. Making a true difference will require commitment and sustained efforts. Dermatology can lead the way as all of American medicine strives to attain workforce diversity.

Physician diversity benefits patient care: Patients are more satisfied during race-concordant visits, report their physicians as more engaged and responsive to their needs, and experience notably longer visits.^1,2 Nonwhite physicians (ie, races and ethnicities that are underrepresented in medicine [URM] with respect to the general population) are more likely to care for underserved communities. Furthermore, increased diversity in the learning environment supports preparedness of all trainees to serve diverse patients.³ For these reasons, a more diverse physician workforce can contribute to better access to care in all communities, thus addressing health disparities.^1,4

Increasing diversity in the dermatology workforce has been identified as an emerging priority.⁵ Dermatology is one of the least diverse specialties,⁵ and the representation of URM dermatologists is lower compared to other medical specialties and the general US population. The proportion of specialty leaders from underrepresented backgrounds may be even smaller. The lack of diversity in academic dermatology has negative consequences for patients and communities. Increasing the diversity of resident trainees is the only way to improve the diversity gap within the dermatology workforce.⁶

Recent commentary on this topic has highlighted several priorities for addressing the dermatology diversity gap,^6-11 including the following: (1) making diversity an explicit goal in dermatology; (2) ensuring early exposure to dermatology in medical school; (3) supporting mentorship programs for minority medical students; (4) increasing medical student diversity; (5) encouraging that all dermatology program directors and leaders train in implicit bias; and (6) reviewing residency admission criteria to ensure they are objective and equitable, not biased against any applicants.

The process of reviewing residency selection criteria has begun. In 2017, Chen and Shinkai⁷ called for our specialty to rethink the selection process. The authors argued that emphasis on test scores, grades, and publications systematically disadvantages underrepresented minorities and students from lower socioeconomic statuses. The authors proposed several solutions: (1) make diversity an explicit goal of the selection process, (2) shift away from test scores for all applicants, (3) change the interview format, (4) prioritize other competencies such as observation skills, and (5) recruit and retain faculty who support URM trainees.⁷

Several dermatology leadership groups have taken action to promote programs that aim to improve diversity within dermatology. The Dermatology Diversity Champions initiative includes 6 US dermatology residency programs that are committed to increasing diversity and collaborate to evaluate pilot approaches. The American Academy of Dermatology President’s Conference on Diversity in Dermatology in Chicago, Illinois, in August 2017, as well as the focus on diversity in residency training programs at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Professors of Dermatology in Chicago, Illinois, in October 2017, are strong indicators that our specialty as a whole is aware and eager to embrace diversity as a priority. The American Academy of Dermatology President’s Conference, which was comprised of representatives from many leadership organizations and interest groups within dermatology, identified 3 action items: (1) increase the pipeline of URM students into medical school, (2) increase interest in dermatology among URM medical students, and (3) increase URM representation in residency training programs.

There are many strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats/barriers (SWOT) to attaining this goal. Current strengths include strong support from dermatology leaders and activities that build on existing mentorship and diversity efforts by leaders within our specialty. SWOT analysis highlights several key opportunities of this mission, including connecting with the House of Medicine in shared efforts to improve diversity, as well as increased understanding of skin of color, health disparities, and implicit bias among physicians. Although faculty development will require time and financial investment, it will lead to tremendous benefits and opportunities for all dermatologists, including URM physicians. Other weaknesses and threats/barriers are outlined in the Figure.

Final Thoughts

We are far from reaching our goal of a diverse dermatology workforce, and the road ahead is long. We have a start and we have momentum. We can move forward by spreading the word that all types of diversity are a priority for our specialty. Making a true difference will require commitment and sustained efforts. Dermatology can lead the way as all of American medicine strives to attain workforce diversity.

Patients who are Muslim—followers of the religion of Islam—struggle with a political climate that has demonized them and the continued fallout of terrorist attacks perpetrated by individuals who identify themselves as Muslim. These patients may experience low self-esteem, bullying, depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder.¹ Some have expressed feeling judged, labeled, attacked, and subjected to discrimination. Islamophobia and a spike in hate crimes have further marginalized this already vulnerable population.² Thus, understanding your Muslim patients is the first step to treating their mental illness.

How Muslim culture might affect care

Muslims are not a monolithic group; they vary widely in their religious adherence, cultural background, and acculturation. Some are American-born, including a significant African American Muslim population. Others are children of immigrants or have recently immigrated, including many who came to the United States because of the ongoing war in Syria. Many can trace their heritage to >50 predominantly Muslim countries. Many Muslim patients want to find a balance between their religious and American identities.

As clinicians, we should not make assumptions based on outward appearances or our preconceived notions of our patients, especially when it comes to gender roles. Our job is to ask how highly personal, individualized decisions, such as a woman’s choice to wear a hijab as an expression of her faith and a symbol of modesty, factor into our patients’ day-to-day lives. Doing so can help build the therapeutic alliance and improve the accuracy of the diagnosis and the appropriateness of treatment.

Mental health clinicians are well aware of the dangers of the social stigma that their patients may experience.³ These dangers are no different when it comes to Muslim patients, who often may face “double discrimination” for their religion and for having a mental illness. They may seek support from religious leaders, family, and friends before seeing a mental health provider. Some may view their mental illness as a weakness of faith, a punishment by God, or an affliction caused by a supernatural spirit, and therefore may feel that following religious doctrine will resolve their psychological distress.⁴ They may need additional encouragement to see a therapist or take psycho­tropics, and they may prefer specific treatments that reflect their cultural values, such as supplements.

Because some Muslim patients may be more comfortable presenting their psycho­logical concerns as somatic symptoms, they may first seek care from a primary care physician. Some patients may not be open or comfortable enough to address sensitive issues, such as substance use. Providing psychoeducation, comparing mental illness with medical illness, and emphasizing doctor–patient confidentiality may help these patients overcome the stigma that can act as a barrier to care.

Provide culturally competent care

Resources are available to help us provide the best possible care to our patients from various cultures and religions, including Muslim patients. A good starting point is the DSM-5’s Cultural Formulation Interview, which is a set of 16 questions psychiatrists can use to determine the impact of culture on a patient’s clinical presentation and care.⁵ Other resources include the American Psychiatric Association’s Assessment of Cultural Factors and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s Practice Parameter for Cultural Competence.⁶

When treating Muslim patients, remember to:

• Ask about what roles their culture and religion play
• Understand their explanation of their symptoms
• Work to overcome any stigma patients may perceive related to having a psychiatric disorder
• Engage your team to identify cultural and religious factors
• Connect to community resources, such as the patient’s family and friends.

Patients who are Muslim—followers of the religion of Islam—struggle with a political climate that has demonized them and the continued fallout of terrorist attacks perpetrated by individuals who identify themselves as Muslim. These patients may experience low self-esteem, bullying, depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder.¹ Some have expressed feeling judged, labeled, attacked, and subjected to discrimination. Islamophobia and a spike in hate crimes have further marginalized this already vulnerable population.² Thus, understanding your Muslim patients is the first step to treating their mental illness.

How Muslim culture might affect care

Muslims are not a monolithic group; they vary widely in their religious adherence, cultural background, and acculturation. Some are American-born, including a significant African American Muslim population. Others are children of immigrants or have recently immigrated, including many who came to the United States because of the ongoing war in Syria. Many can trace their heritage to >50 predominantly Muslim countries. Many Muslim patients want to find a balance between their religious and American identities.

As clinicians, we should not make assumptions based on outward appearances or our preconceived notions of our patients, especially when it comes to gender roles. Our job is to ask how highly personal, individualized decisions, such as a woman’s choice to wear a hijab as an expression of her faith and a symbol of modesty, factor into our patients’ day-to-day lives. Doing so can help build the therapeutic alliance and improve the accuracy of the diagnosis and the appropriateness of treatment.

Mental health clinicians are well aware of the dangers of the social stigma that their patients may experience.³ These dangers are no different when it comes to Muslim patients, who often may face “double discrimination” for their religion and for having a mental illness. They may seek support from religious leaders, family, and friends before seeing a mental health provider. Some may view their mental illness as a weakness of faith, a punishment by God, or an affliction caused by a supernatural spirit, and therefore may feel that following religious doctrine will resolve their psychological distress.⁴ They may need additional encouragement to see a therapist or take psycho­tropics, and they may prefer specific treatments that reflect their cultural values, such as supplements.

Because some Muslim patients may be more comfortable presenting their psycho­logical concerns as somatic symptoms, they may first seek care from a primary care physician. Some patients may not be open or comfortable enough to address sensitive issues, such as substance use. Providing psychoeducation, comparing mental illness with medical illness, and emphasizing doctor–patient confidentiality may help these patients overcome the stigma that can act as a barrier to care.

Provide culturally competent care

Resources are available to help us provide the best possible care to our patients from various cultures and religions, including Muslim patients. A good starting point is the DSM-5’s Cultural Formulation Interview, which is a set of 16 questions psychiatrists can use to determine the impact of culture on a patient’s clinical presentation and care.⁵ Other resources include the American Psychiatric Association’s Assessment of Cultural Factors and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s Practice Parameter for Cultural Competence.⁶

When treating Muslim patients, remember to:

• Ask about what roles their culture and religion play
• Understand their explanation of their symptoms
• Work to overcome any stigma patients may perceive related to having a psychiatric disorder
• Engage your team to identify cultural and religious factors
• Connect to community resources, such as the patient’s family and friends.

Patients who are Muslim—followers of the religion of Islam—struggle with a political climate that has demonized them and the continued fallout of terrorist attacks perpetrated by individuals who identify themselves as Muslim. These patients may experience low self-esteem, bullying, depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder.¹ Some have expressed feeling judged, labeled, attacked, and subjected to discrimination. Islamophobia and a spike in hate crimes have further marginalized this already vulnerable population.² Thus, understanding your Muslim patients is the first step to treating their mental illness.

How Muslim culture might affect care

Muslims are not a monolithic group; they vary widely in their religious adherence, cultural background, and acculturation. Some are American-born, including a significant African American Muslim population. Others are children of immigrants or have recently immigrated, including many who came to the United States because of the ongoing war in Syria. Many can trace their heritage to >50 predominantly Muslim countries. Many Muslim patients want to find a balance between their religious and American identities.

As clinicians, we should not make assumptions based on outward appearances or our preconceived notions of our patients, especially when it comes to gender roles. Our job is to ask how highly personal, individualized decisions, such as a woman’s choice to wear a hijab as an expression of her faith and a symbol of modesty, factor into our patients’ day-to-day lives. Doing so can help build the therapeutic alliance and improve the accuracy of the diagnosis and the appropriateness of treatment.

Mental health clinicians are well aware of the dangers of the social stigma that their patients may experience.³ These dangers are no different when it comes to Muslim patients, who often may face “double discrimination” for their religion and for having a mental illness. They may seek support from religious leaders, family, and friends before seeing a mental health provider. Some may view their mental illness as a weakness of faith, a punishment by God, or an affliction caused by a supernatural spirit, and therefore may feel that following religious doctrine will resolve their psychological distress.⁴ They may need additional encouragement to see a therapist or take psycho­tropics, and they may prefer specific treatments that reflect their cultural values, such as supplements.

Because some Muslim patients may be more comfortable presenting their psycho­logical concerns as somatic symptoms, they may first seek care from a primary care physician. Some patients may not be open or comfortable enough to address sensitive issues, such as substance use. Providing psychoeducation, comparing mental illness with medical illness, and emphasizing doctor–patient confidentiality may help these patients overcome the stigma that can act as a barrier to care.

Provide culturally competent care

Resources are available to help us provide the best possible care to our patients from various cultures and religions, including Muslim patients. A good starting point is the DSM-5’s Cultural Formulation Interview, which is a set of 16 questions psychiatrists can use to determine the impact of culture on a patient’s clinical presentation and care.⁵ Other resources include the American Psychiatric Association’s Assessment of Cultural Factors and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s Practice Parameter for Cultural Competence.⁶

When treating Muslim patients, remember to:

• Ask about what roles their culture and religion play
• Understand their explanation of their symptoms
• Work to overcome any stigma patients may perceive related to having a psychiatric disorder
• Engage your team to identify cultural and religious factors
• Connect to community resources, such as the patient’s family and friends.

Malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma account for approximately 40% of all neoplasms among the white population in the United States. Skin cancer is the most common malignancy in the United States.¹ However, despite this occurrence, there are limited data regarding skin cancer in individuals with skin of color (SOC). The 5-year survival rates for melanoma are 58.2% for black individuals, 69.7% for Hispanics, and 70.9% for Asians compared to 79.8% for white individuals in the United States.² Even though SOC populations have lower incidences of skin cancer—melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma—they exhibit higher death rates.^3-7 Nonetheless, no specific guidelines exist to address sun exposure and safety habits in SOC populations.^6,8 Furthermore, current demographics suggest that by the year 2050, approximately half of the US population will be nonwhite.⁴ Paradoxically, despite having increased sun protection from greater amounts of melanin in their skin, black individuals are more likely to present with advanced-stage melanoma (eg, stage III/IV) compared to white individuals.^8-12 Furthermore, those of nonwhite populations are more likely to present with more advanced stages of acral lentiginous melanomas than white individuals.^13,14 Hispanics also face an increasing incidence of more invasive acral lentiginous melanomas.¹⁵ Overall, SOC patients have the poorest skin cancer prognosis, and the data suggest that the reason for this paradox is delayed diagnosis.¹

Although skin cancer is largely a preventable condition, the literature suggests that lack of awareness of melanoma among ethnic minorities is one of the main reasons for their poor skin cancer prognosis.¹⁶ This lack of awareness decreases the likelihood that an SOC patient would be alert to early detection of cancerous changes.¹⁷ Because educating at-risk SOC populations is key to decreasing skin cancer risk, this study focused on determining the efficacy of major knowledge-based interventions conducted to date.¹ Overall, we sought to answer the question, do knowledge-based interventions increase skin cancer awareness, knowledge, and protective behavior among people of color?

Methods

For this review, the Cochrane method of analysis was used to conduct a thorough search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE (1994-2016), as well as a search of CINAHL (1997-2016), PsycINFO (1999-2016), and Web of Science (1965-2016), using a combination of more than 100 search terms including but not limited to skin cancer, skin of color, intervention, and ethnic skin. The search yielded a total of 52 articles (Figure). Following review, only 8 articles met inclusion criteria, which were as follows: (1) study was related to skin cancer in SOC patients, which included an intervention to increase skin cancer awareness and knowledge; (2) study included adult participants or adolescents aged 12 to 18 years; (3) study was written in English; and (4) study was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Of the remaining 8 articles, 4 were excluded due to the following criteria: (1) study failed to provide both preintervention and postintervention data, (2) study failed to provide quantitative data, and (3) study included participants who worked as health care professionals or ancillary staff. As a result, a total of 4 articles were analyzed and discussed in this review (Table).

Results

Robinson et al¹⁸ conducted 12 focus groups with 120 total participants (40 black, 40 Asian, and 40 Hispanic patients). Participants engaged in a 2-hour tape-recorded focus group with a moderator guide on melanoma and skin cancer. Furthermore, they also were asked to assess skin cancer risk in 5 celebrities with different skin tones. The statistically significant preintervention results of the study (χ²=4.6, P<.001) were as follows: only 2%, 4%, and 14% correctly reported that celebrities with a very fair skin type, a fair skin type, and very dark skin type, respectively, could get sunburn, compared to 75%, 76%, and 62% post-intervention. Additionally, prior to intervention, 14% of the study population believed that dark brown skin type could get sunburn compared to 62% of the same group postintervention. This study demonstrated that the intervention helped SOC patients better identify their ability to get sunburn and identify their skin cancer risk.¹⁸

Hernandez et al¹⁹ used a video-based intervention in a Hispanic community, which was in contrast to the multiracial focus group intervention conducted by Robinson et al.¹⁸ Eighty Hispanic individuals were recruited from beauty salons to participate in the study. Participants watched two 3-minute videos in Spanish and completed a preintervention and postintervention survey. The first video emphasized the photoaging benefits of sun protection, while the second focused on skin cancer prevention. Preintervention surveys indicated that only 54 (68%) participants believed that fair-skinned Hispanics were at risk for skin cancer, which improved to 72 (90%) participants postintervention. Furthermore, initially only 44 (55%) participants thought those with darker skin types could develop skin cancer, but this number increased to 69 (86%) postintervention. For both questions regarding fair and dark skin, the agreement proportion was significantly different between the preeducation and posteducation videos (P<.0002 for the fair skin question and P<.0001 for the dark skin question). This study greatly increased awareness of skin cancer risk among Hispanics,¹⁹ similar to the Robinson et al¹⁸ study.

In contrast to 2-hour focus groups or 3-minute video–based interventions, a study by Kundu et al¹⁷ employed a 20-minute educational class-based intervention with both verbal and visual instruction. This study assessed the efficacy of an educational tutorial on improving awareness and early detection of melanoma in SOC individuals. Photographs were used to help participants recognize the ABCDEs of melanoma and to show examples of acral lentiginous melanomas in white individuals. A total of 71 participants completed a preintervention questionnaire, participated in a 20-minute class, and completed a postintervention questionnaire immediately after and 3 months following the class. The study population included 44 black, 15 Asian, 10 Hispanic, and 2 multiethnic participants. Knowledge that melanoma is a skin cancer increased from 83.9% to 100% immediately postintervention (P=.0001) and 97.2% at 3 months postintervention (P=.0075). Additionally, knowledge that people of color are at risk for melanoma increased from 48.4% preintervention to 82.8% immediately postintervention (P<.0001). However, only 40.8% of participants retained this knowledge at 3 months postintervention. Because only 1 participant reported a family history of skin cancer, the authors hypothesized that the reason for this loss of knowledge was that most participants were not personally affected by friends or family members with melanoma. A future study with an appropriate control group would be needed to support this claim. This study shed light on the potential of class-based interventions to increase both awareness and knowledge of skin cancer in SOC populations.¹⁷

A study by Chapman et al²⁰ examined the effects of a sun protection educational program on increasing awareness of skin cancer in Hispanic and black middle school students in southern Los Angeles, California. It was the only study we reviewed that focused primarily on adolescents. Furthermore, it included the largest sample size (N=148) analyzed here. Students were given a preintervention questionnaire to evaluate their awareness of skin cancer and current sun-protection practices. Based on these results, the investigators devised a set of learning goals and incorporated them into an educational pamphlet. The intervention, called “Skin Teaching Day,” was a 1-day program discussing skin cancer and the importance of sun protection. Prior to the intervention, 68% of participants reported that they used sunscreen. Three months after completing the program, 80% of participants reported sunscreen use, an increase of 12% prior to the intervention. The results of this study demonstrated the unique effectiveness and potential of pamphlets in increasing sunscreen use.²⁰

Comment

Overall, various methods of interventions such as focus groups, videos, pamphlets, and lectures improved knowledge of skin cancer risk and sun-protection behaviors in SOC populations. Furthermore, the unique differences of each study provided important insights into the successful design of an intervention.

An important characteristic of the Robinson et al¹⁸ study was the addition of photographs, which allowed participants not only to visualize different skin tones but also provided them with the opportunity to relate themselves to the photographs; by doing so, participants could effectively pick out the skin tone that best suited them. Written SOC scales are limited to mere descriptions and thus make it more difficult for participants to accurately identify the tone that best fits them. Kundu et al¹⁷ used photographs to teach skin self-examination and ABCDEs for detection of melanoma. Additionally, both studies used photographs to demonstrate examples of skin cancer.^17,18 Recent evidence suggests the use of visuals can be efficacious for improving skin cancer knowledge and awareness; a study in 16 SOC kidney transplant recipients found that the addition of photographs of squamous cell carcinoma in various skin tones to a sun-protection educational pamphlet was more effective than the original pamphlet without photographs.²¹

In contrast to the Robinson et al¹⁸ study and Hernandez et al¹⁹ study, the Kundu et al¹⁷ study showed photographs of acral lentiginous melanomas in white patients rather than SOC patients. However, SOC populations may be less likely to relate to or identify skin changes in skin types that are different from their own. This technique was still beneficial, as acral lentiginous melanoma is the most common type of melanoma in SOC populations. Another benefit of the study was that it was the only study reviewed that included a follow-up postintervention questionnaire. Such data is useful, as it demonstrates how muchinformation is retained by participants and may be more likely to predict compliance with skin cancer protective behaviors.¹⁷

The Hernandez et al¹⁹ study is unique in that it was the only one to include an educational intervention entirely in Spanish, which is important to consider, as language may be a hindrance to participants’ understanding in the other studies, particularly Hispanics, possibly leading to a lack of information retention regarding sun-protective behaviors. Furthermore, it also was the only study to utilize videos as a method for interventions. The 3-minute videos demonstrated that interventions could be efficient as compared to the 2-hour in-class intervention used by Robinson et al¹⁸ and the 20-minute intervention used by Kundu et al.¹⁷ Additionally, videos also could be more cost-effective, as incentives for large focus groups would no longer be needed. Furthermore, in the Hernandez et al¹⁹ study, there was minimal to no disruption in the participants’ daily routine, as the participants were getting cosmetic services while watching the videos, perhaps allowing them to be more attentive. In contrast, both the Robinson et al¹⁸ and Kundu et al¹⁷ studies required time out from the participants’ daily schedules. In addition, these studies were notably longer than the Hernandez et al¹⁹ study. The 8-hour intervention in the Chapman et al²⁰ study also may not be feasible for the general population because of its excessive length. However, the intervention was successful among the adolescent participants, which suggested that shorter durations are effective in the adult population and longer interventions may be more appropriate for adolescents because they benefit from peer activity.

Despite the success of the educational interventions as outlined in the 4 studies described here, a major epidemiologic flaw is that these interventions included only a small percentage of the target population. The largest total number of adults surveyed and undergoing an intervention in any of the populations was only 120.¹⁷ By failing to reach a substantial proportion of the population at risk, the number of preventable deaths likely will not decrease. The authors believe a larger-scale intervention would provide meaningful change. Australia’s SunSmart campaign to increase skin cancer awareness in the Australian population is an example of one such large-scale national intervention. The campaign focused on massive television advertisements in the summer to educate participants about the dangers of skin cancer and the importance of protective behaviors. Telephone surveys conducted from 1987 to 2011 demonstrated that more exposure to the advertisements in the SunSmart campaign meant that individuals were more likely to use sunscreen and avoid sun exposure.²² In the United States, a similar intervention would be of great benefit in educating SOC populations regarding skin cancer risk. Additionally, dermatology residents need to be adequately trained to educate patients of color about the risk for skin cancer, as survey data indicated more than 80% of Australian dermatologists desired more SOC teaching during their training and 50% indicated that they would have time to learn it during their training if offered.²³ Furthermore, one study suggested that future interventions must include primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-prevention methods to effectively reduce skin cancer risk among patients of color.²⁴ Primary prevention involves sun avoidance, secondary prevention involves detecting cancerous lesions, and tertiary prevention involves undergoing treatment of skin malignancies. However, increased knowledge does not necessarily mean increased preventative action will be employed (eg, sunscreen use, wearing sun-protective clothing and sunglasses, avoiding tanning beds and excessive sun exposure). Additional studies that demonstrate a notable increase in sun-protective behaviors related to increased knowledge are needed.

Because retention of skin cancer knowledge decreased in several postintervention surveys, there also is a dire need for continuing skin cancer education in patients of color, which may be accomplished through a combination effort of television advertisement campaigns, pamphlets, social media, community health departments, or even community members. For example, a pilot program found that Hispanic lay health workers who are educated about skin cancer may serve as a bridge between medical providers and the Hispanic community by encouraging individuals in this population to get regular skin examinations from a physician.²⁵ Overall, there are currently gaps in the understanding and treatment of skin cancer in people of color.²⁶ Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of all relevant skin cancer interventions conducted in the SOC population will hopefully guide future studies to help close these gaps by allowing others to design the best possible intervention. By doing so, researchers can generate an intervention that is precise, well-informed, and effective in decreasing mortality rates from skin cancer among SOC populations.

Conclusion

All of the studies reviewed demonstrated that instructional and educational interventions are promising methods for improving either knowledge, awareness, or safe skin practices and sun-protective behaviors in SOC populations to differing degrees (Table). Although each of the 4 interventions employed their own methods, they all increased 1 or more of the 3 aforementioned concepts—knowledge, awareness, or safe skin practices and sun-protective behaviors—when comparing postsurvey to presurvey data. However, the critically important message derived from this research is that there is a tremendous need for a substantial large-scale educational intervention to increase knowledge regarding skin cancer in SOC populations.

Malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma account for approximately 40% of all neoplasms among the white population in the United States. Skin cancer is the most common malignancy in the United States.¹ However, despite this occurrence, there are limited data regarding skin cancer in individuals with skin of color (SOC). The 5-year survival rates for melanoma are 58.2% for black individuals, 69.7% for Hispanics, and 70.9% for Asians compared to 79.8% for white individuals in the United States.² Even though SOC populations have lower incidences of skin cancer—melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma—they exhibit higher death rates.^3-7 Nonetheless, no specific guidelines exist to address sun exposure and safety habits in SOC populations.^6,8 Furthermore, current demographics suggest that by the year 2050, approximately half of the US population will be nonwhite.⁴ Paradoxically, despite having increased sun protection from greater amounts of melanin in their skin, black individuals are more likely to present with advanced-stage melanoma (eg, stage III/IV) compared to white individuals.^8-12 Furthermore, those of nonwhite populations are more likely to present with more advanced stages of acral lentiginous melanomas than white individuals.^13,14 Hispanics also face an increasing incidence of more invasive acral lentiginous melanomas.¹⁵ Overall, SOC patients have the poorest skin cancer prognosis, and the data suggest that the reason for this paradox is delayed diagnosis.¹

Although skin cancer is largely a preventable condition, the literature suggests that lack of awareness of melanoma among ethnic minorities is one of the main reasons for their poor skin cancer prognosis.¹⁶ This lack of awareness decreases the likelihood that an SOC patient would be alert to early detection of cancerous changes.¹⁷ Because educating at-risk SOC populations is key to decreasing skin cancer risk, this study focused on determining the efficacy of major knowledge-based interventions conducted to date.¹ Overall, we sought to answer the question, do knowledge-based interventions increase skin cancer awareness, knowledge, and protective behavior among people of color?

Methods

For this review, the Cochrane method of analysis was used to conduct a thorough search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE (1994-2016), as well as a search of CINAHL (1997-2016), PsycINFO (1999-2016), and Web of Science (1965-2016), using a combination of more than 100 search terms including but not limited to skin cancer, skin of color, intervention, and ethnic skin. The search yielded a total of 52 articles (Figure). Following review, only 8 articles met inclusion criteria, which were as follows: (1) study was related to skin cancer in SOC patients, which included an intervention to increase skin cancer awareness and knowledge; (2) study included adult participants or adolescents aged 12 to 18 years; (3) study was written in English; and (4) study was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Of the remaining 8 articles, 4 were excluded due to the following criteria: (1) study failed to provide both preintervention and postintervention data, (2) study failed to provide quantitative data, and (3) study included participants who worked as health care professionals or ancillary staff. As a result, a total of 4 articles were analyzed and discussed in this review (Table).

Results

Robinson et al¹⁸ conducted 12 focus groups with 120 total participants (40 black, 40 Asian, and 40 Hispanic patients). Participants engaged in a 2-hour tape-recorded focus group with a moderator guide on melanoma and skin cancer. Furthermore, they also were asked to assess skin cancer risk in 5 celebrities with different skin tones. The statistically significant preintervention results of the study (χ²=4.6, P<.001) were as follows: only 2%, 4%, and 14% correctly reported that celebrities with a very fair skin type, a fair skin type, and very dark skin type, respectively, could get sunburn, compared to 75%, 76%, and 62% post-intervention. Additionally, prior to intervention, 14% of the study population believed that dark brown skin type could get sunburn compared to 62% of the same group postintervention. This study demonstrated that the intervention helped SOC patients better identify their ability to get sunburn and identify their skin cancer risk.¹⁸

Hernandez et al¹⁹ used a video-based intervention in a Hispanic community, which was in contrast to the multiracial focus group intervention conducted by Robinson et al.¹⁸ Eighty Hispanic individuals were recruited from beauty salons to participate in the study. Participants watched two 3-minute videos in Spanish and completed a preintervention and postintervention survey. The first video emphasized the photoaging benefits of sun protection, while the second focused on skin cancer prevention. Preintervention surveys indicated that only 54 (68%) participants believed that fair-skinned Hispanics were at risk for skin cancer, which improved to 72 (90%) participants postintervention. Furthermore, initially only 44 (55%) participants thought those with darker skin types could develop skin cancer, but this number increased to 69 (86%) postintervention. For both questions regarding fair and dark skin, the agreement proportion was significantly different between the preeducation and posteducation videos (P<.0002 for the fair skin question and P<.0001 for the dark skin question). This study greatly increased awareness of skin cancer risk among Hispanics,¹⁹ similar to the Robinson et al¹⁸ study.

In contrast to 2-hour focus groups or 3-minute video–based interventions, a study by Kundu et al¹⁷ employed a 20-minute educational class-based intervention with both verbal and visual instruction. This study assessed the efficacy of an educational tutorial on improving awareness and early detection of melanoma in SOC individuals. Photographs were used to help participants recognize the ABCDEs of melanoma and to show examples of acral lentiginous melanomas in white individuals. A total of 71 participants completed a preintervention questionnaire, participated in a 20-minute class, and completed a postintervention questionnaire immediately after and 3 months following the class. The study population included 44 black, 15 Asian, 10 Hispanic, and 2 multiethnic participants. Knowledge that melanoma is a skin cancer increased from 83.9% to 100% immediately postintervention (P=.0001) and 97.2% at 3 months postintervention (P=.0075). Additionally, knowledge that people of color are at risk for melanoma increased from 48.4% preintervention to 82.8% immediately postintervention (P<.0001). However, only 40.8% of participants retained this knowledge at 3 months postintervention. Because only 1 participant reported a family history of skin cancer, the authors hypothesized that the reason for this loss of knowledge was that most participants were not personally affected by friends or family members with melanoma. A future study with an appropriate control group would be needed to support this claim. This study shed light on the potential of class-based interventions to increase both awareness and knowledge of skin cancer in SOC populations.¹⁷

A study by Chapman et al²⁰ examined the effects of a sun protection educational program on increasing awareness of skin cancer in Hispanic and black middle school students in southern Los Angeles, California. It was the only study we reviewed that focused primarily on adolescents. Furthermore, it included the largest sample size (N=148) analyzed here. Students were given a preintervention questionnaire to evaluate their awareness of skin cancer and current sun-protection practices. Based on these results, the investigators devised a set of learning goals and incorporated them into an educational pamphlet. The intervention, called “Skin Teaching Day,” was a 1-day program discussing skin cancer and the importance of sun protection. Prior to the intervention, 68% of participants reported that they used sunscreen. Three months after completing the program, 80% of participants reported sunscreen use, an increase of 12% prior to the intervention. The results of this study demonstrated the unique effectiveness and potential of pamphlets in increasing sunscreen use.²⁰

Comment

Overall, various methods of interventions such as focus groups, videos, pamphlets, and lectures improved knowledge of skin cancer risk and sun-protection behaviors in SOC populations. Furthermore, the unique differences of each study provided important insights into the successful design of an intervention.

An important characteristic of the Robinson et al¹⁸ study was the addition of photographs, which allowed participants not only to visualize different skin tones but also provided them with the opportunity to relate themselves to the photographs; by doing so, participants could effectively pick out the skin tone that best suited them. Written SOC scales are limited to mere descriptions and thus make it more difficult for participants to accurately identify the tone that best fits them. Kundu et al¹⁷ used photographs to teach skin self-examination and ABCDEs for detection of melanoma. Additionally, both studies used photographs to demonstrate examples of skin cancer.^17,18 Recent evidence suggests the use of visuals can be efficacious for improving skin cancer knowledge and awareness; a study in 16 SOC kidney transplant recipients found that the addition of photographs of squamous cell carcinoma in various skin tones to a sun-protection educational pamphlet was more effective than the original pamphlet without photographs.²¹

In contrast to the Robinson et al¹⁸ study and Hernandez et al¹⁹ study, the Kundu et al¹⁷ study showed photographs of acral lentiginous melanomas in white patients rather than SOC patients. However, SOC populations may be less likely to relate to or identify skin changes in skin types that are different from their own. This technique was still beneficial, as acral lentiginous melanoma is the most common type of melanoma in SOC populations. Another benefit of the study was that it was the only study reviewed that included a follow-up postintervention questionnaire. Such data is useful, as it demonstrates how muchinformation is retained by participants and may be more likely to predict compliance with skin cancer protective behaviors.¹⁷

The Hernandez et al¹⁹ study is unique in that it was the only one to include an educational intervention entirely in Spanish, which is important to consider, as language may be a hindrance to participants’ understanding in the other studies, particularly Hispanics, possibly leading to a lack of information retention regarding sun-protective behaviors. Furthermore, it also was the only study to utilize videos as a method for interventions. The 3-minute videos demonstrated that interventions could be efficient as compared to the 2-hour in-class intervention used by Robinson et al¹⁸ and the 20-minute intervention used by Kundu et al.¹⁷ Additionally, videos also could be more cost-effective, as incentives for large focus groups would no longer be needed. Furthermore, in the Hernandez et al¹⁹ study, there was minimal to no disruption in the participants’ daily routine, as the participants were getting cosmetic services while watching the videos, perhaps allowing them to be more attentive. In contrast, both the Robinson et al¹⁸ and Kundu et al¹⁷ studies required time out from the participants’ daily schedules. In addition, these studies were notably longer than the Hernandez et al¹⁹ study. The 8-hour intervention in the Chapman et al²⁰ study also may not be feasible for the general population because of its excessive length. However, the intervention was successful among the adolescent participants, which suggested that shorter durations are effective in the adult population and longer interventions may be more appropriate for adolescents because they benefit from peer activity.

Despite the success of the educational interventions as outlined in the 4 studies described here, a major epidemiologic flaw is that these interventions included only a small percentage of the target population. The largest total number of adults surveyed and undergoing an intervention in any of the populations was only 120.¹⁷ By failing to reach a substantial proportion of the population at risk, the number of preventable deaths likely will not decrease. The authors believe a larger-scale intervention would provide meaningful change. Australia’s SunSmart campaign to increase skin cancer awareness in the Australian population is an example of one such large-scale national intervention. The campaign focused on massive television advertisements in the summer to educate participants about the dangers of skin cancer and the importance of protective behaviors. Telephone surveys conducted from 1987 to 2011 demonstrated that more exposure to the advertisements in the SunSmart campaign meant that individuals were more likely to use sunscreen and avoid sun exposure.²² In the United States, a similar intervention would be of great benefit in educating SOC populations regarding skin cancer risk. Additionally, dermatology residents need to be adequately trained to educate patients of color about the risk for skin cancer, as survey data indicated more than 80% of Australian dermatologists desired more SOC teaching during their training and 50% indicated that they would have time to learn it during their training if offered.²³ Furthermore, one study suggested that future interventions must include primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-prevention methods to effectively reduce skin cancer risk among patients of color.²⁴ Primary prevention involves sun avoidance, secondary prevention involves detecting cancerous lesions, and tertiary prevention involves undergoing treatment of skin malignancies. However, increased knowledge does not necessarily mean increased preventative action will be employed (eg, sunscreen use, wearing sun-protective clothing and sunglasses, avoiding tanning beds and excessive sun exposure). Additional studies that demonstrate a notable increase in sun-protective behaviors related to increased knowledge are needed.

Because retention of skin cancer knowledge decreased in several postintervention surveys, there also is a dire need for continuing skin cancer education in patients of color, which may be accomplished through a combination effort of television advertisement campaigns, pamphlets, social media, community health departments, or even community members. For example, a pilot program found that Hispanic lay health workers who are educated about skin cancer may serve as a bridge between medical providers and the Hispanic community by encouraging individuals in this population to get regular skin examinations from a physician.²⁵ Overall, there are currently gaps in the understanding and treatment of skin cancer in people of color.²⁶ Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of all relevant skin cancer interventions conducted in the SOC population will hopefully guide future studies to help close these gaps by allowing others to design the best possible intervention. By doing so, researchers can generate an intervention that is precise, well-informed, and effective in decreasing mortality rates from skin cancer among SOC populations.

Conclusion

All of the studies reviewed demonstrated that instructional and educational interventions are promising methods for improving either knowledge, awareness, or safe skin practices and sun-protective behaviors in SOC populations to differing degrees (Table). Although each of the 4 interventions employed their own methods, they all increased 1 or more of the 3 aforementioned concepts—knowledge, awareness, or safe skin practices and sun-protective behaviors—when comparing postsurvey to presurvey data. However, the critically important message derived from this research is that there is a tremendous need for a substantial large-scale educational intervention to increase knowledge regarding skin cancer in SOC populations.

Malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma account for approximately 40% of all neoplasms among the white population in the United States. Skin cancer is the most common malignancy in the United States.¹ However, despite this occurrence, there are limited data regarding skin cancer in individuals with skin of color (SOC). The 5-year survival rates for melanoma are 58.2% for black individuals, 69.7% for Hispanics, and 70.9% for Asians compared to 79.8% for white individuals in the United States.² Even though SOC populations have lower incidences of skin cancer—melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma—they exhibit higher death rates.^3-7 Nonetheless, no specific guidelines exist to address sun exposure and safety habits in SOC populations.^6,8 Furthermore, current demographics suggest that by the year 2050, approximately half of the US population will be nonwhite.⁴ Paradoxically, despite having increased sun protection from greater amounts of melanin in their skin, black individuals are more likely to present with advanced-stage melanoma (eg, stage III/IV) compared to white individuals.^8-12 Furthermore, those of nonwhite populations are more likely to present with more advanced stages of acral lentiginous melanomas than white individuals.^13,14 Hispanics also face an increasing incidence of more invasive acral lentiginous melanomas.¹⁵ Overall, SOC patients have the poorest skin cancer prognosis, and the data suggest that the reason for this paradox is delayed diagnosis.¹

Although skin cancer is largely a preventable condition, the literature suggests that lack of awareness of melanoma among ethnic minorities is one of the main reasons for their poor skin cancer prognosis.¹⁶ This lack of awareness decreases the likelihood that an SOC patient would be alert to early detection of cancerous changes.¹⁷ Because educating at-risk SOC populations is key to decreasing skin cancer risk, this study focused on determining the efficacy of major knowledge-based interventions conducted to date.¹ Overall, we sought to answer the question, do knowledge-based interventions increase skin cancer awareness, knowledge, and protective behavior among people of color?

Methods

For this review, the Cochrane method of analysis was used to conduct a thorough search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE (1994-2016), as well as a search of CINAHL (1997-2016), PsycINFO (1999-2016), and Web of Science (1965-2016), using a combination of more than 100 search terms including but not limited to skin cancer, skin of color, intervention, and ethnic skin. The search yielded a total of 52 articles (Figure). Following review, only 8 articles met inclusion criteria, which were as follows: (1) study was related to skin cancer in SOC patients, which included an intervention to increase skin cancer awareness and knowledge; (2) study included adult participants or adolescents aged 12 to 18 years; (3) study was written in English; and (4) study was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Of the remaining 8 articles, 4 were excluded due to the following criteria: (1) study failed to provide both preintervention and postintervention data, (2) study failed to provide quantitative data, and (3) study included participants who worked as health care professionals or ancillary staff. As a result, a total of 4 articles were analyzed and discussed in this review (Table).

Results

Robinson et al¹⁸ conducted 12 focus groups with 120 total participants (40 black, 40 Asian, and 40 Hispanic patients). Participants engaged in a 2-hour tape-recorded focus group with a moderator guide on melanoma and skin cancer. Furthermore, they also were asked to assess skin cancer risk in 5 celebrities with different skin tones. The statistically significant preintervention results of the study (χ²=4.6, P<.001) were as follows: only 2%, 4%, and 14% correctly reported that celebrities with a very fair skin type, a fair skin type, and very dark skin type, respectively, could get sunburn, compared to 75%, 76%, and 62% post-intervention. Additionally, prior to intervention, 14% of the study population believed that dark brown skin type could get sunburn compared to 62% of the same group postintervention. This study demonstrated that the intervention helped SOC patients better identify their ability to get sunburn and identify their skin cancer risk.¹⁸

Hernandez et al¹⁹ used a video-based intervention in a Hispanic community, which was in contrast to the multiracial focus group intervention conducted by Robinson et al.¹⁸ Eighty Hispanic individuals were recruited from beauty salons to participate in the study. Participants watched two 3-minute videos in Spanish and completed a preintervention and postintervention survey. The first video emphasized the photoaging benefits of sun protection, while the second focused on skin cancer prevention. Preintervention surveys indicated that only 54 (68%) participants believed that fair-skinned Hispanics were at risk for skin cancer, which improved to 72 (90%) participants postintervention. Furthermore, initially only 44 (55%) participants thought those with darker skin types could develop skin cancer, but this number increased to 69 (86%) postintervention. For both questions regarding fair and dark skin, the agreement proportion was significantly different between the preeducation and posteducation videos (P<.0002 for the fair skin question and P<.0001 for the dark skin question). This study greatly increased awareness of skin cancer risk among Hispanics,¹⁹ similar to the Robinson et al¹⁸ study.

In contrast to 2-hour focus groups or 3-minute video–based interventions, a study by Kundu et al¹⁷ employed a 20-minute educational class-based intervention with both verbal and visual instruction. This study assessed the efficacy of an educational tutorial on improving awareness and early detection of melanoma in SOC individuals. Photographs were used to help participants recognize the ABCDEs of melanoma and to show examples of acral lentiginous melanomas in white individuals. A total of 71 participants completed a preintervention questionnaire, participated in a 20-minute class, and completed a postintervention questionnaire immediately after and 3 months following the class. The study population included 44 black, 15 Asian, 10 Hispanic, and 2 multiethnic participants. Knowledge that melanoma is a skin cancer increased from 83.9% to 100% immediately postintervention (P=.0001) and 97.2% at 3 months postintervention (P=.0075). Additionally, knowledge that people of color are at risk for melanoma increased from 48.4% preintervention to 82.8% immediately postintervention (P<.0001). However, only 40.8% of participants retained this knowledge at 3 months postintervention. Because only 1 participant reported a family history of skin cancer, the authors hypothesized that the reason for this loss of knowledge was that most participants were not personally affected by friends or family members with melanoma. A future study with an appropriate control group would be needed to support this claim. This study shed light on the potential of class-based interventions to increase both awareness and knowledge of skin cancer in SOC populations.¹⁷

A study by Chapman et al²⁰ examined the effects of a sun protection educational program on increasing awareness of skin cancer in Hispanic and black middle school students in southern Los Angeles, California. It was the only study we reviewed that focused primarily on adolescents. Furthermore, it included the largest sample size (N=148) analyzed here. Students were given a preintervention questionnaire to evaluate their awareness of skin cancer and current sun-protection practices. Based on these results, the investigators devised a set of learning goals and incorporated them into an educational pamphlet. The intervention, called “Skin Teaching Day,” was a 1-day program discussing skin cancer and the importance of sun protection. Prior to the intervention, 68% of participants reported that they used sunscreen. Three months after completing the program, 80% of participants reported sunscreen use, an increase of 12% prior to the intervention. The results of this study demonstrated the unique effectiveness and potential of pamphlets in increasing sunscreen use.²⁰

Comment

Overall, various methods of interventions such as focus groups, videos, pamphlets, and lectures improved knowledge of skin cancer risk and sun-protection behaviors in SOC populations. Furthermore, the unique differences of each study provided important insights into the successful design of an intervention.

An important characteristic of the Robinson et al¹⁸ study was the addition of photographs, which allowed participants not only to visualize different skin tones but also provided them with the opportunity to relate themselves to the photographs; by doing so, participants could effectively pick out the skin tone that best suited them. Written SOC scales are limited to mere descriptions and thus make it more difficult for participants to accurately identify the tone that best fits them. Kundu et al¹⁷ used photographs to teach skin self-examination and ABCDEs for detection of melanoma. Additionally, both studies used photographs to demonstrate examples of skin cancer.^17,18 Recent evidence suggests the use of visuals can be efficacious for improving skin cancer knowledge and awareness; a study in 16 SOC kidney transplant recipients found that the addition of photographs of squamous cell carcinoma in various skin tones to a sun-protection educational pamphlet was more effective than the original pamphlet without photographs.²¹

In contrast to the Robinson et al¹⁸ study and Hernandez et al¹⁹ study, the Kundu et al¹⁷ study showed photographs of acral lentiginous melanomas in white patients rather than SOC patients. However, SOC populations may be less likely to relate to or identify skin changes in skin types that are different from their own. This technique was still beneficial, as acral lentiginous melanoma is the most common type of melanoma in SOC populations. Another benefit of the study was that it was the only study reviewed that included a follow-up postintervention questionnaire. Such data is useful, as it demonstrates how muchinformation is retained by participants and may be more likely to predict compliance with skin cancer protective behaviors.¹⁷

The Hernandez et al¹⁹ study is unique in that it was the only one to include an educational intervention entirely in Spanish, which is important to consider, as language may be a hindrance to participants’ understanding in the other studies, particularly Hispanics, possibly leading to a lack of information retention regarding sun-protective behaviors. Furthermore, it also was the only study to utilize videos as a method for interventions. The 3-minute videos demonstrated that interventions could be efficient as compared to the 2-hour in-class intervention used by Robinson et al¹⁸ and the 20-minute intervention used by Kundu et al.¹⁷ Additionally, videos also could be more cost-effective, as incentives for large focus groups would no longer be needed. Furthermore, in the Hernandez et al¹⁹ study, there was minimal to no disruption in the participants’ daily routine, as the participants were getting cosmetic services while watching the videos, perhaps allowing them to be more attentive. In contrast, both the Robinson et al¹⁸ and Kundu et al¹⁷ studies required time out from the participants’ daily schedules. In addition, these studies were notably longer than the Hernandez et al¹⁹ study. The 8-hour intervention in the Chapman et al²⁰ study also may not be feasible for the general population because of its excessive length. However, the intervention was successful among the adolescent participants, which suggested that shorter durations are effective in the adult population and longer interventions may be more appropriate for adolescents because they benefit from peer activity.

Despite the success of the educational interventions as outlined in the 4 studies described here, a major epidemiologic flaw is that these interventions included only a small percentage of the target population. The largest total number of adults surveyed and undergoing an intervention in any of the populations was only 120.¹⁷ By failing to reach a substantial proportion of the population at risk, the number of preventable deaths likely will not decrease. The authors believe a larger-scale intervention would provide meaningful change. Australia’s SunSmart campaign to increase skin cancer awareness in the Australian population is an example of one such large-scale national intervention. The campaign focused on massive television advertisements in the summer to educate participants about the dangers of skin cancer and the importance of protective behaviors. Telephone surveys conducted from 1987 to 2011 demonstrated that more exposure to the advertisements in the SunSmart campaign meant that individuals were more likely to use sunscreen and avoid sun exposure.²² In the United States, a similar intervention would be of great benefit in educating SOC populations regarding skin cancer risk. Additionally, dermatology residents need to be adequately trained to educate patients of color about the risk for skin cancer, as survey data indicated more than 80% of Australian dermatologists desired more SOC teaching during their training and 50% indicated that they would have time to learn it during their training if offered.²³ Furthermore, one study suggested that future interventions must include primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-prevention methods to effectively reduce skin cancer risk among patients of color.²⁴ Primary prevention involves sun avoidance, secondary prevention involves detecting cancerous lesions, and tertiary prevention involves undergoing treatment of skin malignancies. However, increased knowledge does not necessarily mean increased preventative action will be employed (eg, sunscreen use, wearing sun-protective clothing and sunglasses, avoiding tanning beds and excessive sun exposure). Additional studies that demonstrate a notable increase in sun-protective behaviors related to increased knowledge are needed.

Because retention of skin cancer knowledge decreased in several postintervention surveys, there also is a dire need for continuing skin cancer education in patients of color, which may be accomplished through a combination effort of television advertisement campaigns, pamphlets, social media, community health departments, or even community members. For example, a pilot program found that Hispanic lay health workers who are educated about skin cancer may serve as a bridge between medical providers and the Hispanic community by encouraging individuals in this population to get regular skin examinations from a physician.²⁵ Overall, there are currently gaps in the understanding and treatment of skin cancer in people of color.²⁶ Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of all relevant skin cancer interventions conducted in the SOC population will hopefully guide future studies to help close these gaps by allowing others to design the best possible intervention. By doing so, researchers can generate an intervention that is precise, well-informed, and effective in decreasing mortality rates from skin cancer among SOC populations.

Conclusion

All of the studies reviewed demonstrated that instructional and educational interventions are promising methods for improving either knowledge, awareness, or safe skin practices and sun-protective behaviors in SOC populations to differing degrees (Table). Although each of the 4 interventions employed their own methods, they all increased 1 or more of the 3 aforementioned concepts—knowledge, awareness, or safe skin practices and sun-protective behaviors—when comparing postsurvey to presurvey data. However, the critically important message derived from this research is that there is a tremendous need for a substantial large-scale educational intervention to increase knowledge regarding skin cancer in SOC populations.

The US Census Bureau predicts that more than half of the country’s population will identify as a race other than non-Hispanic white by the year 2044.In 2014, the US population was 62.2% non-Hispanic white, and the projected figure for 2060 is 43.6%.¹ However, most physicians currently are informed by research that is generalized from a study population of primarily white males.² Disparities also exist among the physician population where black individuals and Latinos are underrepresented.³ These differences have inspired dermatologists to develop methods to address the need for parity among patients with skin of color. Both ethnic skin centers and the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) have been established since the turn of the millennium to improve disparities and prepare for the future. The efforts and impact of SOCS are widening since its inception and chronicle one approach to broadening the scope of the specialty of dermatology.

Established in 2004 by dermatologist Susan C. Taylor, MD (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), SOCS provides educational support to health care providers, the media, the legislature, third parties (eg, insurance organizations), and the general public on dermatologic health for patients with skin of color. The society is organized into committees that represent the multifaceted aspects of the organization. It also stimulates and endorses an increase in scientific knowledge through basic science and clinical, surgical, and cosmetic research.⁴

Scientific, research, mentorship, professional development, national and international outreach, patient education, and technology and media committees within SOCS, as well as a newly formed diversity in action task force, uphold the mission of the society. The scientific committee, one of the organization’s major committees, plans the annual symposium. The annual symposium, which immediately precedes the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, acts as a central educational symposium for dermatologists (both domestic and international), residents, students, and other scientists to present data on unique properties, statistics, and diseases associated with individuals with ethnic skin. New research, perspectives, and interests are shared with an audience of physicians, research fellows, residents, and students who are also the presenters of topics relevant to skin of color such as cutaneous T-cell lymphomas/mycosis fungoides in black individuals, central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), pigmentary disorders in Brazilians, and many others. There is an emphasis on allowing learners to present their research in a comfortable and constructive setting, and these shorter talks are interspersed with experts who deliver cutting-edge lectures in their specialty area.⁴

Each year during the SOCS symposium, the SOCS Research Award is endowed to a dermatology resident, fellow, or young dermatologist within the first 8 years of postgraduate training. The research committee oversees the selection of the SOCS Research Award. Prior recipients of the award have explored topics such as genetic causes of keloid formation or CCCA, epigenetic changes in ethnic skin during skin aging, and development of a vitiligo-specific quality-of-life scale.⁴

Another key mission of SOCS is to foster the growth of younger dermatologists interested in skin of color via mentorships; SOCS has a mentorship committee dedicated to engaging in this effort. Dermatology residents or young dermatologists who are within 3 years of finishing residency can work with a SOCS-approved mentor to develop knowledge, skills, and networking in the skin of color realm. Research is encouraged, and 3 to 4 professional development meetings (both in person or online) help set objectives. The professional development committee also coordinates efforts to offer young dermatologists opportunities to work with experienced mentors and further partnerships with existing members.⁴

The national and international outreach committee acts as a liaison between organizations abroad and those based in the United States. The patient education committee strives to improve public knowledge about dermatologic diseases that affect individuals with skin of color. Ethnic patients often have poor access to medical information, and sometimes adequate medical information does not exist in the current searchable medical literature. The SOCS website (http://skinofcolorsociety.org/) offers an entire section on dermatology education with succinct, patient-friendly prose on diseases such as acne in skin of color, CCCA, eczema, melanoma, melasma, sun protection, tinea capitis, and more; the website also includes educational videos, blogs, and a central location for useful links to other dermatology organizations that may be of interest to both members and patients who use the site. Maintenance of the website and the SOCS media day fall under the purview of the technology and media committee. There have been 2 media days thus far that have given voice to sun safety and skin cancer in individuals with skin of color as well as hair health and cosmetic treatments for patients with pigmented skin. The content for the media days is provided by SOCS experts to national magazine editors and beauty bloggers to raise awareness about these issues and get the message to the public.⁴

The diversity in action task force is a new committee that is tasked with addressing training for individuals of diverse ethnicities and backgrounds for health care careers at every level, ranging from middle school to dermatology residency. Resources to help those applying to medical school and current medical students interested in dermatology as well as those applying for dermatology residency are being developed for students at all stages of their academic careers. The middle school to undergraduate educational levels will encompass general guidelines for success; the medical school level will focus on students taking the appropriate steps to enter dermatology residency. The task force also will act as a liaison through existing student groups, such as the Student National Medical Association, Minority Association of Premedical Students, Latino Medical Student Association, Dermatology Interest Group Association, and more to reach learners at critical stages in their academic development.⁴The society plays an important role in the educational process for dermatologists at all levels. Although this organization is critical in increasing knowledge of treatment of individuals with skin of color in research, clinical practice, and the public domain, the hope is that SOCS will continue to reach new members of the dermatology community. As a group that embraces the onus to improve skin of color education, the members of SOCS know that there is still much to do to increase awareness among the public as well as dermatology residents and dermatologists practicing in geographical regions that are not ethnically diverse. There are many reasons that both cultural competence and knowledge of skin of color in dermatology will be important as the United States becomes increasingly diverse, and SOCS is at the forefront of this effort. Looking to the future, the goals of SOCS really are the goals of dermatology, which are to continue to deliver the best care to all patients and to continue to improve our specialty with new techniques and medications for all patients who need care.

The US Census Bureau predicts that more than half of the country’s population will identify as a race other than non-Hispanic white by the year 2044.In 2014, the US population was 62.2% non-Hispanic white, and the projected figure for 2060 is 43.6%.¹ However, most physicians currently are informed by research that is generalized from a study population of primarily white males.² Disparities also exist among the physician population where black individuals and Latinos are underrepresented.³ These differences have inspired dermatologists to develop methods to address the need for parity among patients with skin of color. Both ethnic skin centers and the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) have been established since the turn of the millennium to improve disparities and prepare for the future. The efforts and impact of SOCS are widening since its inception and chronicle one approach to broadening the scope of the specialty of dermatology.

Established in 2004 by dermatologist Susan C. Taylor, MD (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), SOCS provides educational support to health care providers, the media, the legislature, third parties (eg, insurance organizations), and the general public on dermatologic health for patients with skin of color. The society is organized into committees that represent the multifaceted aspects of the organization. It also stimulates and endorses an increase in scientific knowledge through basic science and clinical, surgical, and cosmetic research.⁴

Scientific, research, mentorship, professional development, national and international outreach, patient education, and technology and media committees within SOCS, as well as a newly formed diversity in action task force, uphold the mission of the society. The scientific committee, one of the organization’s major committees, plans the annual symposium. The annual symposium, which immediately precedes the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, acts as a central educational symposium for dermatologists (both domestic and international), residents, students, and other scientists to present data on unique properties, statistics, and diseases associated with individuals with ethnic skin. New research, perspectives, and interests are shared with an audience of physicians, research fellows, residents, and students who are also the presenters of topics relevant to skin of color such as cutaneous T-cell lymphomas/mycosis fungoides in black individuals, central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), pigmentary disorders in Brazilians, and many others. There is an emphasis on allowing learners to present their research in a comfortable and constructive setting, and these shorter talks are interspersed with experts who deliver cutting-edge lectures in their specialty area.⁴

Each year during the SOCS symposium, the SOCS Research Award is endowed to a dermatology resident, fellow, or young dermatologist within the first 8 years of postgraduate training. The research committee oversees the selection of the SOCS Research Award. Prior recipients of the award have explored topics such as genetic causes of keloid formation or CCCA, epigenetic changes in ethnic skin during skin aging, and development of a vitiligo-specific quality-of-life scale.⁴

Another key mission of SOCS is to foster the growth of younger dermatologists interested in skin of color via mentorships; SOCS has a mentorship committee dedicated to engaging in this effort. Dermatology residents or young dermatologists who are within 3 years of finishing residency can work with a SOCS-approved mentor to develop knowledge, skills, and networking in the skin of color realm. Research is encouraged, and 3 to 4 professional development meetings (both in person or online) help set objectives. The professional development committee also coordinates efforts to offer young dermatologists opportunities to work with experienced mentors and further partnerships with existing members.⁴

The national and international outreach committee acts as a liaison between organizations abroad and those based in the United States. The patient education committee strives to improve public knowledge about dermatologic diseases that affect individuals with skin of color. Ethnic patients often have poor access to medical information, and sometimes adequate medical information does not exist in the current searchable medical literature. The SOCS website (http://skinofcolorsociety.org/) offers an entire section on dermatology education with succinct, patient-friendly prose on diseases such as acne in skin of color, CCCA, eczema, melanoma, melasma, sun protection, tinea capitis, and more; the website also includes educational videos, blogs, and a central location for useful links to other dermatology organizations that may be of interest to both members and patients who use the site. Maintenance of the website and the SOCS media day fall under the purview of the technology and media committee. There have been 2 media days thus far that have given voice to sun safety and skin cancer in individuals with skin of color as well as hair health and cosmetic treatments for patients with pigmented skin. The content for the media days is provided by SOCS experts to national magazine editors and beauty bloggers to raise awareness about these issues and get the message to the public.⁴

The diversity in action task force is a new committee that is tasked with addressing training for individuals of diverse ethnicities and backgrounds for health care careers at every level, ranging from middle school to dermatology residency. Resources to help those applying to medical school and current medical students interested in dermatology as well as those applying for dermatology residency are being developed for students at all stages of their academic careers. The middle school to undergraduate educational levels will encompass general guidelines for success; the medical school level will focus on students taking the appropriate steps to enter dermatology residency. The task force also will act as a liaison through existing student groups, such as the Student National Medical Association, Minority Association of Premedical Students, Latino Medical Student Association, Dermatology Interest Group Association, and more to reach learners at critical stages in their academic development.⁴The society plays an important role in the educational process for dermatologists at all levels. Although this organization is critical in increasing knowledge of treatment of individuals with skin of color in research, clinical practice, and the public domain, the hope is that SOCS will continue to reach new members of the dermatology community. As a group that embraces the onus to improve skin of color education, the members of SOCS know that there is still much to do to increase awareness among the public as well as dermatology residents and dermatologists practicing in geographical regions that are not ethnically diverse. There are many reasons that both cultural competence and knowledge of skin of color in dermatology will be important as the United States becomes increasingly diverse, and SOCS is at the forefront of this effort. Looking to the future, the goals of SOCS really are the goals of dermatology, which are to continue to deliver the best care to all patients and to continue to improve our specialty with new techniques and medications for all patients who need care.

The US Census Bureau predicts that more than half of the country’s population will identify as a race other than non-Hispanic white by the year 2044.In 2014, the US population was 62.2% non-Hispanic white, and the projected figure for 2060 is 43.6%.¹ However, most physicians currently are informed by research that is generalized from a study population of primarily white males.² Disparities also exist among the physician population where black individuals and Latinos are underrepresented.³ These differences have inspired dermatologists to develop methods to address the need for parity among patients with skin of color. Both ethnic skin centers and the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) have been established since the turn of the millennium to improve disparities and prepare for the future. The efforts and impact of SOCS are widening since its inception and chronicle one approach to broadening the scope of the specialty of dermatology.

Established in 2004 by dermatologist Susan C. Taylor, MD (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), SOCS provides educational support to health care providers, the media, the legislature, third parties (eg, insurance organizations), and the general public on dermatologic health for patients with skin of color. The society is organized into committees that represent the multifaceted aspects of the organization. It also stimulates and endorses an increase in scientific knowledge through basic science and clinical, surgical, and cosmetic research.⁴

Scientific, research, mentorship, professional development, national and international outreach, patient education, and technology and media committees within SOCS, as well as a newly formed diversity in action task force, uphold the mission of the society. The scientific committee, one of the organization’s major committees, plans the annual symposium. The annual symposium, which immediately precedes the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, acts as a central educational symposium for dermatologists (both domestic and international), residents, students, and other scientists to present data on unique properties, statistics, and diseases associated with individuals with ethnic skin. New research, perspectives, and interests are shared with an audience of physicians, research fellows, residents, and students who are also the presenters of topics relevant to skin of color such as cutaneous T-cell lymphomas/mycosis fungoides in black individuals, central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), pigmentary disorders in Brazilians, and many others. There is an emphasis on allowing learners to present their research in a comfortable and constructive setting, and these shorter talks are interspersed with experts who deliver cutting-edge lectures in their specialty area.⁴

Each year during the SOCS symposium, the SOCS Research Award is endowed to a dermatology resident, fellow, or young dermatologist within the first 8 years of postgraduate training. The research committee oversees the selection of the SOCS Research Award. Prior recipients of the award have explored topics such as genetic causes of keloid formation or CCCA, epigenetic changes in ethnic skin during skin aging, and development of a vitiligo-specific quality-of-life scale.⁴

Another key mission of SOCS is to foster the growth of younger dermatologists interested in skin of color via mentorships; SOCS has a mentorship committee dedicated to engaging in this effort. Dermatology residents or young dermatologists who are within 3 years of finishing residency can work with a SOCS-approved mentor to develop knowledge, skills, and networking in the skin of color realm. Research is encouraged, and 3 to 4 professional development meetings (both in person or online) help set objectives. The professional development committee also coordinates efforts to offer young dermatologists opportunities to work with experienced mentors and further partnerships with existing members.⁴

The national and international outreach committee acts as a liaison between organizations abroad and those based in the United States. The patient education committee strives to improve public knowledge about dermatologic diseases that affect individuals with skin of color. Ethnic patients often have poor access to medical information, and sometimes adequate medical information does not exist in the current searchable medical literature. The SOCS website (http://skinofcolorsociety.org/) offers an entire section on dermatology education with succinct, patient-friendly prose on diseases such as acne in skin of color, CCCA, eczema, melanoma, melasma, sun protection, tinea capitis, and more; the website also includes educational videos, blogs, and a central location for useful links to other dermatology organizations that may be of interest to both members and patients who use the site. Maintenance of the website and the SOCS media day fall under the purview of the technology and media committee. There have been 2 media days thus far that have given voice to sun safety and skin cancer in individuals with skin of color as well as hair health and cosmetic treatments for patients with pigmented skin. The content for the media days is provided by SOCS experts to national magazine editors and beauty bloggers to raise awareness about these issues and get the message to the public.⁴

The diversity in action task force is a new committee that is tasked with addressing training for individuals of diverse ethnicities and backgrounds for health care careers at every level, ranging from middle school to dermatology residency. Resources to help those applying to medical school and current medical students interested in dermatology as well as those applying for dermatology residency are being developed for students at all stages of their academic careers. The middle school to undergraduate educational levels will encompass general guidelines for success; the medical school level will focus on students taking the appropriate steps to enter dermatology residency. The task force also will act as a liaison through existing student groups, such as the Student National Medical Association, Minority Association of Premedical Students, Latino Medical Student Association, Dermatology Interest Group Association, and more to reach learners at critical stages in their academic development.⁴The society plays an important role in the educational process for dermatologists at all levels. Although this organization is critical in increasing knowledge of treatment of individuals with skin of color in research, clinical practice, and the public domain, the hope is that SOCS will continue to reach new members of the dermatology community. As a group that embraces the onus to improve skin of color education, the members of SOCS know that there is still much to do to increase awareness among the public as well as dermatology residents and dermatologists practicing in geographical regions that are not ethnically diverse. There are many reasons that both cultural competence and knowledge of skin of color in dermatology will be important as the United States becomes increasingly diverse, and SOCS is at the forefront of this effort. Looking to the future, the goals of SOCS really are the goals of dermatology, which are to continue to deliver the best care to all patients and to continue to improve our specialty with new techniques and medications for all patients who need care.