A Modified Delphi Study on the Ethics and Governance of Live Injecting at Aesthetic Conferences. Is There a Better and Safer Alternative?

Clicks: 38
ID: 326885
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #30 of 129 articles by views in Aesthetic surgery journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 129 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Live clinical demonstrations at aesthetic medicine conferences is common, yet concerns regarding patient safety, commercial influence, and ethical governance. This study established a consensus-based governance framework for live injecting and compared expert and attendee perspectives. METHODS: A two-stage modified Delphi process involved an international expert panel (n=31) alongside a cross-sectional attendee survey of conference (n=218). Round 1 included 46 statements addressing clinical safety, ethics, educational value, commercial influence, and governance, with consensus predefined as ≥70% agreement. Unresolved statements were refined in Round 2. A 23-item modified survey assessed attendee views on live injecting and alternative educational formats. RESULTS: Experts demonstrated strong consensus on key governance requirements. A voluntary code of conduct was supported by 96.6% of experts and that formal tripartite agreements between injector, host clinician, and organiser be required (93.1%) and that the practitioner assuming medico-legal responsibility must be physically present during demonstrations (89.7%). Experts identified performance pressure (95.7%) and unsafe modelling for less experienced practitioners (91.3%) as significant risks. Attendees favoured alternatives: 74% preferred small-group teaching over auditorium demonstrations, and 82% would still attend conferences if live injecting were replaced by high-quality recorded demonstrations. CONCLUSION: Live injecting demonstrations retain conditional support but require stronger clinical governance to ensure patient safety and ethical practice. Findings support standardised oversight mechanisms, including in-person clinical supervision, defined medico-legal accountability, and a formal code of conduct. Small-group teaching and high-definition recorded demonstrations, may offer safer, equally effective alternatives for procedural education.
Reference Key
openalex_W7204868139 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Greg Goodman, Mark Magnusson, Eqram Rahman, Sarah Boxley, Narendra Kumar, Andrew Clark, Hema Sundaram, Frank Lin, Michael Clague, Niamh Corduff, Sarah Hart, Peter Callan, Stefania Roberts, Cara McDonald, Alice Rudd, Katy Wallace, Antoinette Ciconte, Anita Patel, Sean Arendse, Aakriti Gupta, Terence Poon, Catherine E Porter, Philip Bekhor, Lee‐Mei Yap, Firas Al-Niaimi, Adrian Lim, Howard M Studniberg, Maeve A Ahern, Angelo Tsirbas, Richard Webb William, Zallmann Michaela, Somia Naveen
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Aesthetic surgery journal
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/asj/sjag179
URL
https://academic.oup.com/asj/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/asj/sjag179/70896077/sjag179.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.