Examination of Women's Views on Aesthetic Cosmetic Gynecology

Öz

Aim: The aim of this research was to examine the views of women on aesthetic-cosmetic gynecology. Materials and Methods: This descriptive study was conducted with 500 volunteer women aged 18-49 years selected by easy sampling method. Data were collected using the descriptive information form created by the researchers and the “Aesthetic Surgery Acceptance Scale”. Percentage distribution, mean, independent groups t test, one-way analysis of variance were used for the obtained data. Results: The mean total score of the women participating in the study was found to be X̄=58.47±22.02. It was determined that 83.2% of the participants had not had plastic surgery before and 56.4% were satisfied with the aesthetic appearance of their body structure. It was found that the aesthetic surgery acceptance scores of the participants who were single, working, had a high level of education and using non-surgical methods (botox, laser technics, prp, etc.) were higher. Conclusion: In the study, the acceptance score of the participants for aesthetic surgery was found to be moderate. Women's interest in women's aesthetic cosmetic gynecology in recent years has been steadily increasing and gaining popularity. It will be healthier for women to be informed by health professionals about aesthetic cosmetic gynecology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• AESTHETİC
• GYNECOLOGY
• COSMETİC

Kadınların Estetik Kozmetik Jinekoloji Hakkındaki Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, kadınların estetik-kozmetik jinekoloji hakkındaki görüşlerini incelemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Tanımlayıcı tipteki bu araştırma kolay örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen gönüllü, 18-49 yaş arası 500 kadın ile yapılmıştır. Veriler, araştırmacılar tarafından oluşturulmuş tanımlayıcı bilgi formu ve “Estetik Cerrahiyi Kabul Ölçeği” kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler yüzdelik dağılım, ortalama, bağımsız gruplarda t testi, tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Araştırmaya katılan kadınların ölçek toplam puan ortalaması X̄=58.47±22.02 bulunmuştur. Katılımcıların %83,2’sinin daha önce estetik ameliyatı olmadığı ve %56,4’ünün de vücut yapısının estetik görüntüsünden memnun olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bekar, çalışan, eğitim seviyesi yüksek olan ve cerrahi dışı yöntem kullanan (botoks, lazer uygulaması, prp vb.) katılımcıların estetik cerrahi kabul puanlarının daha yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Araştırmada katılımcıların estetik cerrahi kabul etme puanı orta seviye bulunmuştur. Kadınların son yıllarda kadınların estetik kozmetik jinekolojiye ilgileri giderek artmakta ve popülerlik kazanmaktadır. Kadınlar estetik kozmetik jinekoloji ile ilgili sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından bilgilendirilmesi daha sağlıklı olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Estetik
• Kozmetik
• Jinekoloji

Kaynakça

1. 1. Bonell, S., Barlow, F. K., & Griffiths, S. (2021). The cosmetic surgery paradox: Toward a contemporary understanding of cosmetic surgery popularisation and attitudes. Body Image, 38, 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.04.010
2. 2. Brown, A., Furnham, A., Glanvılle, L., & Swamı, V. (2007). Factors that affect the likelihood of undergoing cosmetic surgery. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 27(5), 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asj.2007.06.004
3. 3. Daşıkan, Z., Kıratlı, D., Erdoğan, M. (2019), Kadının genital görünüm memnuniyeti: Genital estetik cerrahi, Jinekoloji-Obstetrik ve Neonatoloji Tıp Dergisi, 16(4), 238-243.
4. 4. Desai, S. A., & Dixit, V. V. (2018). Audit of female genital aesthetic surgery: changing trends in India. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 68(3), 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-018-1115-7
5. 5. Duxbury, P., Donnelly, L., Elgammal, S., Jain, A., Randhawa, N., & Harvey, J. (2016). An exploration of factors influencing reconstruction decisions in ethnic minority patients undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO), 42(5), S26–S27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.108
6. 6. Garcia, B., Scheib, S., Hallner, B., Thompson, N., Schiavo, J., & Peacock, L. (2020). Cosmetic gynecology—a systematic review and call for standardized outcome measures. International Urogynecology Journal, 31(10), 1979–1995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04294-5
7. 7. Göksu, Ö. (2019). Estetik cerrahi olan kadınların toplumsal cinsiyet rol tutumları ile fonksiyonel olmayan tutumlarının belirlenmesi. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). T.C. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara
8. 8. Hadımlı, A., Sert, E., & Karaca Saydam, B. (2021). Genital estetik cerrahide ex-plıssıt model ile danışmanlık ve bakım. Gevher Nesibe Dergisi IESDR , 6 (11), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.46648/gnj.182

9. 9. Henderson-King, D., & Henderson-King, E. (2005). Acceptance of cosmetic surgery: Scale development and validation. Body Image, 2(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.03.003
10. 10. Iglesia, C. B. (2012). Cosmetic gynecology and the elusive quest for the “perfect” vagina. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 120(4), 955. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e31826cf35d
11. 11. İnam, Ö., & Hotun Şahin, N. (2019). Estetik/kozmetik jinekoloji.
12. 12. Lee, H. H., Damhorst, M. L., & Paff Ogle, J. (2009). Body satisfaction and attitude theory: linkages with normative compliance and behaviors undertaken to change the body. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37(4), 466–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727x09333165
13. 13. Müllerová, J., & Weiss, P. (2018). Plastic surgery in gynaecology: factors affecting women’s decision to undergo labiaplasty. mind the risk of body dysmorphic disorder: a review. Journal of Women & Aging, 32(3), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2018.1529474
14. 14. Okumuş, A. (2020). A qualitative assessment of women’s perspectives and experience of cosmetic surgery. European Journal of Plastic Surgery, 43(4), 467–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-020-01623-1
15. 15. Ostrzenski, A. (2011). Cosmetic gynecology in the view of evidence-based medicine and ACOG recommendations: a review. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 284(3), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-1896-8
16. 16. Schnatz, P., Boardman, L. A., & Committee on Gynecologic Practice. (2020). ACOG committee opinion number 795: elective female genital cosmetic surgery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 135(1), e36.
17. 17. Seo, Y. A., & Kim, Y. A. (2020). Factors affecting acceptance of cosmetic surgery in adults in their 20s–30s. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 44(5), 1881–1888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01761-8
18. 18. Sharp, G., Tiggemann, M., & Mattiske, J. (2014). The role of media and peer influences in Australian women’s attitudes towards cosmetic surgery. Body Image, 11(4), 482–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.07.009
19. 19. Spriggs, M., & Gillam, L. (2018). “I don’t see that as a medical problem”: clinicians’ attitudes and responses to requests for cosmetic genital surgery by adolescents. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 15(4), 535–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9878-1
20. 20. Türk, G. D., & Bayrakcı, S. (2020). Sosyal medya ve toplumda değişen estetik işlem yaptırma algısı. Fall 2019, 10(39). https://doi.org/10.5824/ajit-e.2019.4.005
21. 21. Von Soest, T., Kvalem, I. L., Skolleborg, K. C., & Roald, H. E. (2006). Psychosocial factors predicting the motivation to undergo cosmetic surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 117(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000194902.89912.f1
22. 22. Von Soest, T., Kvalem, I. L., Skolleborg, K. C., & Roald, H. E. (2011). Psychosocial changes after cosmetic surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 128(3), 765–772. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e31822213f0
23. 23. Wang, J. V., Zachary, C. B., & Saedi, N. (2020). Factors ınfluencing consumer decisions in aesthetics: selection of procedures and practitioners. Dermatologic Surgery, 46(11), 1470–1471. https://doi.org/10.1097/dss.0000000000002084
24. 24. Wu, Y., Alleva, J. M., & Mulkens, S. (2020). Factor Analysis and Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Translation of the Acceptance of Cosmetic Surgery Scale. Body Image, 33, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.03.009