Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 23, 2026
Measuring Psoriasis Severity at Home
Published on: March 1, 2024
Quackery in Dermatology - A Multidimensional Burden: Cross-sectional Evidence by an Exploratory Survey from a
Akshay Samagani1, Amarendra Pandey2, Rajetha Damisetty3
1Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, RajaRajeswari Medical Collegeand Hospital, Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Background:
Dermatological quackery is an increasing public health concern in India, driven by poor regulation, easy access to medications, and the growing influence of social media and unqualified practitioners.
Aim And Objectives:
To assess the patterns, outcomes, economic burden, awareness, and psychosocial impact of dermatological quackery among patients attending a dermatology camp.
Patients And Methods:
A cross-sectional study was conducted during a dermatology camp in Bengaluru, India (January 2026). Patients with prior exposure to unqualified practitioners were included. Data were collected using a structured, validated questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were computed, and associations were analyzed using Chi-square/Fisher's exact tests with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.
Results:
Eighty-one patients were analyzed; most were young (55.6%), female (59.3%), from low-income households (79%), and from rural areas (60.5%). Common indications reported included skin lightening (96.3%), aesthetic concerns (91.3%), fungal infections (88.8%), and hair loss (83.9%) at various instances. Social media influencers (100%) and self-proclaimed skin/hair specialists without national medical commission-recognized postgraduate qualifications (93.8%) were major contributors. Topical treatments were used by 84.0% of participants; combination creams were used by 66.7%, while steroid-containing cream use was confirmed by 13.6% and considered possible by 44.4%. Adverse effects occurred in 76.5%, and 65.4% reported worsening. Most patients (90.1%) required dermatologist consultation, with delayed care (>1 month) in 59.3%. Side effects were strongly associated with worsening (OR 23.21, P < 0.001) and additional expenses (OR 15.50, P < 0.001). Awareness of legal aspects was low (27.2%), and reporting rates were poor (13.6%). Psychosocial effects included loss of confidence (66.7%) and emotional distress (16%).
Limitations:
Camp-based sampling and self-reported data may limit generalizability.
Conclusions:
Dermatological quackery leads to significant clinical harm, delayed care, and psychosocial burden, highlighting the need for stricter regulation and public awareness.
