Background: Hair loss causes significant psychosocial distress to patients. Health utility measurements offer an objective, quantitative assessment of health-related quality of life (QOL).
Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study on patients with hair loss between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. Patient metrics were compared with layperson perception of alopecia, prospectively collected between August 1 and December 31, 2017. Health utility measures were quantified using the visual analog scale (VAS), standard gamble (SG), and time trade-off (TTO) in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and relative to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Bonferroni correction to the significance threshold was performed.
Results: Thirty-one patients with alopecia were compared with 237 laypeople. Patient metrics for female hair loss were all significantly lower than laypeople measures (VAS QALYs 0.65 ± 0.21 vs. 0.83 ± 0.18, p = 0.0001). Mean SG QALYs were lower for patients in the male alopecia state (0.86 ± 0.23 vs. 0.96 ± 0.12, p = 0.0278). Post-hair transplant improvement in TTO was significantly greater for patients (+ 0.08 ± 0.12 vs. + 0.02 ± 0.09, p = 0.0070) and significantly more often exceeded the MCID (45.2% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.0006).
Conclusions: Alopecia negatively impacts QOL, and the true patient experience is more taxing than what is perceived by laypeople. Hair transplantation improves QOL more for male patients than common perception.
Level of evidence iv: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Keywords: Alopecia; Hair loss; Hair transplant; Health state utility; Quality of life.
© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.