Glen Jankowski

Background Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) practitioner care may be hampered by commercial biases and hair loss' omission from most medical curricula. Aim and Method Between November 2020 and September 2021, 34 AGA professionals (86% British; 62% trichologists), participated in a pilot, mixed‐methods, survey. Practitioner views on: 1a–1j) AGA's commercial influences (e.g., participants were quantitatively assessed on their understanding of a popular, commercially‐funded, AGA study) and 2a–2h) constraints on evidenced‐based AGA responding (e.g., ethical dilemmas) were assessed. Quantitative responses are reported descriptively whilst qualitative responses are categorized alongside illustrative quotes. Results On average, (1a–1d) 42% of participants were misled by the popular AGA study and (1e) participants underestimated the extent of commercial biases in AGA research as 25%; (2a–2e). Participants also indicated that AGA treatment limitations and misinformation ethically challenged them (e.g., “[It's difficult to know when] to treat or not without being able to confirm the outcome”). (2c) Most (77%) indicated society played a powerful role in exacerbating AGA distress (e.g., “Society is hyper critical of appearance”) and 30% indicated greater “treatment” accessibility was needed: (e.g., “hair loss product [should] give clear indication of what the active ingredients are and how effective they are”). Conclusions Despite the limited sample size, these finding cohere with previous identified challenges of the AGA practitioner role. Evidence based guidance and research scrutiny tools would help practitioners overcome such challenges.