Phobic Anxiety in Acne Care

Evidence

This cross-sectional, hospital-based analysis used convenience sampling to recruit patients with acne vulgaris at a national dermatology hospital in Hanoi, Vietnam, between December 2025 and June 2026. The study included 280 participants. A psychiatrist established phobic anxiety disorder diagnoses using ICD-10 clinical criteria, while Fear Questionnaire scores descriptively characterized phobic symptoms among diagnosed cases. The investigators calculated the proportion with phobic anxiety disorders among all included participants using a Wilson score confidence interval and used multivariable logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for associated factors. pmid:42721183

Sixty-nine of 280 participants met ICD-10 criteria for at least one phobic anxiety disorder, a reported prevalence of 24.6% (95% CI, 20.0%–30.0%). Social phobia was the most frequently reported subtype; the study also states that phobic anxiety disorder subtypes were not mutually exclusive. These results describe the composition of this tertiary-care outpatient sample rather than a population prevalence estimate. pmid:42721183

In the exploratory adjusted model, the study-specific anxiety-proneness rating was associated with phobic anxiety disorders (aOR, 6.90; 95% CI, 2.92–16.32). The adjusted analysis also reported associations with physical comorbidity, acne scarring, and poor treatment response, whereas clinician-rated severe acne was not associated after adjustment. An adjusted association identifies a relationship within the model and does not establish that any listed factor caused phobic anxiety disorder. pmid:42721183

Analysis — What the study adds

The central contribution is diagnostic specificity. Rather than reporting broad psychological distress alone, the investigators used psychiatrist-established ICD-10 criteria to identify phobic anxiety disorders and then described their clinical subtype pattern in acne outpatients. That approach makes the reported outcome more clinically defined than a questionnaire-only symptom screen, while the Fear Questionnaire had a descriptive role among diagnosed cases. pmid:42721183

The prevalence estimate gives the clearest quantitative signal: 69 of 280 participants met criteria, with a 95% confidence interval of 20.0%–30.0%. Its denominator is all included participants, which matters because the paper separately describes subtype distributions and allows overlap between subtypes. Social phobia being the most frequently reported subtype provides useful context for the observed phenotype, but it should not be read as evidence that acne produces social phobia. pmid:42721183

The adjusted findings frame scarring, treatment response, physical comorbidity, and the study-specific anxiety-proneness rating as correlates worthy of further study. The anxiety-proneness association was sizeable in the exploratory model, but its confidence interval reflects uncertainty around the estimate. The finding that clinician-rated severe acne was not associated after adjustment also distinguishes lesion severity from every potentially relevant acne-related experience; it does not settle the role of scarring, persistence, treatment experience, or psychosocial context. pmid:42721183

For a DiseaseSignal reader, this is best understood as a single-study explainer of an observed outpatient association pattern. It supports the value of studying disorder-level phobic phenotypes in dermatology settings and of testing the reported correlates with designs that can address sequence over time. It does not provide a treatment comparison, a prediction model, or evidence for patient-specific risk. Statistical association, including an adjusted odds ratio, is not clinical significance or causal proof. pmid:42721183

Limitations

Referral-setting generalizability requires caution because recruitment used convenience sampling at a tertiary-care dermatology hospital. The cross-sectional design cannot determine whether acne-related scrutiny contributed to phobic anxiety disorder onset or whether pre-existing social anxiety shaped treatment-seeking and symptom interpretation. pmid:42721183

The adjusted model was exploratory, and perceived stigma was not independently measured. The authors state that prospective multicentre studies using standardized psychosocial and treatment-response measures are needed to confirm the reported associations. These limitations leave temporal direction, causal interpretation, and applicability beyond this setting uncertain. pmid:42721183

Evidence boundary

This one-source briefing is limited to what the cited study reports. It does not establish independent confirmation, broader clinical effectiveness, or patient-specific guidance. The design, population, measurements, and follow-up described in that source define the evidence boundary. This summary provides research context and is not medical advice. The evidence should be read as a bounded report of the study rather than as a conclusion about other populations, settings, interventions, or outcomes. Any possible connection to disease mechanisms remains limited to the measurements and interpretations documented by the cited authors. Terms describing associations, responses, or biological patterns retain the meaning and uncertainty given in that source.

No inference beyond the cited source is made here.