MDedge Dermatology

Dermatology is a rapidly growing, highly competitive specialty with patients that can be served via private practice, academic medicine, hybrid settings, and rural health clinics. Medical residents’ choice of a career path has been rapidly evolving alongside shifts in health care policy, increasing demand for dermatologic services, stagnant fees falling behind inflation for more than a decade, and payment methods that no longer reflect the traditional fee-for-service model. This places a lot of pressure on young dermatologists to evaluate which practice structure best fits their career goals. A nuanced understanding of the strengths and limitations of each practice model is essential for dermatologists to make informed career decisions that are aligned with their values.

While there are many health care practice models, the first decision dermatology residents must make is whether they would prefer working in the private sector or an academic practice. Of course, it is not uncommon for academic dermatologists to embark on a midcareer segue into private practice and, less commonly, for private dermatologists to culminate their careers with a move to academics. The private sector includes private practice, private equity (PE)–owned group practices that often are single-specialty focused, and hospital-owned group practices that usually are multispecialty. Traditionally, private practices are health care businesses owned by one physician (solo practice) or a group of physicians (group practice) operated independently from hospitals, health systems, or private investors. Financially, these practices rely heavily on volume-based services, especially clinic visits and cosmetic procedures, which provide higher reimbursement rates and usually cash payments at the time of service.¹ Roughly 35% of dermatologists in the United States work in private practice, and a dwindling 15% work in solo practice.^2,3

Medical practices that are not self-owned by physicians vary widely, and they include hospital- or medical center–owned, private equity, and university-based academic practices. Private equity practices typically are characterized as profit driven. Hospital-owned practices shoulder business decisions and administrative duties for the physician at the cost of provider autonomy. Academic medicine is the most different from the other practice types. In contrast to private practice dermatologists, university-based dermatologists practice at academic medical centers (AMCs) with the core goals of patient care, education, and research. Compensation generally is based on the relative value unit (RVU), which is supplemented by government support and research grants. 

As evidenced in this brief discussion, health care practice models are complex, and choosing the right model to align with professional goals can pose a major challenge for many physicians. The advantages and disadvantages of various practice models will be reviewed, highlighting trends and emerging models.

Solo or Small-Group Single-Specialty Private Practice 

Private practice offers dermatologists the advantage of higher income potential but with greater economic risk; it often requires physicians to be more involved in the business aspects of dermatologic practice. In the early 1990s, a survey of private practice dermatologists revealed that income was the first or second most important factor that contributed to their career choice of private vs academic practice.⁴ Earning potential in private practice largely is driven by the autonomy afforded in this setting. Physicians have the liberty of choosing their practice location, structure, schedule, and staff in addition to tailoring services toward profitability; this typically leads to a higher volume of cosmetic and procedural visits, which may be attractive to providers wishing to focus on aesthetics. Private practice dermatologists also are not subject to institutional requirements that may include the preparation of grant submissions, research productivity targets, and devotion of time to teaching. Many private dermatologists find satisfaction in tailoring their work environments to align with personal values and goals and in cultivating long-term relationships with patients in a more personal and less bureaucratic context.

There also are drawbacks to private practice. The profitability often can be attributed to the higher patient load and more hours devoted to practice.⁵ A 2006 study found that academics saw 32% to 41% fewer patients per week than private practice dermatologists.⁶ Along with the opportunity for financial gain is the risk of financial ruin. Cost is the largest hurdle for establishing a practice, and most practices do not turn a profit for the first few years.^1,5 The financial burden of running a practice includes pressure from the federal government to adopt expensive electronic health record systems to achieve maximum Medicare payment through the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, liability insurance, health insurance, and staff salaries.⁷ These challenges require strong business acumen, including managing overhead costs, navigating insurance negotiations, marketing a practice, and maintaining compliance with evolving health care regulations. The purchase of a $100,000 laser could be a boon or bust, requiring the development of a business plan that ensures a positive return on investment. Additionally, private practice profitability has the potential to dwindle as governmental reimbursements fail to match inflation rates. Securing business advisors or even obtaining a Master of Business Administration degree can be helpful.

Insurance and government agencies also are infringing upon some of the autonomy of private practice dermatologists, as evidenced by a 2017 survey of dermatologists that found that more than half of respondents altered treatment plans based on insurance coverage more than 20% of the time.² Private equity firms also could infringe on private practice autonomy, as providers are beholden to the firm’s restrictions—from which company’s product will be stocked to which partner will be on call. Lastly, private practice is less conducive to consistent referral patterns and strong relationships with specialists when compared to academic practice. Additionally, reliance on high patient throughput or cosmetic services for financial sustainability can shift focus away from complex medical dermatology, which often is referred to AMCs.

Academic Medicine

Academic dermatology offers a stimulating and collaborative environment with opportunities to advance the field through research and education. Often, the opportunity to teach medical students, residents, and peers is the deciding factor for academic dermatologists, as supported by a 2016 survey that found teaching opportunities are a major influence on career decision.⁸ The mixture of patient care, education, and research roles can be satisfying when compared to the grind of seeing large numbers of patients every day. Because they typically are salaried with an RVU-based income, academic dermatologists often are less concerned with the costs associated with medical treatment, and they typically treat more medically complex patients and underserved populations.⁹ The salary structure of academic roles also provides the benefit of a stable and predictable income. Physicians in this setting often are considered experts in their field, positioning them to have a strong built-in referral system along with frequent participation in multidisciplinary care alongside colleagues in rheumatology, oncology, and infectious diseases. The benefits of downstream income from dermatopathology, Mohs surgery, and other ancillary testing can provide great financial advantages for an academic or large group practice.¹⁰ Academic medical centers also afford the benefit of resources, such as research offices, clinical trial units, and institutional support for scholarly publication.

Despite its benefits, academic dermatology is not without unique demands. The resources afforded by research work come with grant application deadlines and the pressure to maintain research productivity as measured by grant dollars. Academic providers also must navigate institutional political dynamics and deal with limits on autonomy. Additionally, the administrative burden associated with committee work, mentorship obligations, and publishing requirements further limit clinical time and contribute to burnout. According to Loo et al,⁵ 92% of 89 dermatology department chairmen responding to a poll believed that the lower compensation was the primary factor preventing more residents from pursuing academia. 

The adoption of RVU-based and incentive compensation models at many AMCs, along with dwindling government funds available for research, also have created pressure to increase patient volume, sometimes at the expense of teaching and research. Of those academic dermatologists spending more than half their time seeing patients, a majority reported that they lack the time to also conduct research, teach, and mentor students and resident physicians.⁶ A survey of academic dermatologists suggested that, for those already serving in academic positions, salary was less of a concern than the lack of protected academic time.⁴ While competing demands can erode the appeal of academic dermatology, academia continues to offer a meaningful and fulfilling career path for those motivated by scholarship, mentorship, teaching opportunities, and systemic impact.

Hybrid and Emerging Models 

To reconcile the trade-offs inherent in private and academic models, hybrid roles are becoming increasingly common. In these arrangements, dermatologists split their time between private practice and academic appointments settings, allowing for participation in resident education and research while also benefiting from the operational and financial structure of a private office. In some cases, private groups formally affiliate with academic institutions, creating academic-private practices that host trainees and produce scholarly work while operating financially outside of traditional hospital systems. Individual dermatologists also may choose to accept part-time academic roles that allow residents and medical students to rotate in their offices. Hybrid roles may be of most interest to individuals who feel that they are missing out on the mentorship and teaching opportunities afforded at AMCs.

Government-funded systems such as Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals offer another alternative. Dermatologists at VA hospitals often hold faculty appointments, treat a wide range of conditions in a population with great need, and engage in teaching without the intensity of productivity requirements seen at AMCs. These roles can be attractive to physicians who value public service, work-life balance, and minimal malpractice risk, as well as dermatologists who wish to introduce variety in their practice through an additional clinical setting. Notably, these roles are limited, as roughly 80% of VA hospitals employ part-time dermatologists and 72% reported being understaffed.¹¹ Despite the challenges of limited resources and increased bureaucracy, the VA is the largest health care delivery system in the United States, offering the benefits of protection from most malpractice risk and participation in medical education at 80% of VA hospitals.¹² A VA-based practice may be most attractive to physicians with prior military service or those looking for a stable practice that serves the underserved and the mission of medical education. 

Similarly, rural health clinics are private practices with special subsidies from the federal government that bring Medicaid payments up to the level of Medicare.¹³ Rural dermatology also mirrors that of a VA-based practice by offering the opportunity to treat an array of conditions in a population of great need, as rural patients often are in care deserts and would otherwise need to travel for miles to receive dermatologic care. There is a shortage of dermatologists working in rural areas, and rural dermatologists are more likely than those in suburban or urban areas to practice alone.² Although potentially more physically isolating, rural dermatology offers providers the opportunity to establish a lucrative practice with minimal competition and development of meaningful patient relationships. 

The most rapidly increasing practice model emerging in dermatology over the past decade is the private equity (PE) group. Rajabi-Estarabadi et al¹⁴ estimated that at least 184 dermatology practices have been acquired by PE groups between 2010 and 2019. An estimated 15% of all PE acquisitions in health care have been within the field of dermatology.⁹ Private equity firms typically acquire 1 or more practices, then consolidate the operations with the short-term goals of reducing costs and maximizing profits and longer-term goals of selling the practice for further profit in 3 to 7 years.⁹ They often rely heavily on a dermatologist supervising a number of nurse practitioners.¹⁵ While PE acquisition may provide additional financial stability and income, providers have less autonomy and potentially risk a shift in their focus from patient care to profit. 

The blurred lines between practice settings reflect a broader shift in the profession. Dermatologists have increasingly crafted flexible, individualized careers that align with their goals and values while drawing from both academic and private models. Hybrid roles may prove critical in preserving the educational and research missions of dermatology while adapting to economic and institutional realities.

Gender Trends, Career Satisfaction, and Other Factors Influencing Career Choice 

The gender demographics of dermatology have changed greatly in recent decades. In the years 2010 to 2021, the percentage of women in the field rose from 41% to 52.2%, mirroring the rise in female medical students.¹⁶ Despite this, gender disparities persist through differences in pay, promotion rates, leadership opportunities, and research productivity.¹⁷ Women who are academic dermatologists are less likely to have protected research time and often shoulder a disproportionate share of mentorship and administrative responsibilities, which frequently are undervalued in promotion and compensation structures. Similarly, women physicians are less likely to own their own private practice.¹⁸ Notably, women physicians work part-time more often than their male counterparts, which likely impacts their income.¹⁹ Interestingly, no differences were noted in job satisfaction between men and women in academic or private practice settings, suggesting that dermatology is a fulfilling field for female physicians.¹⁶ Similar data were observed in the field of dermatopathology; in fact, there is no difference in job satisfaction when comparing providers in academics vs private practice.²⁰

Geographic factors also influence career decisions. Some dermatologists may choose private practice to remain close to family or serve a rural area, while some choose academic centers typically located in major metropolitan areas. Others are drawn to AMCs due to their reputation, resources, or opportunities for specialization. The number of practicing dermatologists in an area also may be considered, as areas with fewer providers likely have more individuals seeking a provider and thus more earning potential. 

In summary, career satisfaction is influenced by many factors, including practice setting, colleagues, institutional leadership, work environment, and professional goals. For individuals who are seeking intellectual stimulation and teaching opportunities, academic dermatology may be a great career option. Academic or large group practices may come with a large group of clinical dermatologists to provide a steady stream of specimens. Private practice appeals to those seeking autonomy, reduced bureaucracy, and higher earning potential. Tierney et al²¹ found that the greatest predictor of a future career in academics among Mohs surgeons was the number of publications a fellow had before and during fellowship training. These data suggest that personal interests greatly influence career decisions. 

The Role of Mentorship in Career Decision-Making

Just as personal preferences guide career decisions, so too do interpersonal interactions. Mentorship plays a large role in career success, and the involvement of faculty mentors in society meetings and editorial boards has been shown to positively correlate with the number of residents pursuing academia.¹⁴ Similarly, negative interactions have strong impacts, as the top cited reason for Mohs surgeons leaving academia was lack of support from their academic chair.²¹ While many academic dermatologists report fulfillment from the collegial environment, retention remains an issue. Tierney et al²¹ found that, among 455 academic Mohs surgeons, only 28% of those who began in academia remained in those roles over the long term, and this trend of low retention holds true across the field of academic dermatology. Lack of autonomy, insufficient institutional support, and more lucrative private practice opportunities were all cited as reasons for leaving. For dermatologists seeking separation from academics but continued research opportunities, data suggest that private practice allows for continued research and publications, indicating that scholarly engagement is not exclusive to academic settings. These trends point to the increasing viability of hybrid or academic-private models that combine academic productivity with greater flexibility and financial stability.

Final Thoughts

Academic and private practice dermatology each offer compelling advantages and distinct challenges (Table). The growing popularity of hybrid models reflects a desire among dermatologists to balance the intellectual fulfillment associated with academic medicine with professional sustainability and autonomy of private practice. Whether through part-time academic appointments, rural health clinics, VA employment, or affiliations between private groups and academic institutions, these emerging roles offer a flexible and adaptive approach to career development.

Ultimately, the ideal practice model is one that aligns with a physician’s personal values, long-term goals, and lifestyle preferences. No single path fits all, but thoughtful career planning supported by mentorship and institutional transparency can help dermatologists thrive in a rapidly evolving health care landscape.

Dermatology is a rapidly growing, highly competitive specialty with patients that can be served via private practice, academic medicine, hybrid settings, and rural health clinics. Medical residents’ choice of a career path has been rapidly evolving alongside shifts in health care policy, increasing demand for dermatologic services, stagnant fees falling behind inflation for more than a decade, and payment methods that no longer reflect the traditional fee-for-service model. This places a lot of pressure on young dermatologists to evaluate which practice structure best fits their career goals. A nuanced understanding of the strengths and limitations of each practice model is essential for dermatologists to make informed career decisions that are aligned with their values.

While there are many health care practice models, the first decision dermatology residents must make is whether they would prefer working in the private sector or an academic practice. Of course, it is not uncommon for academic dermatologists to embark on a midcareer segue into private practice and, less commonly, for private dermatologists to culminate their careers with a move to academics. The private sector includes private practice, private equity (PE)–owned group practices that often are single-specialty focused, and hospital-owned group practices that usually are multispecialty. Traditionally, private practices are health care businesses owned by one physician (solo practice) or a group of physicians (group practice) operated independently from hospitals, health systems, or private investors. Financially, these practices rely heavily on volume-based services, especially clinic visits and cosmetic procedures, which provide higher reimbursement rates and usually cash payments at the time of service.¹ Roughly 35% of dermatologists in the United States work in private practice, and a dwindling 15% work in solo practice.^2,3

Medical practices that are not self-owned by physicians vary widely, and they include hospital- or medical center–owned, private equity, and university-based academic practices. Private equity practices typically are characterized as profit driven. Hospital-owned practices shoulder business decisions and administrative duties for the physician at the cost of provider autonomy. Academic medicine is the most different from the other practice types. In contrast to private practice dermatologists, university-based dermatologists practice at academic medical centers (AMCs) with the core goals of patient care, education, and research. Compensation generally is based on the relative value unit (RVU), which is supplemented by government support and research grants. 

As evidenced in this brief discussion, health care practice models are complex, and choosing the right model to align with professional goals can pose a major challenge for many physicians. The advantages and disadvantages of various practice models will be reviewed, highlighting trends and emerging models.

Solo or Small-Group Single-Specialty Private Practice 

Private practice offers dermatologists the advantage of higher income potential but with greater economic risk; it often requires physicians to be more involved in the business aspects of dermatologic practice. In the early 1990s, a survey of private practice dermatologists revealed that income was the first or second most important factor that contributed to their career choice of private vs academic practice.⁴ Earning potential in private practice largely is driven by the autonomy afforded in this setting. Physicians have the liberty of choosing their practice location, structure, schedule, and staff in addition to tailoring services toward profitability; this typically leads to a higher volume of cosmetic and procedural visits, which may be attractive to providers wishing to focus on aesthetics. Private practice dermatologists also are not subject to institutional requirements that may include the preparation of grant submissions, research productivity targets, and devotion of time to teaching. Many private dermatologists find satisfaction in tailoring their work environments to align with personal values and goals and in cultivating long-term relationships with patients in a more personal and less bureaucratic context.

There also are drawbacks to private practice. The profitability often can be attributed to the higher patient load and more hours devoted to practice.⁵ A 2006 study found that academics saw 32% to 41% fewer patients per week than private practice dermatologists.⁶ Along with the opportunity for financial gain is the risk of financial ruin. Cost is the largest hurdle for establishing a practice, and most practices do not turn a profit for the first few years.^1,5 The financial burden of running a practice includes pressure from the federal government to adopt expensive electronic health record systems to achieve maximum Medicare payment through the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, liability insurance, health insurance, and staff salaries.⁷ These challenges require strong business acumen, including managing overhead costs, navigating insurance negotiations, marketing a practice, and maintaining compliance with evolving health care regulations. The purchase of a $100,000 laser could be a boon or bust, requiring the development of a business plan that ensures a positive return on investment. Additionally, private practice profitability has the potential to dwindle as governmental reimbursements fail to match inflation rates. Securing business advisors or even obtaining a Master of Business Administration degree can be helpful.

Insurance and government agencies also are infringing upon some of the autonomy of private practice dermatologists, as evidenced by a 2017 survey of dermatologists that found that more than half of respondents altered treatment plans based on insurance coverage more than 20% of the time.² Private equity firms also could infringe on private practice autonomy, as providers are beholden to the firm’s restrictions—from which company’s product will be stocked to which partner will be on call. Lastly, private practice is less conducive to consistent referral patterns and strong relationships with specialists when compared to academic practice. Additionally, reliance on high patient throughput or cosmetic services for financial sustainability can shift focus away from complex medical dermatology, which often is referred to AMCs.

Academic Medicine

Academic dermatology offers a stimulating and collaborative environment with opportunities to advance the field through research and education. Often, the opportunity to teach medical students, residents, and peers is the deciding factor for academic dermatologists, as supported by a 2016 survey that found teaching opportunities are a major influence on career decision.⁸ The mixture of patient care, education, and research roles can be satisfying when compared to the grind of seeing large numbers of patients every day. Because they typically are salaried with an RVU-based income, academic dermatologists often are less concerned with the costs associated with medical treatment, and they typically treat more medically complex patients and underserved populations.⁹ The salary structure of academic roles also provides the benefit of a stable and predictable income. Physicians in this setting often are considered experts in their field, positioning them to have a strong built-in referral system along with frequent participation in multidisciplinary care alongside colleagues in rheumatology, oncology, and infectious diseases. The benefits of downstream income from dermatopathology, Mohs surgery, and other ancillary testing can provide great financial advantages for an academic or large group practice.¹⁰ Academic medical centers also afford the benefit of resources, such as research offices, clinical trial units, and institutional support for scholarly publication.

Despite its benefits, academic dermatology is not without unique demands. The resources afforded by research work come with grant application deadlines and the pressure to maintain research productivity as measured by grant dollars. Academic providers also must navigate institutional political dynamics and deal with limits on autonomy. Additionally, the administrative burden associated with committee work, mentorship obligations, and publishing requirements further limit clinical time and contribute to burnout. According to Loo et al,⁵ 92% of 89 dermatology department chairmen responding to a poll believed that the lower compensation was the primary factor preventing more residents from pursuing academia. 

The adoption of RVU-based and incentive compensation models at many AMCs, along with dwindling government funds available for research, also have created pressure to increase patient volume, sometimes at the expense of teaching and research. Of those academic dermatologists spending more than half their time seeing patients, a majority reported that they lack the time to also conduct research, teach, and mentor students and resident physicians.⁶ A survey of academic dermatologists suggested that, for those already serving in academic positions, salary was less of a concern than the lack of protected academic time.⁴ While competing demands can erode the appeal of academic dermatology, academia continues to offer a meaningful and fulfilling career path for those motivated by scholarship, mentorship, teaching opportunities, and systemic impact.

Hybrid and Emerging Models 

To reconcile the trade-offs inherent in private and academic models, hybrid roles are becoming increasingly common. In these arrangements, dermatologists split their time between private practice and academic appointments settings, allowing for participation in resident education and research while also benefiting from the operational and financial structure of a private office. In some cases, private groups formally affiliate with academic institutions, creating academic-private practices that host trainees and produce scholarly work while operating financially outside of traditional hospital systems. Individual dermatologists also may choose to accept part-time academic roles that allow residents and medical students to rotate in their offices. Hybrid roles may be of most interest to individuals who feel that they are missing out on the mentorship and teaching opportunities afforded at AMCs.

Government-funded systems such as Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals offer another alternative. Dermatologists at VA hospitals often hold faculty appointments, treat a wide range of conditions in a population with great need, and engage in teaching without the intensity of productivity requirements seen at AMCs. These roles can be attractive to physicians who value public service, work-life balance, and minimal malpractice risk, as well as dermatologists who wish to introduce variety in their practice through an additional clinical setting. Notably, these roles are limited, as roughly 80% of VA hospitals employ part-time dermatologists and 72% reported being understaffed.¹¹ Despite the challenges of limited resources and increased bureaucracy, the VA is the largest health care delivery system in the United States, offering the benefits of protection from most malpractice risk and participation in medical education at 80% of VA hospitals.¹² A VA-based practice may be most attractive to physicians with prior military service or those looking for a stable practice that serves the underserved and the mission of medical education. 

Similarly, rural health clinics are private practices with special subsidies from the federal government that bring Medicaid payments up to the level of Medicare.¹³ Rural dermatology also mirrors that of a VA-based practice by offering the opportunity to treat an array of conditions in a population of great need, as rural patients often are in care deserts and would otherwise need to travel for miles to receive dermatologic care. There is a shortage of dermatologists working in rural areas, and rural dermatologists are more likely than those in suburban or urban areas to practice alone.² Although potentially more physically isolating, rural dermatology offers providers the opportunity to establish a lucrative practice with minimal competition and development of meaningful patient relationships. 

The most rapidly increasing practice model emerging in dermatology over the past decade is the private equity (PE) group. Rajabi-Estarabadi et al¹⁴ estimated that at least 184 dermatology practices have been acquired by PE groups between 2010 and 2019. An estimated 15% of all PE acquisitions in health care have been within the field of dermatology.⁹ Private equity firms typically acquire 1 or more practices, then consolidate the operations with the short-term goals of reducing costs and maximizing profits and longer-term goals of selling the practice for further profit in 3 to 7 years.⁹ They often rely heavily on a dermatologist supervising a number of nurse practitioners.¹⁵ While PE acquisition may provide additional financial stability and income, providers have less autonomy and potentially risk a shift in their focus from patient care to profit. 

The blurred lines between practice settings reflect a broader shift in the profession. Dermatologists have increasingly crafted flexible, individualized careers that align with their goals and values while drawing from both academic and private models. Hybrid roles may prove critical in preserving the educational and research missions of dermatology while adapting to economic and institutional realities.

Gender Trends, Career Satisfaction, and Other Factors Influencing Career Choice 

The gender demographics of dermatology have changed greatly in recent decades. In the years 2010 to 2021, the percentage of women in the field rose from 41% to 52.2%, mirroring the rise in female medical students.¹⁶ Despite this, gender disparities persist through differences in pay, promotion rates, leadership opportunities, and research productivity.¹⁷ Women who are academic dermatologists are less likely to have protected research time and often shoulder a disproportionate share of mentorship and administrative responsibilities, which frequently are undervalued in promotion and compensation structures. Similarly, women physicians are less likely to own their own private practice.¹⁸ Notably, women physicians work part-time more often than their male counterparts, which likely impacts their income.¹⁹ Interestingly, no differences were noted in job satisfaction between men and women in academic or private practice settings, suggesting that dermatology is a fulfilling field for female physicians.¹⁶ Similar data were observed in the field of dermatopathology; in fact, there is no difference in job satisfaction when comparing providers in academics vs private practice.²⁰

Geographic factors also influence career decisions. Some dermatologists may choose private practice to remain close to family or serve a rural area, while some choose academic centers typically located in major metropolitan areas. Others are drawn to AMCs due to their reputation, resources, or opportunities for specialization. The number of practicing dermatologists in an area also may be considered, as areas with fewer providers likely have more individuals seeking a provider and thus more earning potential. 

In summary, career satisfaction is influenced by many factors, including practice setting, colleagues, institutional leadership, work environment, and professional goals. For individuals who are seeking intellectual stimulation and teaching opportunities, academic dermatology may be a great career option. Academic or large group practices may come with a large group of clinical dermatologists to provide a steady stream of specimens. Private practice appeals to those seeking autonomy, reduced bureaucracy, and higher earning potential. Tierney et al²¹ found that the greatest predictor of a future career in academics among Mohs surgeons was the number of publications a fellow had before and during fellowship training. These data suggest that personal interests greatly influence career decisions. 

The Role of Mentorship in Career Decision-Making

Just as personal preferences guide career decisions, so too do interpersonal interactions. Mentorship plays a large role in career success, and the involvement of faculty mentors in society meetings and editorial boards has been shown to positively correlate with the number of residents pursuing academia.¹⁴ Similarly, negative interactions have strong impacts, as the top cited reason for Mohs surgeons leaving academia was lack of support from their academic chair.²¹ While many academic dermatologists report fulfillment from the collegial environment, retention remains an issue. Tierney et al²¹ found that, among 455 academic Mohs surgeons, only 28% of those who began in academia remained in those roles over the long term, and this trend of low retention holds true across the field of academic dermatology. Lack of autonomy, insufficient institutional support, and more lucrative private practice opportunities were all cited as reasons for leaving. For dermatologists seeking separation from academics but continued research opportunities, data suggest that private practice allows for continued research and publications, indicating that scholarly engagement is not exclusive to academic settings. These trends point to the increasing viability of hybrid or academic-private models that combine academic productivity with greater flexibility and financial stability.

Final Thoughts

Academic and private practice dermatology each offer compelling advantages and distinct challenges (Table). The growing popularity of hybrid models reflects a desire among dermatologists to balance the intellectual fulfillment associated with academic medicine with professional sustainability and autonomy of private practice. Whether through part-time academic appointments, rural health clinics, VA employment, or affiliations between private groups and academic institutions, these emerging roles offer a flexible and adaptive approach to career development.

Ultimately, the ideal practice model is one that aligns with a physician’s personal values, long-term goals, and lifestyle preferences. No single path fits all, but thoughtful career planning supported by mentorship and institutional transparency can help dermatologists thrive in a rapidly evolving health care landscape.

Dermatology is a rapidly growing, highly competitive specialty with patients that can be served via private practice, academic medicine, hybrid settings, and rural health clinics. Medical residents’ choice of a career path has been rapidly evolving alongside shifts in health care policy, increasing demand for dermatologic services, stagnant fees falling behind inflation for more than a decade, and payment methods that no longer reflect the traditional fee-for-service model. This places a lot of pressure on young dermatologists to evaluate which practice structure best fits their career goals. A nuanced understanding of the strengths and limitations of each practice model is essential for dermatologists to make informed career decisions that are aligned with their values.

While there are many health care practice models, the first decision dermatology residents must make is whether they would prefer working in the private sector or an academic practice. Of course, it is not uncommon for academic dermatologists to embark on a midcareer segue into private practice and, less commonly, for private dermatologists to culminate their careers with a move to academics. The private sector includes private practice, private equity (PE)–owned group practices that often are single-specialty focused, and hospital-owned group practices that usually are multispecialty. Traditionally, private practices are health care businesses owned by one physician (solo practice) or a group of physicians (group practice) operated independently from hospitals, health systems, or private investors. Financially, these practices rely heavily on volume-based services, especially clinic visits and cosmetic procedures, which provide higher reimbursement rates and usually cash payments at the time of service.¹ Roughly 35% of dermatologists in the United States work in private practice, and a dwindling 15% work in solo practice.^2,3

Medical practices that are not self-owned by physicians vary widely, and they include hospital- or medical center–owned, private equity, and university-based academic practices. Private equity practices typically are characterized as profit driven. Hospital-owned practices shoulder business decisions and administrative duties for the physician at the cost of provider autonomy. Academic medicine is the most different from the other practice types. In contrast to private practice dermatologists, university-based dermatologists practice at academic medical centers (AMCs) with the core goals of patient care, education, and research. Compensation generally is based on the relative value unit (RVU), which is supplemented by government support and research grants. 

As evidenced in this brief discussion, health care practice models are complex, and choosing the right model to align with professional goals can pose a major challenge for many physicians. The advantages and disadvantages of various practice models will be reviewed, highlighting trends and emerging models.

Solo or Small-Group Single-Specialty Private Practice 

Private practice offers dermatologists the advantage of higher income potential but with greater economic risk; it often requires physicians to be more involved in the business aspects of dermatologic practice. In the early 1990s, a survey of private practice dermatologists revealed that income was the first or second most important factor that contributed to their career choice of private vs academic practice.⁴ Earning potential in private practice largely is driven by the autonomy afforded in this setting. Physicians have the liberty of choosing their practice location, structure, schedule, and staff in addition to tailoring services toward profitability; this typically leads to a higher volume of cosmetic and procedural visits, which may be attractive to providers wishing to focus on aesthetics. Private practice dermatologists also are not subject to institutional requirements that may include the preparation of grant submissions, research productivity targets, and devotion of time to teaching. Many private dermatologists find satisfaction in tailoring their work environments to align with personal values and goals and in cultivating long-term relationships with patients in a more personal and less bureaucratic context.

There also are drawbacks to private practice. The profitability often can be attributed to the higher patient load and more hours devoted to practice.⁵ A 2006 study found that academics saw 32% to 41% fewer patients per week than private practice dermatologists.⁶ Along with the opportunity for financial gain is the risk of financial ruin. Cost is the largest hurdle for establishing a practice, and most practices do not turn a profit for the first few years.^1,5 The financial burden of running a practice includes pressure from the federal government to adopt expensive electronic health record systems to achieve maximum Medicare payment through the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, liability insurance, health insurance, and staff salaries.⁷ These challenges require strong business acumen, including managing overhead costs, navigating insurance negotiations, marketing a practice, and maintaining compliance with evolving health care regulations. The purchase of a $100,000 laser could be a boon or bust, requiring the development of a business plan that ensures a positive return on investment. Additionally, private practice profitability has the potential to dwindle as governmental reimbursements fail to match inflation rates. Securing business advisors or even obtaining a Master of Business Administration degree can be helpful.

Insurance and government agencies also are infringing upon some of the autonomy of private practice dermatologists, as evidenced by a 2017 survey of dermatologists that found that more than half of respondents altered treatment plans based on insurance coverage more than 20% of the time.² Private equity firms also could infringe on private practice autonomy, as providers are beholden to the firm’s restrictions—from which company’s product will be stocked to which partner will be on call. Lastly, private practice is less conducive to consistent referral patterns and strong relationships with specialists when compared to academic practice. Additionally, reliance on high patient throughput or cosmetic services for financial sustainability can shift focus away from complex medical dermatology, which often is referred to AMCs.

Academic Medicine

Academic dermatology offers a stimulating and collaborative environment with opportunities to advance the field through research and education. Often, the opportunity to teach medical students, residents, and peers is the deciding factor for academic dermatologists, as supported by a 2016 survey that found teaching opportunities are a major influence on career decision.⁸ The mixture of patient care, education, and research roles can be satisfying when compared to the grind of seeing large numbers of patients every day. Because they typically are salaried with an RVU-based income, academic dermatologists often are less concerned with the costs associated with medical treatment, and they typically treat more medically complex patients and underserved populations.⁹ The salary structure of academic roles also provides the benefit of a stable and predictable income. Physicians in this setting often are considered experts in their field, positioning them to have a strong built-in referral system along with frequent participation in multidisciplinary care alongside colleagues in rheumatology, oncology, and infectious diseases. The benefits of downstream income from dermatopathology, Mohs surgery, and other ancillary testing can provide great financial advantages for an academic or large group practice.¹⁰ Academic medical centers also afford the benefit of resources, such as research offices, clinical trial units, and institutional support for scholarly publication.

Despite its benefits, academic dermatology is not without unique demands. The resources afforded by research work come with grant application deadlines and the pressure to maintain research productivity as measured by grant dollars. Academic providers also must navigate institutional political dynamics and deal with limits on autonomy. Additionally, the administrative burden associated with committee work, mentorship obligations, and publishing requirements further limit clinical time and contribute to burnout. According to Loo et al,⁵ 92% of 89 dermatology department chairmen responding to a poll believed that the lower compensation was the primary factor preventing more residents from pursuing academia. 

The adoption of RVU-based and incentive compensation models at many AMCs, along with dwindling government funds available for research, also have created pressure to increase patient volume, sometimes at the expense of teaching and research. Of those academic dermatologists spending more than half their time seeing patients, a majority reported that they lack the time to also conduct research, teach, and mentor students and resident physicians.⁶ A survey of academic dermatologists suggested that, for those already serving in academic positions, salary was less of a concern than the lack of protected academic time.⁴ While competing demands can erode the appeal of academic dermatology, academia continues to offer a meaningful and fulfilling career path for those motivated by scholarship, mentorship, teaching opportunities, and systemic impact.

Hybrid and Emerging Models 

To reconcile the trade-offs inherent in private and academic models, hybrid roles are becoming increasingly common. In these arrangements, dermatologists split their time between private practice and academic appointments settings, allowing for participation in resident education and research while also benefiting from the operational and financial structure of a private office. In some cases, private groups formally affiliate with academic institutions, creating academic-private practices that host trainees and produce scholarly work while operating financially outside of traditional hospital systems. Individual dermatologists also may choose to accept part-time academic roles that allow residents and medical students to rotate in their offices. Hybrid roles may be of most interest to individuals who feel that they are missing out on the mentorship and teaching opportunities afforded at AMCs.

Government-funded systems such as Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals offer another alternative. Dermatologists at VA hospitals often hold faculty appointments, treat a wide range of conditions in a population with great need, and engage in teaching without the intensity of productivity requirements seen at AMCs. These roles can be attractive to physicians who value public service, work-life balance, and minimal malpractice risk, as well as dermatologists who wish to introduce variety in their practice through an additional clinical setting. Notably, these roles are limited, as roughly 80% of VA hospitals employ part-time dermatologists and 72% reported being understaffed.¹¹ Despite the challenges of limited resources and increased bureaucracy, the VA is the largest health care delivery system in the United States, offering the benefits of protection from most malpractice risk and participation in medical education at 80% of VA hospitals.¹² A VA-based practice may be most attractive to physicians with prior military service or those looking for a stable practice that serves the underserved and the mission of medical education. 

Similarly, rural health clinics are private practices with special subsidies from the federal government that bring Medicaid payments up to the level of Medicare.¹³ Rural dermatology also mirrors that of a VA-based practice by offering the opportunity to treat an array of conditions in a population of great need, as rural patients often are in care deserts and would otherwise need to travel for miles to receive dermatologic care. There is a shortage of dermatologists working in rural areas, and rural dermatologists are more likely than those in suburban or urban areas to practice alone.² Although potentially more physically isolating, rural dermatology offers providers the opportunity to establish a lucrative practice with minimal competition and development of meaningful patient relationships. 

The most rapidly increasing practice model emerging in dermatology over the past decade is the private equity (PE) group. Rajabi-Estarabadi et al¹⁴ estimated that at least 184 dermatology practices have been acquired by PE groups between 2010 and 2019. An estimated 15% of all PE acquisitions in health care have been within the field of dermatology.⁹ Private equity firms typically acquire 1 or more practices, then consolidate the operations with the short-term goals of reducing costs and maximizing profits and longer-term goals of selling the practice for further profit in 3 to 7 years.⁹ They often rely heavily on a dermatologist supervising a number of nurse practitioners.¹⁵ While PE acquisition may provide additional financial stability and income, providers have less autonomy and potentially risk a shift in their focus from patient care to profit. 

The blurred lines between practice settings reflect a broader shift in the profession. Dermatologists have increasingly crafted flexible, individualized careers that align with their goals and values while drawing from both academic and private models. Hybrid roles may prove critical in preserving the educational and research missions of dermatology while adapting to economic and institutional realities.

Gender Trends, Career Satisfaction, and Other Factors Influencing Career Choice 

The gender demographics of dermatology have changed greatly in recent decades. In the years 2010 to 2021, the percentage of women in the field rose from 41% to 52.2%, mirroring the rise in female medical students.¹⁶ Despite this, gender disparities persist through differences in pay, promotion rates, leadership opportunities, and research productivity.¹⁷ Women who are academic dermatologists are less likely to have protected research time and often shoulder a disproportionate share of mentorship and administrative responsibilities, which frequently are undervalued in promotion and compensation structures. Similarly, women physicians are less likely to own their own private practice.¹⁸ Notably, women physicians work part-time more often than their male counterparts, which likely impacts their income.¹⁹ Interestingly, no differences were noted in job satisfaction between men and women in academic or private practice settings, suggesting that dermatology is a fulfilling field for female physicians.¹⁶ Similar data were observed in the field of dermatopathology; in fact, there is no difference in job satisfaction when comparing providers in academics vs private practice.²⁰

Geographic factors also influence career decisions. Some dermatologists may choose private practice to remain close to family or serve a rural area, while some choose academic centers typically located in major metropolitan areas. Others are drawn to AMCs due to their reputation, resources, or opportunities for specialization. The number of practicing dermatologists in an area also may be considered, as areas with fewer providers likely have more individuals seeking a provider and thus more earning potential. 

In summary, career satisfaction is influenced by many factors, including practice setting, colleagues, institutional leadership, work environment, and professional goals. For individuals who are seeking intellectual stimulation and teaching opportunities, academic dermatology may be a great career option. Academic or large group practices may come with a large group of clinical dermatologists to provide a steady stream of specimens. Private practice appeals to those seeking autonomy, reduced bureaucracy, and higher earning potential. Tierney et al²¹ found that the greatest predictor of a future career in academics among Mohs surgeons was the number of publications a fellow had before and during fellowship training. These data suggest that personal interests greatly influence career decisions. 

The Role of Mentorship in Career Decision-Making

Just as personal preferences guide career decisions, so too do interpersonal interactions. Mentorship plays a large role in career success, and the involvement of faculty mentors in society meetings and editorial boards has been shown to positively correlate with the number of residents pursuing academia.¹⁴ Similarly, negative interactions have strong impacts, as the top cited reason for Mohs surgeons leaving academia was lack of support from their academic chair.²¹ While many academic dermatologists report fulfillment from the collegial environment, retention remains an issue. Tierney et al²¹ found that, among 455 academic Mohs surgeons, only 28% of those who began in academia remained in those roles over the long term, and this trend of low retention holds true across the field of academic dermatology. Lack of autonomy, insufficient institutional support, and more lucrative private practice opportunities were all cited as reasons for leaving. For dermatologists seeking separation from academics but continued research opportunities, data suggest that private practice allows for continued research and publications, indicating that scholarly engagement is not exclusive to academic settings. These trends point to the increasing viability of hybrid or academic-private models that combine academic productivity with greater flexibility and financial stability.

Final Thoughts

Academic and private practice dermatology each offer compelling advantages and distinct challenges (Table). The growing popularity of hybrid models reflects a desire among dermatologists to balance the intellectual fulfillment associated with academic medicine with professional sustainability and autonomy of private practice. Whether through part-time academic appointments, rural health clinics, VA employment, or affiliations between private groups and academic institutions, these emerging roles offer a flexible and adaptive approach to career development.

Ultimately, the ideal practice model is one that aligns with a physician’s personal values, long-term goals, and lifestyle preferences. No single path fits all, but thoughtful career planning supported by mentorship and institutional transparency can help dermatologists thrive in a rapidly evolving health care landscape.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Kaposi Varicelliform Eruption

Genital erosions tested positive for herpes simplex virus (HSV) 2 via PCR, confirming a Kaposi varicelliform eruption (KVE) in a patient with mycosis fungoides. The medical team began antiviral therapy with intravenous (IV) acyclovir; however, susceptibility testing during the hospital admission confirmed acyclovir resistance, requiring a transition to cidofovir cream 1% and IV foscarnet.¹ Subsequent concerns by the care team about chemical burns, dysuria, and renal impairment led to discontinuation of both the cidofovir and foscarnet, considerably narrowing the treatment options.¹ The patient’s condition was complicated by polymicrobial bacteremia. Additionally, worsening acidosis and acute kidney injury required initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy.¹ Considering these conditions, the patient was enrolled in a promising clinical trial for pritelivir, a novel antiviral medication; however, due to the development of oliguria and the progression of renal failure, this course of treatment had to be discontinued. Faced with potential viral encephalitis, the infectious disease team concluded that, despite previous adverse reactions, resumption of IV foscarnet treatment would present more benefits than risks, given the patient’s critical situation.¹

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is a slowly progressive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma of CD4+ cells that primarily affects the skin. Clinically, it often is characterized by pruritic scaly patches or plaques with sharply demarcated borders, the enduring nature of which consistently poses a therapeutic challenge due to their noted resistance to preliminary lines of treatment. Presently, potential cures are limited to allogeneic stem cell transplantation and unilesional radiotherapy for advanced MF; however, no treatment has been found to notably improve survival rates.¹ Mycosis fungoides can result in various complications including diffuse spread of a skin infection caused by HSV, known as KVE.¹ Kaposi varicelliform eruption usually manifests clinically with painful skin vesicles that often are accompanied by systemic signs such as fever and malaise. The vesicles rapidly progress into pustules or erosions, predominantly affecting regions such as the head, neck, groin, and upper torso (Figure 1).² Kaposi varicelliform eruption is considered a dermatologic emergency due to its potential to precipitate serious complications such as life-threatening secondary bacterial infection, HSV viremia, and multiorgan involvement; it also carries the risk of instigating ocular complications, such as keratitis, conjunctivitis, blepharitis, uveitis, and potential vision loss.²

Kaposi varicelliform eruption usually is diagnosed through clinical examination supported by polymerase chain reaction, viral culture, histopathology, HSV serology, and Tzanck smear.² The differential diagnosis includes varicella, atypical varicella, herpes genitalis, herpes zoster, allergic or irritant contact dermatitis, or MF, which may result in painful skin ulcers.^2-4 If an HSV superinfection is suspected, a polymerase chain reaction test ideally should be conducted within the first 72 hours of symptom onset.² Herpes simplex virus infection may be reinforced by histologic features such as intraepidermal blistering, acantholysis, keratinocyte ballooning degeneration, and multinuclear giant cells with intranuclear inclusions. Given its severe nature, immediate empiric antiviral treatment for KVE is essential, even while awaiting confirmatory tests. The recommended treatment protocol involves acyclovir (400 mg orally 3 times daily or 10 mg/kg IV) or valacyclovir (500 mg orally twice daily), continued until KVE resolves.²

Herpes genitalis caused by HSV-2 is estimated to affect approximately 45 million adults in the United States.² First-line treatment for HSV-2 includes acyclovir and its derivatives, which are viral nucleoside analogs that inhibit viral DNA polymerases.^5,6 However, over the past 2 decades, increasing HSV resistance to acyclovir and its derivatives has been noted among immunocompromised patients.^5,6 Second-line agents, such as IV foscarnet and cidofovir, require close laboratory monitoring for nephrotoxicity and are contraindicated in those with renal insufficiency, thus limiting their use.⁵ To combat acyclovir resistance, novel antivirals such as pritelivir are being developed. Pritelivir targets the HSV helicase-primase complex and has been shown to outperform acyclovir in in-vitro animal models.⁷ Due to its unique mechanism of action (Figure 2), pritelivir is effective against acyclovir-resistant HSV strains, and clinical trials suggest its serum half-life may allow for daily dosing. A phase 2 study showed pritelivir reduced viral shedding days, sped up genital lesion healing in adults infected with HSV-2, and exhibited a good safety profile.⁷ Our patient participated in ongoing open-label trials of pritelivir that aimed to assess its efficacy and safety in immunocompromised patients. Given the limited alternative treatments for acyclovir-resistant HSV-2, clinicians need to stay updated on antiviral agents under development.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Kaposi Varicelliform Eruption

Genital erosions tested positive for herpes simplex virus (HSV) 2 via PCR, confirming a Kaposi varicelliform eruption (KVE) in a patient with mycosis fungoides. The medical team began antiviral therapy with intravenous (IV) acyclovir; however, susceptibility testing during the hospital admission confirmed acyclovir resistance, requiring a transition to cidofovir cream 1% and IV foscarnet.¹ Subsequent concerns by the care team about chemical burns, dysuria, and renal impairment led to discontinuation of both the cidofovir and foscarnet, considerably narrowing the treatment options.¹ The patient’s condition was complicated by polymicrobial bacteremia. Additionally, worsening acidosis and acute kidney injury required initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy.¹ Considering these conditions, the patient was enrolled in a promising clinical trial for pritelivir, a novel antiviral medication; however, due to the development of oliguria and the progression of renal failure, this course of treatment had to be discontinued. Faced with potential viral encephalitis, the infectious disease team concluded that, despite previous adverse reactions, resumption of IV foscarnet treatment would present more benefits than risks, given the patient’s critical situation.¹

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is a slowly progressive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma of CD4+ cells that primarily affects the skin. Clinically, it often is characterized by pruritic scaly patches or plaques with sharply demarcated borders, the enduring nature of which consistently poses a therapeutic challenge due to their noted resistance to preliminary lines of treatment. Presently, potential cures are limited to allogeneic stem cell transplantation and unilesional radiotherapy for advanced MF; however, no treatment has been found to notably improve survival rates.¹ Mycosis fungoides can result in various complications including diffuse spread of a skin infection caused by HSV, known as KVE.¹ Kaposi varicelliform eruption usually manifests clinically with painful skin vesicles that often are accompanied by systemic signs such as fever and malaise. The vesicles rapidly progress into pustules or erosions, predominantly affecting regions such as the head, neck, groin, and upper torso (Figure 1).² Kaposi varicelliform eruption is considered a dermatologic emergency due to its potential to precipitate serious complications such as life-threatening secondary bacterial infection, HSV viremia, and multiorgan involvement; it also carries the risk of instigating ocular complications, such as keratitis, conjunctivitis, blepharitis, uveitis, and potential vision loss.²

Kaposi varicelliform eruption usually is diagnosed through clinical examination supported by polymerase chain reaction, viral culture, histopathology, HSV serology, and Tzanck smear.² The differential diagnosis includes varicella, atypical varicella, herpes genitalis, herpes zoster, allergic or irritant contact dermatitis, or MF, which may result in painful skin ulcers.^2-4 If an HSV superinfection is suspected, a polymerase chain reaction test ideally should be conducted within the first 72 hours of symptom onset.² Herpes simplex virus infection may be reinforced by histologic features such as intraepidermal blistering, acantholysis, keratinocyte ballooning degeneration, and multinuclear giant cells with intranuclear inclusions. Given its severe nature, immediate empiric antiviral treatment for KVE is essential, even while awaiting confirmatory tests. The recommended treatment protocol involves acyclovir (400 mg orally 3 times daily or 10 mg/kg IV) or valacyclovir (500 mg orally twice daily), continued until KVE resolves.²

Herpes genitalis caused by HSV-2 is estimated to affect approximately 45 million adults in the United States.² First-line treatment for HSV-2 includes acyclovir and its derivatives, which are viral nucleoside analogs that inhibit viral DNA polymerases.^5,6 However, over the past 2 decades, increasing HSV resistance to acyclovir and its derivatives has been noted among immunocompromised patients.^5,6 Second-line agents, such as IV foscarnet and cidofovir, require close laboratory monitoring for nephrotoxicity and are contraindicated in those with renal insufficiency, thus limiting their use.⁵ To combat acyclovir resistance, novel antivirals such as pritelivir are being developed. Pritelivir targets the HSV helicase-primase complex and has been shown to outperform acyclovir in in-vitro animal models.⁷ Due to its unique mechanism of action (Figure 2), pritelivir is effective against acyclovir-resistant HSV strains, and clinical trials suggest its serum half-life may allow for daily dosing. A phase 2 study showed pritelivir reduced viral shedding days, sped up genital lesion healing in adults infected with HSV-2, and exhibited a good safety profile.⁷ Our patient participated in ongoing open-label trials of pritelivir that aimed to assess its efficacy and safety in immunocompromised patients. Given the limited alternative treatments for acyclovir-resistant HSV-2, clinicians need to stay updated on antiviral agents under development.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Kaposi Varicelliform Eruption

Genital erosions tested positive for herpes simplex virus (HSV) 2 via PCR, confirming a Kaposi varicelliform eruption (KVE) in a patient with mycosis fungoides. The medical team began antiviral therapy with intravenous (IV) acyclovir; however, susceptibility testing during the hospital admission confirmed acyclovir resistance, requiring a transition to cidofovir cream 1% and IV foscarnet.¹ Subsequent concerns by the care team about chemical burns, dysuria, and renal impairment led to discontinuation of both the cidofovir and foscarnet, considerably narrowing the treatment options.¹ The patient’s condition was complicated by polymicrobial bacteremia. Additionally, worsening acidosis and acute kidney injury required initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy.¹ Considering these conditions, the patient was enrolled in a promising clinical trial for pritelivir, a novel antiviral medication; however, due to the development of oliguria and the progression of renal failure, this course of treatment had to be discontinued. Faced with potential viral encephalitis, the infectious disease team concluded that, despite previous adverse reactions, resumption of IV foscarnet treatment would present more benefits than risks, given the patient’s critical situation.¹

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is a slowly progressive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma of CD4+ cells that primarily affects the skin. Clinically, it often is characterized by pruritic scaly patches or plaques with sharply demarcated borders, the enduring nature of which consistently poses a therapeutic challenge due to their noted resistance to preliminary lines of treatment. Presently, potential cures are limited to allogeneic stem cell transplantation and unilesional radiotherapy for advanced MF; however, no treatment has been found to notably improve survival rates.¹ Mycosis fungoides can result in various complications including diffuse spread of a skin infection caused by HSV, known as KVE.¹ Kaposi varicelliform eruption usually manifests clinically with painful skin vesicles that often are accompanied by systemic signs such as fever and malaise. The vesicles rapidly progress into pustules or erosions, predominantly affecting regions such as the head, neck, groin, and upper torso (Figure 1).² Kaposi varicelliform eruption is considered a dermatologic emergency due to its potential to precipitate serious complications such as life-threatening secondary bacterial infection, HSV viremia, and multiorgan involvement; it also carries the risk of instigating ocular complications, such as keratitis, conjunctivitis, blepharitis, uveitis, and potential vision loss.²

Kaposi varicelliform eruption usually is diagnosed through clinical examination supported by polymerase chain reaction, viral culture, histopathology, HSV serology, and Tzanck smear.² The differential diagnosis includes varicella, atypical varicella, herpes genitalis, herpes zoster, allergic or irritant contact dermatitis, or MF, which may result in painful skin ulcers.^2-4 If an HSV superinfection is suspected, a polymerase chain reaction test ideally should be conducted within the first 72 hours of symptom onset.² Herpes simplex virus infection may be reinforced by histologic features such as intraepidermal blistering, acantholysis, keratinocyte ballooning degeneration, and multinuclear giant cells with intranuclear inclusions. Given its severe nature, immediate empiric antiviral treatment for KVE is essential, even while awaiting confirmatory tests. The recommended treatment protocol involves acyclovir (400 mg orally 3 times daily or 10 mg/kg IV) or valacyclovir (500 mg orally twice daily), continued until KVE resolves.²

Herpes genitalis caused by HSV-2 is estimated to affect approximately 45 million adults in the United States.² First-line treatment for HSV-2 includes acyclovir and its derivatives, which are viral nucleoside analogs that inhibit viral DNA polymerases.^5,6 However, over the past 2 decades, increasing HSV resistance to acyclovir and its derivatives has been noted among immunocompromised patients.^5,6 Second-line agents, such as IV foscarnet and cidofovir, require close laboratory monitoring for nephrotoxicity and are contraindicated in those with renal insufficiency, thus limiting their use.⁵ To combat acyclovir resistance, novel antivirals such as pritelivir are being developed. Pritelivir targets the HSV helicase-primase complex and has been shown to outperform acyclovir in in-vitro animal models.⁷ Due to its unique mechanism of action (Figure 2), pritelivir is effective against acyclovir-resistant HSV strains, and clinical trials suggest its serum half-life may allow for daily dosing. A phase 2 study showed pritelivir reduced viral shedding days, sped up genital lesion healing in adults infected with HSV-2, and exhibited a good safety profile.⁷ Our patient participated in ongoing open-label trials of pritelivir that aimed to assess its efficacy and safety in immunocompromised patients. Given the limited alternative treatments for acyclovir-resistant HSV-2, clinicians need to stay updated on antiviral agents under development.

As one of the most competitive specialties in medicine, dermatology presents unique challenges for residency applicants, especially following the shift in United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scoring to a pass/fail format.^1,2 Historically, USMLE Step 1 served as a major screening metric for residency programs, with 90% of program directors in 2020 using USMLE Step 1 scores as a primary factor when deciding whether to invite applicants for interviews.¹ However, the recent transition to pass/fail has made it much harder for program directors to objectively compare applicants, particularly in dermatology. In a 2020 survey, Patrinely Jr et al² found that 77.2% of dermatology program directors agreed that this change would make it more difficult to assess candidates objectively. Consequently, research productivity has taken on greater importance as programs seek new ways to distinguish top applicants.^1,2

In response to this increased emphasis on research, dermatology applicants have substantially boosted their scholarly output over the past several years. The 2022 and 2024 results from the National Residency Matching Program’s Charting Outcomes survey demonstrated a steady rise in research metrics among applicants across various specialties, with dermatology showing one of the largest increases.^3,4 For instance, the average number of abstracts, presentations, and publications for matched allopathic dermatology applicants was 5.7 in 2007.⁵ This average increased to 20.9 in 2022³ and to 27.7 in 2024,⁴ marking an astonishing 485% increase in 17 years. Interestingly, unmatched dermatology applicants had an average of 19.0 research products in 2024, which was similar to the average of successfully matched applicants just 2 years earlier.^3,4

Engaging in research offers benefits beyond building a strong residency application. Specifically, it enhances critical thinking skills and provides hands-on experience in scientific inquiry.⁶ It allows students to explore dermatology topics of interest and address existing knowledge gaps within the specialty.⁶ Additionally, it creates opportunities to build meaningful relationships with experienced dermatologists who can guide and support students throughout their careers.⁷ Despite these benefits, the pursuit of research may be landscaped with obstacles, and the fervent race to obtain high research outputs may overshadow developmental advantages.⁸ These challenges and demands also could contribute to inequities in the residency selection process, particularly if barriers are influenced by socioeconomic and demographic disparities. As dermatology already ranks as the second least diverse specialty in medicine,⁹ research requirements that disproportionately disadvantage certain demographic groups risk further widening these concerning representation gaps rather than creating opportunities to address them.

Given these trends in research requirements and their potential impact on applicant success, understanding specific barriers to research engagement is essential for creating equitable opportunities in dermatology. In this study, we aimed to identify barriers to research engagement among dermatology applicants, analyze their relationship with demographic factors, assess their impact on specialty choice and research productivity, and provide actionable solutions to address these obstacles.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted targeting medical students applying to dermatology residency programs in the United States in the 2025 or 2026 match cycles as well as residents who applied to dermatology residency in the 2021 to 2024 match cycles. The 23-item survey was developed by adapting questions from several validated studies examining research barriers and experiences in medical education.^6,7,10,11 Specifically, the survey included questions on demographics and background; research productivity; general research barriers; conference participation accessibility; mentorship access; and quality, career impact, and support needs. Socioeconomic background was measured via a single self-reported item asking participants to select the income class that best reflected their background growing up (low-income, lower-middle, upper-middle, or high-income); no income ranges were provided.

The survey was distributed electronically via Qualtrics between November 11, 2024, and December 30, 2024, through listserves of the Dermatology Interest Group Association (sent directly to medical students) and the Association of Professors of Dermatology (forwarded to residents by program directors). There was no way to determine the number of dermatology applicants and residents reached through either listserve. The surveys were reviewed and approved by the University of Alabama at Birmingham institutional review board (IRB-300013671).

Statistical analyses were conducted using RStudio (Posit, PBC; version 2024.12.0+467). Descriptive statistics characterized participant demographics and quantified barrier scores using frequencies and proportions. We performed regression analyses to examine relationships between demographic factors and barriers using linear regression; the relationship between barriers and research productivity correlation; and the prediction of specialty change consideration using logistic regression. For all analyses, barrier scores were rated on a scale of 0 to 3 (0=not a barrier, 1=minor barrier, 2=moderate barrier, 3=major barrier); R² values were reported to indicate strength of associations, and statistical significance was set at P<.05.

Results

Participant Demographics—A total of 136 participants completed the survey. Among the respondents, 12% identified as from a background of low-income class, 28% lower-middle class, 49% upper-middle class, and 11% high-income class. Additionally, 27% of respondents identified as underrepresented in medicine (URiM). Regarding debt levels (or expected debt levels) upon graduation from medical school, 32% reported no debt, 9% reported $1000 to $49,000 in debt, 5% reported $50,000 to $99,000 in debt, 15% reported $100,000 to $199,000 in debt, 22% reported $200,000 to $299,000 in debt, and 17% reported $300,000 in debt or higher. The majority of respondents (95%) were MD candidates, and the remaining 5% were DO candidates; additionally, 5% were participants in an MD/PhD program (eTable 1).

Respondents represented various stages of training: 13.2% and 16.2% were third- and fourth-year medical students, respectively, while 6.0%, 20.1%, 18.4%, and 22.8% were postgraduate year (PGY) 1, PGY-2, PGY-3, and PGY-4, respectively. A few respondents (2.9%) were participating in a research year or reapplying to dermatology residency (eTable 2).

Research Barriers and Productivity—Respondents were presented with a list of potential barriers and asked to rate each as not a barrier, a minor barrier, a moderate barrier, or a major barrier. The most common barriers (ie, those with >50% of respondents rating them as a moderate or major) included lack of time, limited access to research opportunities, not knowing how to begin research, and lack of mentorship or support. Lack of time and not knowing where to begin research were reported most frequently as major barriers, with 32% of participants identifying them as such. In contrast, barriers such as financial costs and personal obligations were less frequently rated as major barriers (10% and 4%, respectively), although they still were identified as obstacles by many respondents. Interestingly, most respondents (58%) indicated that institutional limitations were not a barrier, but a separate and sizeable proportion (25%) of respondents considered it to be a major barrier (eFigure 1).

The distributions for all research metrics were right-skewed. The total range was 0 to 45 (median, 6) for number of publications (excluding abstracts), 0 to 33 (median, 2) for published abstracts, 0 to 40 (median, 5) for poster publications, and 0 to 20 (median, 2) for oral presentations (eTable 3).

Regression Analysis—Linear regression analysis identified significant relationships between demographic variables (socioeconomic status [SES], URiM status, and debt level) and individual research barriers. The heatmap in eFigure 2 illustrates the strength of these relationships. Higher SES was predictive of lower reported financial barriers (R²=.2317; P<.0001) and lower reported institutional limitations (R²=.0884; P=.0006). A URiM status predicted higher reported financial barriers (R²=.1097; P<.0001) and institutional limitations (R²=.04537; P=.013). Also, higher debt level predicted increased financial barriers (R²=.2099; P<.0001), institutional limitations (R²=.1258; P<.0001), and lack of mentorship (R²=.06553; P=.003).

Next, the data were evaluated for correlative relationships between individual research barriers and research productivity metrics including number of publications, published abstracts and presentations (oral and poster) and total research output. While correlations were weak or nonsignificant between barriers and most research productivity metrics (published abstracts, oral and poster presentations, and total research output), the number of publications was significantly correlated with several research barriers, including limited access to research opportunities (P=.002), not knowing how to begin research (P=.025), lack of mentorship or support (P=.011), and institutional limitations (P=.042). Higher ratings for limited access to research opportunities, not knowing where to begin research, lack of mentorship or support, and institutional limitations all were negatively correlated with total number of publications (R²=−.27, –.19, −.22, and –.18, respectively)(eFigure 3).

Logistic regression analysis examined the impact of research barriers on the likelihood of specialty change consideration. The results, presented in a forest plot, include odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% CIs and P values. Lack of time (P=.001) and not knowing where to begin research (P<.001) were the strongest predictors of specialty change consideration (OR, 6.3 and 4.7, ­respectively). Financial cost (P=.043), limited access to research opportunities (P=.006), and lack of mentorship or support (P=.001) also were significant predictors of specialty change consideration (OR, 2.2, 3.1, and 3.5, respectively). Institutional limitations and personal obligations did not predict specialty change consideration (eTable 4 and eFigure 4).

Mitigation Strategies—Mitigation strategies were ranked by respondents based on their perceived importance on a scale of 1 to 7 (1=most important, 7=least important)(eFigure 5). Respondents considered access to engaged mentors to be the most important mitigation strategy by far, with 95% ranking it in the top 3 (47% of respondents ranked it as the top most important mitigation strategy). Financial assistance was the mitigation strategy with the second highest number of respondents (28%) ranking it as the top strategy. Flexible scheduling during rotations, research training programs or discussions, and peer networking and research collaboration opportunities also were considered by respondents to be important mitigation strategies. Time management support/resources frequently was viewed as the least important mitigation strategy, with 38% of respondents ranking it last.

Comment

Our study revealed notable disparities in research barriers among dermatology applicants, with several demonstrating consistent patterns of association with SES, URiM status, and debt burden. Furthermore, the strong relationship between these barriers and decreased research productivity and specialty change consideration suggests that capable candidates may be deterred from pursuing dermatology due to surmountable obstacles rather than lack of interest or ability.

Impact of Demographic Factors on Research Barriers—All 7 general research barriers surveyed were correlated with distinct demographic predictors. Regression analyses indicated that the barrier of financial cost was significantly predicted by lower SES (R²=.2317; P<.001), URiM status (R²=.1097; P<.001), and higher debt levels (R²=.2099; P<.001)(eFigure 2). These findings are particularly concerning given the trend of dermatology applicants pursuing 1-year research fellowships, many of which are unpaid.¹² In fact, Jacobson et al¹¹ found that 71.7% (43/60) of dermatology applicants who pursued a year-long research fellowship experienced financial strain during their fellowship, with many requiring additional loans or drawing from personal savings despite already carrying substantial medical school debt of $200,000 or more. Our findings showcase how financial barriers to research disproportionately affect students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, those who identify as URiM, and those with higher debt, creating systemic inequities in research access at a time when research productivity is increasingly vital for matching into dermatology. To address these financial barriers, institutions may consider establishing more funded research fellowships or expanding grant programs targeting students from economically disadvantaged and/or underrepresented backgrounds.

Institutional limitations (eg, the absence of a dermatology department) also was a notable barrier that was significantly predicted by lower SES (R²=.0884; P<.001) and URiM status (R²=.04537; P=.013)(eFigure 2). Students at institutions lacking dermatology programs face restricted access to mentorship and research opportunities,¹³ with our results demonstrating that these barriers disproportionately affect students from underresourced and minority groups. These limitations compound disparities in building competitive residency applications.¹⁴ The Women’s Dermatologic Society (WDS) has developed a model for addressing these institutional barriers through its summer research fellowship program for medical students who identify as URiM. By pairing students with WDS mentors who guide them through summer research projects, this initiative addresses access and mentorship gaps for students lacking dermatology departments at their home institution.¹⁵ The WDS program serves as a model for other organizations to adopt and expand, with particular attention to including students who identify as URiM as well as those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Our results identified time constraints and lack of experience as notable research barriers. Higher debt levels significantly predicted both lack of time (R²=.03915; P=.021) and not knowing how to begin research (R²=.0572; P=.005)(eFigure 2). These statistical relationships may be explained by students with higher debt levels needing to prioritize paid work over unpaid research opportunities, limiting their engagement in research due to the scarcity of funded positions.¹² The data further revealed that personal obligations, particularly family care responsibilities, were significantly predicted by both lower SES (R²=.0539; P=.008) and higher debt level (R²=.03237; P=.036)(eFigure 2). These findings demonstrate how students managing academic demands alongside financial and familial responsibilities may face compounded barriers to research engagement. To address these disparities, medical schools may consider implementing protected research time within their curricula; for example, the Emory University School of Medicine (Atlanta, Georgia) has implemented a Discovery Phase program that provides students with 5 months of protected faculty-mentored research time away from academic demands between their third and fourth years of medical school.¹⁶ Integrating similarly structured research periods across medical school curricula could help ensure equitable research opportunities for all students pursuing competitive specialties such as dermatology.⁸

Access to mentorship is a critical determinant of research engagement and productivity, as mentors provide valuable guidance on navigating research processes and professional development.¹⁷ Our analysis revealed that lack of mentorship was predicted by both lower SES (R²=.039; P=.023) and higher debt level (R²=.06553; P=.003)(eFigure 2). Several organizations have developed programs to address these mentorship gaps. The Skin of Color Society pairs medical students with skin of color experts while advancing its mission of increasing diversity in dermatology.¹⁸ Similarly, the American Academy of Dermatology founded a diversity mentorship program that connects students who identify as URiM with dermatologist mentors for summer research experiences.¹⁹ Notably, the Skin of Color Society’s program allows residents to serve as mentors for medical students. Involving residents and community dermatologists as potential dermatology mentors for medical students not only distributes mentorship demands more sustainably but also increases overall access to dermatology mentors. Our findings indicate that similar programs could be expanded to include more residents and community dermatologists as mentors and to target students from disadvantaged backgrounds, those facing financial constraints, and students who identify as URiM. 

Impact of Research Barriers on Career Trajectories—Among survey participants, 35% reported considering changing their specialty choice due to research-related barriers. This substantial percentage likely stems from the escalating pressure to achieve increasingly high research output amidst a lack of sufficient support, time, or tools, as our results suggest. The specific barriers that most notably predicted specialty change consideration were lack of time and not knowing how to begin research (P=.001 and P<.001, respectively). Remarkably, our findings revealed that respondents who rated these as moderate or major barriers were 6.3 and 4.7 times more likely to consider changing their specialty choice, respectively. Respondents reporting financial cost (P=.043), limited access to research opportunities (P=.006), and lack of mentorship or support (P=.001) as at least moderate barriers also were 2.2 to 3.5 times more likely to consider a specialty change (eTable 4 and eFigure 4). Additionally, barriers such as limited access to research opportunities (R²=−.27; P=.002), lack of mentorship (R²=−.22; P=.011), not knowing how to begin research (R²=−.19; P=.025), and institutional limitations (R²=−.18; P=.042) all were associated with lower publication output according to our data (eFigure 3). These findings are especially concerning given current match statistics, where the trajectory of research productivity required for a successful dermatology match continues to rise sharply.^3,4

Alarmingly, many of the barriers we identified—linked to both reduced research output and specialty change consideration—are associated with several demographic factors. Higher debt levels predicted greater likelihood of experiencing lack of time, insufficient mentorship, and uncertainty about initiating research, while lower SES was associated with lack of mentorship. These relationships suggest that structural barriers, rather than lack of interest or ability, may create cumulative disadvantages that deter capable candidates from pursuing dermatology or impact their success in the application process.

One potential solution to address the disproportionate emphasis on research quantity would be implementing caps on reportable research products in residency applications (eg, limiting applications to a certain number of publications, abstracts, and presentations). This change could shift applicant focus toward substantive scientific contributions rather than rapid output accumulation.⁸ The need for such caps was evident in our dataset, which revealed a stark contrast: some respondents reported 30 to 40 publications, while MD/PhD respondents—who dedicate 3 to 5 years to performing quality research—averaged only 7.4 publications. Implementing a research output ceiling could help alleviate barriers for applicants facing institutional and demographic disadvantages while simultaneously boosting the scientific rigor of dermatology research.⁸

Mitigation Strategies From Applicant Feedback—Our findings emphasize the multifaceted relationship between structural barriers and demographics in dermatology research engagement. While our statistical interpretations have outlined several potential interventions, the applicants’ perspectives on mitigation strategies offer qualitative insight. Although participants did not consistently mark financial cost and lack of mentorship as major barriers (eFigure 1), financial assistance and access to engaged mentors were among the highest-ranked mitigation strategies (eFigure 5), suggesting these resources may be fundamental to overcoming multiple structural challenges. To address these needs comprehensively, we propose a multilevel approach: at the institutional level, dermatology interest groups could establish centralized databases of research opportunities, mentorship programs, and funding sources. At the national level, dermatology organizations could consider expanding grant programs, developing virtual mentorship networks, and creating opportunities for external students through remote research projects or short-term research rotations. These interventions, informed by both our statistical analyses and applicant feedback, could help create more equitable access to research opportunities in dermatology.

Limitations

A major limitation of this study was that potential dermatology candidates who were deterred by barriers and later decided on a different specialty would not be captured in our data. As these candidates may have faced substantial barriers that caused them to choose a different path, their absence from the current data may indicate that the reported results underpredict the effect size of the true population. Another limitation is the absence of a control group, such as applicants to less competitive specialties, which would provide valuable context for whether the barriers identified are unique to dermatology.

Conclusion

Our study provides compelling evidence that research barriers in dermatology residency applications intersect with demographic factors to influence research engagement and career trajectories. Our findings suggest that without targeted intervention, increasing emphasis on research productivity may exacerbate existing disparities in dermatology. Moving forward, a coordinated effort among institutions, dermatology associations, and dermatology residency programs will be fundamental to ensure that research requirements enhance rather than impede the development of a diverse, qualified dermatology workforce.

As one of the most competitive specialties in medicine, dermatology presents unique challenges for residency applicants, especially following the shift in United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scoring to a pass/fail format.^1,2 Historically, USMLE Step 1 served as a major screening metric for residency programs, with 90% of program directors in 2020 using USMLE Step 1 scores as a primary factor when deciding whether to invite applicants for interviews.¹ However, the recent transition to pass/fail has made it much harder for program directors to objectively compare applicants, particularly in dermatology. In a 2020 survey, Patrinely Jr et al² found that 77.2% of dermatology program directors agreed that this change would make it more difficult to assess candidates objectively. Consequently, research productivity has taken on greater importance as programs seek new ways to distinguish top applicants.^1,2

In response to this increased emphasis on research, dermatology applicants have substantially boosted their scholarly output over the past several years. The 2022 and 2024 results from the National Residency Matching Program’s Charting Outcomes survey demonstrated a steady rise in research metrics among applicants across various specialties, with dermatology showing one of the largest increases.^3,4 For instance, the average number of abstracts, presentations, and publications for matched allopathic dermatology applicants was 5.7 in 2007.⁵ This average increased to 20.9 in 2022³ and to 27.7 in 2024,⁴ marking an astonishing 485% increase in 17 years. Interestingly, unmatched dermatology applicants had an average of 19.0 research products in 2024, which was similar to the average of successfully matched applicants just 2 years earlier.^3,4

Engaging in research offers benefits beyond building a strong residency application. Specifically, it enhances critical thinking skills and provides hands-on experience in scientific inquiry.⁶ It allows students to explore dermatology topics of interest and address existing knowledge gaps within the specialty.⁶ Additionally, it creates opportunities to build meaningful relationships with experienced dermatologists who can guide and support students throughout their careers.⁷ Despite these benefits, the pursuit of research may be landscaped with obstacles, and the fervent race to obtain high research outputs may overshadow developmental advantages.⁸ These challenges and demands also could contribute to inequities in the residency selection process, particularly if barriers are influenced by socioeconomic and demographic disparities. As dermatology already ranks as the second least diverse specialty in medicine,⁹ research requirements that disproportionately disadvantage certain demographic groups risk further widening these concerning representation gaps rather than creating opportunities to address them.

Given these trends in research requirements and their potential impact on applicant success, understanding specific barriers to research engagement is essential for creating equitable opportunities in dermatology. In this study, we aimed to identify barriers to research engagement among dermatology applicants, analyze their relationship with demographic factors, assess their impact on specialty choice and research productivity, and provide actionable solutions to address these obstacles.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted targeting medical students applying to dermatology residency programs in the United States in the 2025 or 2026 match cycles as well as residents who applied to dermatology residency in the 2021 to 2024 match cycles. The 23-item survey was developed by adapting questions from several validated studies examining research barriers and experiences in medical education.^6,7,10,11 Specifically, the survey included questions on demographics and background; research productivity; general research barriers; conference participation accessibility; mentorship access; and quality, career impact, and support needs. Socioeconomic background was measured via a single self-reported item asking participants to select the income class that best reflected their background growing up (low-income, lower-middle, upper-middle, or high-income); no income ranges were provided.

The survey was distributed electronically via Qualtrics between November 11, 2024, and December 30, 2024, through listserves of the Dermatology Interest Group Association (sent directly to medical students) and the Association of Professors of Dermatology (forwarded to residents by program directors). There was no way to determine the number of dermatology applicants and residents reached through either listserve. The surveys were reviewed and approved by the University of Alabama at Birmingham institutional review board (IRB-300013671).

Statistical analyses were conducted using RStudio (Posit, PBC; version 2024.12.0+467). Descriptive statistics characterized participant demographics and quantified barrier scores using frequencies and proportions. We performed regression analyses to examine relationships between demographic factors and barriers using linear regression; the relationship between barriers and research productivity correlation; and the prediction of specialty change consideration using logistic regression. For all analyses, barrier scores were rated on a scale of 0 to 3 (0=not a barrier, 1=minor barrier, 2=moderate barrier, 3=major barrier); R² values were reported to indicate strength of associations, and statistical significance was set at P<.05.

Results

Participant Demographics—A total of 136 participants completed the survey. Among the respondents, 12% identified as from a background of low-income class, 28% lower-middle class, 49% upper-middle class, and 11% high-income class. Additionally, 27% of respondents identified as underrepresented in medicine (URiM). Regarding debt levels (or expected debt levels) upon graduation from medical school, 32% reported no debt, 9% reported $1000 to $49,000 in debt, 5% reported $50,000 to $99,000 in debt, 15% reported $100,000 to $199,000 in debt, 22% reported $200,000 to $299,000 in debt, and 17% reported $300,000 in debt or higher. The majority of respondents (95%) were MD candidates, and the remaining 5% were DO candidates; additionally, 5% were participants in an MD/PhD program (eTable 1).

Respondents represented various stages of training: 13.2% and 16.2% were third- and fourth-year medical students, respectively, while 6.0%, 20.1%, 18.4%, and 22.8% were postgraduate year (PGY) 1, PGY-2, PGY-3, and PGY-4, respectively. A few respondents (2.9%) were participating in a research year or reapplying to dermatology residency (eTable 2).

Research Barriers and Productivity—Respondents were presented with a list of potential barriers and asked to rate each as not a barrier, a minor barrier, a moderate barrier, or a major barrier. The most common barriers (ie, those with >50% of respondents rating them as a moderate or major) included lack of time, limited access to research opportunities, not knowing how to begin research, and lack of mentorship or support. Lack of time and not knowing where to begin research were reported most frequently as major barriers, with 32% of participants identifying them as such. In contrast, barriers such as financial costs and personal obligations were less frequently rated as major barriers (10% and 4%, respectively), although they still were identified as obstacles by many respondents. Interestingly, most respondents (58%) indicated that institutional limitations were not a barrier, but a separate and sizeable proportion (25%) of respondents considered it to be a major barrier (eFigure 1).

The distributions for all research metrics were right-skewed. The total range was 0 to 45 (median, 6) for number of publications (excluding abstracts), 0 to 33 (median, 2) for published abstracts, 0 to 40 (median, 5) for poster publications, and 0 to 20 (median, 2) for oral presentations (eTable 3).

Regression Analysis—Linear regression analysis identified significant relationships between demographic variables (socioeconomic status [SES], URiM status, and debt level) and individual research barriers. The heatmap in eFigure 2 illustrates the strength of these relationships. Higher SES was predictive of lower reported financial barriers (R²=.2317; P<.0001) and lower reported institutional limitations (R²=.0884; P=.0006). A URiM status predicted higher reported financial barriers (R²=.1097; P<.0001) and institutional limitations (R²=.04537; P=.013). Also, higher debt level predicted increased financial barriers (R²=.2099; P<.0001), institutional limitations (R²=.1258; P<.0001), and lack of mentorship (R²=.06553; P=.003).

Next, the data were evaluated for correlative relationships between individual research barriers and research productivity metrics including number of publications, published abstracts and presentations (oral and poster) and total research output. While correlations were weak or nonsignificant between barriers and most research productivity metrics (published abstracts, oral and poster presentations, and total research output), the number of publications was significantly correlated with several research barriers, including limited access to research opportunities (P=.002), not knowing how to begin research (P=.025), lack of mentorship or support (P=.011), and institutional limitations (P=.042). Higher ratings for limited access to research opportunities, not knowing where to begin research, lack of mentorship or support, and institutional limitations all were negatively correlated with total number of publications (R²=−.27, –.19, −.22, and –.18, respectively)(eFigure 3).

Logistic regression analysis examined the impact of research barriers on the likelihood of specialty change consideration. The results, presented in a forest plot, include odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% CIs and P values. Lack of time (P=.001) and not knowing where to begin research (P<.001) were the strongest predictors of specialty change consideration (OR, 6.3 and 4.7, ­respectively). Financial cost (P=.043), limited access to research opportunities (P=.006), and lack of mentorship or support (P=.001) also were significant predictors of specialty change consideration (OR, 2.2, 3.1, and 3.5, respectively). Institutional limitations and personal obligations did not predict specialty change consideration (eTable 4 and eFigure 4).

Mitigation Strategies—Mitigation strategies were ranked by respondents based on their perceived importance on a scale of 1 to 7 (1=most important, 7=least important)(eFigure 5). Respondents considered access to engaged mentors to be the most important mitigation strategy by far, with 95% ranking it in the top 3 (47% of respondents ranked it as the top most important mitigation strategy). Financial assistance was the mitigation strategy with the second highest number of respondents (28%) ranking it as the top strategy. Flexible scheduling during rotations, research training programs or discussions, and peer networking and research collaboration opportunities also were considered by respondents to be important mitigation strategies. Time management support/resources frequently was viewed as the least important mitigation strategy, with 38% of respondents ranking it last.

Comment

Our study revealed notable disparities in research barriers among dermatology applicants, with several demonstrating consistent patterns of association with SES, URiM status, and debt burden. Furthermore, the strong relationship between these barriers and decreased research productivity and specialty change consideration suggests that capable candidates may be deterred from pursuing dermatology due to surmountable obstacles rather than lack of interest or ability.

Impact of Demographic Factors on Research Barriers—All 7 general research barriers surveyed were correlated with distinct demographic predictors. Regression analyses indicated that the barrier of financial cost was significantly predicted by lower SES (R²=.2317; P<.001), URiM status (R²=.1097; P<.001), and higher debt levels (R²=.2099; P<.001)(eFigure 2). These findings are particularly concerning given the trend of dermatology applicants pursuing 1-year research fellowships, many of which are unpaid.¹² In fact, Jacobson et al¹¹ found that 71.7% (43/60) of dermatology applicants who pursued a year-long research fellowship experienced financial strain during their fellowship, with many requiring additional loans or drawing from personal savings despite already carrying substantial medical school debt of $200,000 or more. Our findings showcase how financial barriers to research disproportionately affect students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, those who identify as URiM, and those with higher debt, creating systemic inequities in research access at a time when research productivity is increasingly vital for matching into dermatology. To address these financial barriers, institutions may consider establishing more funded research fellowships or expanding grant programs targeting students from economically disadvantaged and/or underrepresented backgrounds.

Institutional limitations (eg, the absence of a dermatology department) also was a notable barrier that was significantly predicted by lower SES (R²=.0884; P<.001) and URiM status (R²=.04537; P=.013)(eFigure 2). Students at institutions lacking dermatology programs face restricted access to mentorship and research opportunities,¹³ with our results demonstrating that these barriers disproportionately affect students from underresourced and minority groups. These limitations compound disparities in building competitive residency applications.¹⁴ The Women’s Dermatologic Society (WDS) has developed a model for addressing these institutional barriers through its summer research fellowship program for medical students who identify as URiM. By pairing students with WDS mentors who guide them through summer research projects, this initiative addresses access and mentorship gaps for students lacking dermatology departments at their home institution.¹⁵ The WDS program serves as a model for other organizations to adopt and expand, with particular attention to including students who identify as URiM as well as those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Our results identified time constraints and lack of experience as notable research barriers. Higher debt levels significantly predicted both lack of time (R²=.03915; P=.021) and not knowing how to begin research (R²=.0572; P=.005)(eFigure 2). These statistical relationships may be explained by students with higher debt levels needing to prioritize paid work over unpaid research opportunities, limiting their engagement in research due to the scarcity of funded positions.¹² The data further revealed that personal obligations, particularly family care responsibilities, were significantly predicted by both lower SES (R²=.0539; P=.008) and higher debt level (R²=.03237; P=.036)(eFigure 2). These findings demonstrate how students managing academic demands alongside financial and familial responsibilities may face compounded barriers to research engagement. To address these disparities, medical schools may consider implementing protected research time within their curricula; for example, the Emory University School of Medicine (Atlanta, Georgia) has implemented a Discovery Phase program that provides students with 5 months of protected faculty-mentored research time away from academic demands between their third and fourth years of medical school.¹⁶ Integrating similarly structured research periods across medical school curricula could help ensure equitable research opportunities for all students pursuing competitive specialties such as dermatology.⁸

Access to mentorship is a critical determinant of research engagement and productivity, as mentors provide valuable guidance on navigating research processes and professional development.¹⁷ Our analysis revealed that lack of mentorship was predicted by both lower SES (R²=.039; P=.023) and higher debt level (R²=.06553; P=.003)(eFigure 2). Several organizations have developed programs to address these mentorship gaps. The Skin of Color Society pairs medical students with skin of color experts while advancing its mission of increasing diversity in dermatology.¹⁸ Similarly, the American Academy of Dermatology founded a diversity mentorship program that connects students who identify as URiM with dermatologist mentors for summer research experiences.¹⁹ Notably, the Skin of Color Society’s program allows residents to serve as mentors for medical students. Involving residents and community dermatologists as potential dermatology mentors for medical students not only distributes mentorship demands more sustainably but also increases overall access to dermatology mentors. Our findings indicate that similar programs could be expanded to include more residents and community dermatologists as mentors and to target students from disadvantaged backgrounds, those facing financial constraints, and students who identify as URiM. 

Impact of Research Barriers on Career Trajectories—Among survey participants, 35% reported considering changing their specialty choice due to research-related barriers. This substantial percentage likely stems from the escalating pressure to achieve increasingly high research output amidst a lack of sufficient support, time, or tools, as our results suggest. The specific barriers that most notably predicted specialty change consideration were lack of time and not knowing how to begin research (P=.001 and P<.001, respectively). Remarkably, our findings revealed that respondents who rated these as moderate or major barriers were 6.3 and 4.7 times more likely to consider changing their specialty choice, respectively. Respondents reporting financial cost (P=.043), limited access to research opportunities (P=.006), and lack of mentorship or support (P=.001) as at least moderate barriers also were 2.2 to 3.5 times more likely to consider a specialty change (eTable 4 and eFigure 4). Additionally, barriers such as limited access to research opportunities (R²=−.27; P=.002), lack of mentorship (R²=−.22; P=.011), not knowing how to begin research (R²=−.19; P=.025), and institutional limitations (R²=−.18; P=.042) all were associated with lower publication output according to our data (eFigure 3). These findings are especially concerning given current match statistics, where the trajectory of research productivity required for a successful dermatology match continues to rise sharply.^3,4

Alarmingly, many of the barriers we identified—linked to both reduced research output and specialty change consideration—are associated with several demographic factors. Higher debt levels predicted greater likelihood of experiencing lack of time, insufficient mentorship, and uncertainty about initiating research, while lower SES was associated with lack of mentorship. These relationships suggest that structural barriers, rather than lack of interest or ability, may create cumulative disadvantages that deter capable candidates from pursuing dermatology or impact their success in the application process.

One potential solution to address the disproportionate emphasis on research quantity would be implementing caps on reportable research products in residency applications (eg, limiting applications to a certain number of publications, abstracts, and presentations). This change could shift applicant focus toward substantive scientific contributions rather than rapid output accumulation.⁸ The need for such caps was evident in our dataset, which revealed a stark contrast: some respondents reported 30 to 40 publications, while MD/PhD respondents—who dedicate 3 to 5 years to performing quality research—averaged only 7.4 publications. Implementing a research output ceiling could help alleviate barriers for applicants facing institutional and demographic disadvantages while simultaneously boosting the scientific rigor of dermatology research.⁸

Mitigation Strategies From Applicant Feedback—Our findings emphasize the multifaceted relationship between structural barriers and demographics in dermatology research engagement. While our statistical interpretations have outlined several potential interventions, the applicants’ perspectives on mitigation strategies offer qualitative insight. Although participants did not consistently mark financial cost and lack of mentorship as major barriers (eFigure 1), financial assistance and access to engaged mentors were among the highest-ranked mitigation strategies (eFigure 5), suggesting these resources may be fundamental to overcoming multiple structural challenges. To address these needs comprehensively, we propose a multilevel approach: at the institutional level, dermatology interest groups could establish centralized databases of research opportunities, mentorship programs, and funding sources. At the national level, dermatology organizations could consider expanding grant programs, developing virtual mentorship networks, and creating opportunities for external students through remote research projects or short-term research rotations. These interventions, informed by both our statistical analyses and applicant feedback, could help create more equitable access to research opportunities in dermatology.

Limitations

A major limitation of this study was that potential dermatology candidates who were deterred by barriers and later decided on a different specialty would not be captured in our data. As these candidates may have faced substantial barriers that caused them to choose a different path, their absence from the current data may indicate that the reported results underpredict the effect size of the true population. Another limitation is the absence of a control group, such as applicants to less competitive specialties, which would provide valuable context for whether the barriers identified are unique to dermatology.

Conclusion

Our study provides compelling evidence that research barriers in dermatology residency applications intersect with demographic factors to influence research engagement and career trajectories. Our findings suggest that without targeted intervention, increasing emphasis on research productivity may exacerbate existing disparities in dermatology. Moving forward, a coordinated effort among institutions, dermatology associations, and dermatology residency programs will be fundamental to ensure that research requirements enhance rather than impede the development of a diverse, qualified dermatology workforce.

As one of the most competitive specialties in medicine, dermatology presents unique challenges for residency applicants, especially following the shift in United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scoring to a pass/fail format.^1,2 Historically, USMLE Step 1 served as a major screening metric for residency programs, with 90% of program directors in 2020 using USMLE Step 1 scores as a primary factor when deciding whether to invite applicants for interviews.¹ However, the recent transition to pass/fail has made it much harder for program directors to objectively compare applicants, particularly in dermatology. In a 2020 survey, Patrinely Jr et al² found that 77.2% of dermatology program directors agreed that this change would make it more difficult to assess candidates objectively. Consequently, research productivity has taken on greater importance as programs seek new ways to distinguish top applicants.^1,2

In response to this increased emphasis on research, dermatology applicants have substantially boosted their scholarly output over the past several years. The 2022 and 2024 results from the National Residency Matching Program’s Charting Outcomes survey demonstrated a steady rise in research metrics among applicants across various specialties, with dermatology showing one of the largest increases.^3,4 For instance, the average number of abstracts, presentations, and publications for matched allopathic dermatology applicants was 5.7 in 2007.⁵ This average increased to 20.9 in 2022³ and to 27.7 in 2024,⁴ marking an astonishing 485% increase in 17 years. Interestingly, unmatched dermatology applicants had an average of 19.0 research products in 2024, which was similar to the average of successfully matched applicants just 2 years earlier.^3,4

Engaging in research offers benefits beyond building a strong residency application. Specifically, it enhances critical thinking skills and provides hands-on experience in scientific inquiry.⁶ It allows students to explore dermatology topics of interest and address existing knowledge gaps within the specialty.⁶ Additionally, it creates opportunities to build meaningful relationships with experienced dermatologists who can guide and support students throughout their careers.⁷ Despite these benefits, the pursuit of research may be landscaped with obstacles, and the fervent race to obtain high research outputs may overshadow developmental advantages.⁸ These challenges and demands also could contribute to inequities in the residency selection process, particularly if barriers are influenced by socioeconomic and demographic disparities. As dermatology already ranks as the second least diverse specialty in medicine,⁹ research requirements that disproportionately disadvantage certain demographic groups risk further widening these concerning representation gaps rather than creating opportunities to address them.

Given these trends in research requirements and their potential impact on applicant success, understanding specific barriers to research engagement is essential for creating equitable opportunities in dermatology. In this study, we aimed to identify barriers to research engagement among dermatology applicants, analyze their relationship with demographic factors, assess their impact on specialty choice and research productivity, and provide actionable solutions to address these obstacles.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted targeting medical students applying to dermatology residency programs in the United States in the 2025 or 2026 match cycles as well as residents who applied to dermatology residency in the 2021 to 2024 match cycles. The 23-item survey was developed by adapting questions from several validated studies examining research barriers and experiences in medical education.^6,7,10,11 Specifically, the survey included questions on demographics and background; research productivity; general research barriers; conference participation accessibility; mentorship access; and quality, career impact, and support needs. Socioeconomic background was measured via a single self-reported item asking participants to select the income class that best reflected their background growing up (low-income, lower-middle, upper-middle, or high-income); no income ranges were provided.

The survey was distributed electronically via Qualtrics between November 11, 2024, and December 30, 2024, through listserves of the Dermatology Interest Group Association (sent directly to medical students) and the Association of Professors of Dermatology (forwarded to residents by program directors). There was no way to determine the number of dermatology applicants and residents reached through either listserve. The surveys were reviewed and approved by the University of Alabama at Birmingham institutional review board (IRB-300013671).

Statistical analyses were conducted using RStudio (Posit, PBC; version 2024.12.0+467). Descriptive statistics characterized participant demographics and quantified barrier scores using frequencies and proportions. We performed regression analyses to examine relationships between demographic factors and barriers using linear regression; the relationship between barriers and research productivity correlation; and the prediction of specialty change consideration using logistic regression. For all analyses, barrier scores were rated on a scale of 0 to 3 (0=not a barrier, 1=minor barrier, 2=moderate barrier, 3=major barrier); R² values were reported to indicate strength of associations, and statistical significance was set at P<.05.

Results

Participant Demographics—A total of 136 participants completed the survey. Among the respondents, 12% identified as from a background of low-income class, 28% lower-middle class, 49% upper-middle class, and 11% high-income class. Additionally, 27% of respondents identified as underrepresented in medicine (URiM). Regarding debt levels (or expected debt levels) upon graduation from medical school, 32% reported no debt, 9% reported $1000 to $49,000 in debt, 5% reported $50,000 to $99,000 in debt, 15% reported $100,000 to $199,000 in debt, 22% reported $200,000 to $299,000 in debt, and 17% reported $300,000 in debt or higher. The majority of respondents (95%) were MD candidates, and the remaining 5% were DO candidates; additionally, 5% were participants in an MD/PhD program (eTable 1).

Respondents represented various stages of training: 13.2% and 16.2% were third- and fourth-year medical students, respectively, while 6.0%, 20.1%, 18.4%, and 22.8% were postgraduate year (PGY) 1, PGY-2, PGY-3, and PGY-4, respectively. A few respondents (2.9%) were participating in a research year or reapplying to dermatology residency (eTable 2).

Research Barriers and Productivity—Respondents were presented with a list of potential barriers and asked to rate each as not a barrier, a minor barrier, a moderate barrier, or a major barrier. The most common barriers (ie, those with >50% of respondents rating them as a moderate or major) included lack of time, limited access to research opportunities, not knowing how to begin research, and lack of mentorship or support. Lack of time and not knowing where to begin research were reported most frequently as major barriers, with 32% of participants identifying them as such. In contrast, barriers such as financial costs and personal obligations were less frequently rated as major barriers (10% and 4%, respectively), although they still were identified as obstacles by many respondents. Interestingly, most respondents (58%) indicated that institutional limitations were not a barrier, but a separate and sizeable proportion (25%) of respondents considered it to be a major barrier (eFigure 1).

The distributions for all research metrics were right-skewed. The total range was 0 to 45 (median, 6) for number of publications (excluding abstracts), 0 to 33 (median, 2) for published abstracts, 0 to 40 (median, 5) for poster publications, and 0 to 20 (median, 2) for oral presentations (eTable 3).

Regression Analysis—Linear regression analysis identified significant relationships between demographic variables (socioeconomic status [SES], URiM status, and debt level) and individual research barriers. The heatmap in eFigure 2 illustrates the strength of these relationships. Higher SES was predictive of lower reported financial barriers (R²=.2317; P<.0001) and lower reported institutional limitations (R²=.0884; P=.0006). A URiM status predicted higher reported financial barriers (R²=.1097; P<.0001) and institutional limitations (R²=.04537; P=.013). Also, higher debt level predicted increased financial barriers (R²=.2099; P<.0001), institutional limitations (R²=.1258; P<.0001), and lack of mentorship (R²=.06553; P=.003).

Next, the data were evaluated for correlative relationships between individual research barriers and research productivity metrics including number of publications, published abstracts and presentations (oral and poster) and total research output. While correlations were weak or nonsignificant between barriers and most research productivity metrics (published abstracts, oral and poster presentations, and total research output), the number of publications was significantly correlated with several research barriers, including limited access to research opportunities (P=.002), not knowing how to begin research (P=.025), lack of mentorship or support (P=.011), and institutional limitations (P=.042). Higher ratings for limited access to research opportunities, not knowing where to begin research, lack of mentorship or support, and institutional limitations all were negatively correlated with total number of publications (R²=−.27, –.19, −.22, and –.18, respectively)(eFigure 3).

Logistic regression analysis examined the impact of research barriers on the likelihood of specialty change consideration. The results, presented in a forest plot, include odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% CIs and P values. Lack of time (P=.001) and not knowing where to begin research (P<.001) were the strongest predictors of specialty change consideration (OR, 6.3 and 4.7, ­respectively). Financial cost (P=.043), limited access to research opportunities (P=.006), and lack of mentorship or support (P=.001) also were significant predictors of specialty change consideration (OR, 2.2, 3.1, and 3.5, respectively). Institutional limitations and personal obligations did not predict specialty change consideration (eTable 4 and eFigure 4).

Mitigation Strategies—Mitigation strategies were ranked by respondents based on their perceived importance on a scale of 1 to 7 (1=most important, 7=least important)(eFigure 5). Respondents considered access to engaged mentors to be the most important mitigation strategy by far, with 95% ranking it in the top 3 (47% of respondents ranked it as the top most important mitigation strategy). Financial assistance was the mitigation strategy with the second highest number of respondents (28%) ranking it as the top strategy. Flexible scheduling during rotations, research training programs or discussions, and peer networking and research collaboration opportunities also were considered by respondents to be important mitigation strategies. Time management support/resources frequently was viewed as the least important mitigation strategy, with 38% of respondents ranking it last.

Comment

Our study revealed notable disparities in research barriers among dermatology applicants, with several demonstrating consistent patterns of association with SES, URiM status, and debt burden. Furthermore, the strong relationship between these barriers and decreased research productivity and specialty change consideration suggests that capable candidates may be deterred from pursuing dermatology due to surmountable obstacles rather than lack of interest or ability.

Impact of Demographic Factors on Research Barriers—All 7 general research barriers surveyed were correlated with distinct demographic predictors. Regression analyses indicated that the barrier of financial cost was significantly predicted by lower SES (R²=.2317; P<.001), URiM status (R²=.1097; P<.001), and higher debt levels (R²=.2099; P<.001)(eFigure 2). These findings are particularly concerning given the trend of dermatology applicants pursuing 1-year research fellowships, many of which are unpaid.¹² In fact, Jacobson et al¹¹ found that 71.7% (43/60) of dermatology applicants who pursued a year-long research fellowship experienced financial strain during their fellowship, with many requiring additional loans or drawing from personal savings despite already carrying substantial medical school debt of $200,000 or more. Our findings showcase how financial barriers to research disproportionately affect students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, those who identify as URiM, and those with higher debt, creating systemic inequities in research access at a time when research productivity is increasingly vital for matching into dermatology. To address these financial barriers, institutions may consider establishing more funded research fellowships or expanding grant programs targeting students from economically disadvantaged and/or underrepresented backgrounds.

Institutional limitations (eg, the absence of a dermatology department) also was a notable barrier that was significantly predicted by lower SES (R²=.0884; P<.001) and URiM status (R²=.04537; P=.013)(eFigure 2). Students at institutions lacking dermatology programs face restricted access to mentorship and research opportunities,¹³ with our results demonstrating that these barriers disproportionately affect students from underresourced and minority groups. These limitations compound disparities in building competitive residency applications.¹⁴ The Women’s Dermatologic Society (WDS) has developed a model for addressing these institutional barriers through its summer research fellowship program for medical students who identify as URiM. By pairing students with WDS mentors who guide them through summer research projects, this initiative addresses access and mentorship gaps for students lacking dermatology departments at their home institution.¹⁵ The WDS program serves as a model for other organizations to adopt and expand, with particular attention to including students who identify as URiM as well as those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Our results identified time constraints and lack of experience as notable research barriers. Higher debt levels significantly predicted both lack of time (R²=.03915; P=.021) and not knowing how to begin research (R²=.0572; P=.005)(eFigure 2). These statistical relationships may be explained by students with higher debt levels needing to prioritize paid work over unpaid research opportunities, limiting their engagement in research due to the scarcity of funded positions.¹² The data further revealed that personal obligations, particularly family care responsibilities, were significantly predicted by both lower SES (R²=.0539; P=.008) and higher debt level (R²=.03237; P=.036)(eFigure 2). These findings demonstrate how students managing academic demands alongside financial and familial responsibilities may face compounded barriers to research engagement. To address these disparities, medical schools may consider implementing protected research time within their curricula; for example, the Emory University School of Medicine (Atlanta, Georgia) has implemented a Discovery Phase program that provides students with 5 months of protected faculty-mentored research time away from academic demands between their third and fourth years of medical school.¹⁶ Integrating similarly structured research periods across medical school curricula could help ensure equitable research opportunities for all students pursuing competitive specialties such as dermatology.⁸

Access to mentorship is a critical determinant of research engagement and productivity, as mentors provide valuable guidance on navigating research processes and professional development.¹⁷ Our analysis revealed that lack of mentorship was predicted by both lower SES (R²=.039; P=.023) and higher debt level (R²=.06553; P=.003)(eFigure 2). Several organizations have developed programs to address these mentorship gaps. The Skin of Color Society pairs medical students with skin of color experts while advancing its mission of increasing diversity in dermatology.¹⁸ Similarly, the American Academy of Dermatology founded a diversity mentorship program that connects students who identify as URiM with dermatologist mentors for summer research experiences.¹⁹ Notably, the Skin of Color Society’s program allows residents to serve as mentors for medical students. Involving residents and community dermatologists as potential dermatology mentors for medical students not only distributes mentorship demands more sustainably but also increases overall access to dermatology mentors. Our findings indicate that similar programs could be expanded to include more residents and community dermatologists as mentors and to target students from disadvantaged backgrounds, those facing financial constraints, and students who identify as URiM. 

Impact of Research Barriers on Career Trajectories—Among survey participants, 35% reported considering changing their specialty choice due to research-related barriers. This substantial percentage likely stems from the escalating pressure to achieve increasingly high research output amidst a lack of sufficient support, time, or tools, as our results suggest. The specific barriers that most notably predicted specialty change consideration were lack of time and not knowing how to begin research (P=.001 and P<.001, respectively). Remarkably, our findings revealed that respondents who rated these as moderate or major barriers were 6.3 and 4.7 times more likely to consider changing their specialty choice, respectively. Respondents reporting financial cost (P=.043), limited access to research opportunities (P=.006), and lack of mentorship or support (P=.001) as at least moderate barriers also were 2.2 to 3.5 times more likely to consider a specialty change (eTable 4 and eFigure 4). Additionally, barriers such as limited access to research opportunities (R²=−.27; P=.002), lack of mentorship (R²=−.22; P=.011), not knowing how to begin research (R²=−.19; P=.025), and institutional limitations (R²=−.18; P=.042) all were associated with lower publication output according to our data (eFigure 3). These findings are especially concerning given current match statistics, where the trajectory of research productivity required for a successful dermatology match continues to rise sharply.^3,4

Alarmingly, many of the barriers we identified—linked to both reduced research output and specialty change consideration—are associated with several demographic factors. Higher debt levels predicted greater likelihood of experiencing lack of time, insufficient mentorship, and uncertainty about initiating research, while lower SES was associated with lack of mentorship. These relationships suggest that structural barriers, rather than lack of interest or ability, may create cumulative disadvantages that deter capable candidates from pursuing dermatology or impact their success in the application process.

One potential solution to address the disproportionate emphasis on research quantity would be implementing caps on reportable research products in residency applications (eg, limiting applications to a certain number of publications, abstracts, and presentations). This change could shift applicant focus toward substantive scientific contributions rather than rapid output accumulation.⁸ The need for such caps was evident in our dataset, which revealed a stark contrast: some respondents reported 30 to 40 publications, while MD/PhD respondents—who dedicate 3 to 5 years to performing quality research—averaged only 7.4 publications. Implementing a research output ceiling could help alleviate barriers for applicants facing institutional and demographic disadvantages while simultaneously boosting the scientific rigor of dermatology research.⁸

Mitigation Strategies From Applicant Feedback—Our findings emphasize the multifaceted relationship between structural barriers and demographics in dermatology research engagement. While our statistical interpretations have outlined several potential interventions, the applicants’ perspectives on mitigation strategies offer qualitative insight. Although participants did not consistently mark financial cost and lack of mentorship as major barriers (eFigure 1), financial assistance and access to engaged mentors were among the highest-ranked mitigation strategies (eFigure 5), suggesting these resources may be fundamental to overcoming multiple structural challenges. To address these needs comprehensively, we propose a multilevel approach: at the institutional level, dermatology interest groups could establish centralized databases of research opportunities, mentorship programs, and funding sources. At the national level, dermatology organizations could consider expanding grant programs, developing virtual mentorship networks, and creating opportunities for external students through remote research projects or short-term research rotations. These interventions, informed by both our statistical analyses and applicant feedback, could help create more equitable access to research opportunities in dermatology.

Limitations

A major limitation of this study was that potential dermatology candidates who were deterred by barriers and later decided on a different specialty would not be captured in our data. As these candidates may have faced substantial barriers that caused them to choose a different path, their absence from the current data may indicate that the reported results underpredict the effect size of the true population. Another limitation is the absence of a control group, such as applicants to less competitive specialties, which would provide valuable context for whether the barriers identified are unique to dermatology.

Conclusion

Our study provides compelling evidence that research barriers in dermatology residency applications intersect with demographic factors to influence research engagement and career trajectories. Our findings suggest that without targeted intervention, increasing emphasis on research productivity may exacerbate existing disparities in dermatology. Moving forward, a coordinated effort among institutions, dermatology associations, and dermatology residency programs will be fundamental to ensure that research requirements enhance rather than impede the development of a diverse, qualified dermatology workforce.

Cydnidae is a family of small to medium-sized shield bugs with spiny legs that commonly are known as burrowing bugs (or burrower bugs). The family Cydnidae includes more than 100 genera and approximately 600 species worldwide.¹ These insects are arthropods of the order Hemiptera (suborder: Heteroptera; superfamily: Pentatomoidae) and largely are concentrated in tropical and temperate regions. Approximately 145 species have been recorded in the Neotropical Region and have been included in the subfamilies Amnestinae, Cephalocteinae, and Sehirinae, in addition to Cydnidae.² Burrowing bugs are ovoid in shape and 2 to 20 mm in length and morphologically are well adapted for burrowing. Their life span is 100 to 300 days. Being phytophagous, they burrow to feed on plants and roots. Adult burrowing bugs have wings and can fly. They have specialized glands located in either the abdomen (nymph) or thorax (adult) that secrete odorous chemicals for self-protection.³ The secretions contain hydrocarbonates that function as repellents and danger signals, can cause paralysis in prey, and act as a chemoattractant for mates.^4-6 They also cause hyperpigmentation upon contact with the skin.

In this article, we present a series of cases from the same community to demonstrate the characteristic features of hyperpigmented macules caused by exposure to burrowing bugs. Dermatologists should be aware of this entity to prevent misdiagnosis and unnecessary investigations and treatment.

Case Series

A 36-year-old woman and 6 children (age range, 6-12 years) presented with a widespread, acute, brown-pigmented, macular eruption with lesions that increased in number over a 1-week period. All 7 patients resided in the same locality and were otherwise systemically healthy. Initially, the index case, a 7-year-old girl, was referred to our tertiary care center by a dermatologist with a provisional diagnosis of idiopathic macular eruptive pigmentation. The patient’s mother recalled noticing a tiny black insect on the child's scalp that left pigment on the skin when she crushed it between her fingers. The rest of the patients presented over the next few days: 3 of the children belonged to the same household as the index case, and there was history of all 6 children playing in the neighborhood park during late evening hours. The adult patient was the parent of one of the affected children. The lesions were associated with mild itching and tingling in 3 children but were asymptomatic in the other patients.

Clinical examination of the patients revealed multiple dark- to light-brown, discrete, irregularly shaped macules over the trunk, arms, and soles (eFigure 1). Dermoscopic examination of a pigmented macule showed an irregularly shaped, brownish, structureless area with accentuation of the pigment at skin creases and perieccrine pigmentation (eFigure 2). The pigmentation was unaffected by rubbing with alcohol or water. Clinicoepidemiologic parameters of the patients are summarized in the eTable.

One of the children’s parents conducted a geological examination of the ground in the neighborhood park during evening hours and found tiny burrowing bugs (eFigure 3). When crushed between the fingers, these insects left a similar brownish hyperpigmentation on the skin. The parents were counseled on the nature of the eruption, and the patients were kept under observation for 2 weeks. On follow-up after 5 days, the lesions showed markedly decreased intensity of hyperpigmentation, and no new lesions were observed in any of the 7 patients.

Comment

Pentatomoidae insects generally are benign and harmless to humans. There have been isolated reports of erythematous plaques caused by Antiteuchus mixtus and Edessa maculate.⁷ Malhotra et al⁸ reported the first known series of cases with Cydnidae insect–induced hyperpigmented macules. The reported patients presented with asymptomatic, brown, hyperpigmented macules over exposed sites such as the feet, neck, and chest. All the cases occurred during the monsoon season in tropical and temperate regions of the world, and the patients were characteristically clustered in similar geographic areas. The causative insect was identified as Chilocoris assmuthi Breddin, 1904, belonging to the family Cydnidae. When it was crushed between the fingers, the skin became hyperpigmented, confirming the role of the secretions from the insect in the etiology.⁸

A second case was described by Sonthalia,⁹ who also described the dermoscopic features of hyperpigmented macules caused by burrowing bugs. The lesions showed a stuck-on, clustered appearance of ovoid and bizarre pigmented clods, globules, and granules.⁹ Although the lesions occur mainly over exposed sites, pigmented macules occurring over unusual sites such as the abdomen and back also have been reported in association with burrowing bugs.¹⁰ Characteristically, the lesions initially are faint and darken with time and usually fade within a week. They can be rubbed off with acetone but persist when washed with soap and water. The fleeting nature of the pigmentation also has led to the term transient pseudo-lentigines sign to describe hyperpigmentation caused by burrowing bugs.¹¹

Soil and plants are burrowing bugs’ natural habitats, and the insects typically are seen in vegetation-rich, moist areas adjoining human dwellings (eg, parks, gardens), where clusters of cases can occur. These insects proliferate during the monsoon season in tropical and temperate areas, leading to more cases occurring during these months. 

Compared to prior reports,^8,9 a few of our patients had predominant trunk and neck involvement with an occasional tingling sensation or pruritus while the rest were asymptomatic. Dermoscopic features from our patients shared similar reported features of Cydnidae pigmentation.^4,5 The accentuation of pigment over skin creases seen on dermoscopy was due to accumulation of Cydnidae secretion at these sites. 

The differential diagnosis commonly includes idiopathic macular eruptive pigmentation, which is characterized by an asymptomatic progressive eruption of hyperpigmented macules over the trunk that persists from a few months up to 3 years. Other conditions in the differential include benign conditions such as acral benign melanocytic nevi, lentigines, pigmented purpuric dermatosis, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, as well as malignant conditions such as acral melanoma. Dermoscopy is a helpful, easy-to-use tool in differentiating these pigmentation disorders, obviating the need for an invasive investigation such as histopathologic analysis. Simultaneous involvement in a group of people living together or visiting the same place, abrupt onset, predominant involvement of the exposed sites, characteristic clinical and dermoscopic features, self-limiting course, and timing with the monsoon season should suggest a possibility of Cydnidae dermatitis/pigmentation, which can be confirmed by finding the causative bug in the affected locality.

Management

No specific treatment is required for the pigmentation caused by Cydnidae, as it is self-resolving. The macules can, however, be removed with acetone. Patients must be counseled regarding the benign and fleeting nature of this condition, as the abrupt onset may alarm them of a systemic disease. Affected patients should be advised against walking barefoot in areas where the insects can be found. Spraying insecticides in the affected locality also helps to reduce the presence of burrowing bugs.

Cydnidae is a family of small to medium-sized shield bugs with spiny legs that commonly are known as burrowing bugs (or burrower bugs). The family Cydnidae includes more than 100 genera and approximately 600 species worldwide.¹ These insects are arthropods of the order Hemiptera (suborder: Heteroptera; superfamily: Pentatomoidae) and largely are concentrated in tropical and temperate regions. Approximately 145 species have been recorded in the Neotropical Region and have been included in the subfamilies Amnestinae, Cephalocteinae, and Sehirinae, in addition to Cydnidae.² Burrowing bugs are ovoid in shape and 2 to 20 mm in length and morphologically are well adapted for burrowing. Their life span is 100 to 300 days. Being phytophagous, they burrow to feed on plants and roots. Adult burrowing bugs have wings and can fly. They have specialized glands located in either the abdomen (nymph) or thorax (adult) that secrete odorous chemicals for self-protection.³ The secretions contain hydrocarbonates that function as repellents and danger signals, can cause paralysis in prey, and act as a chemoattractant for mates.^4-6 They also cause hyperpigmentation upon contact with the skin.

In this article, we present a series of cases from the same community to demonstrate the characteristic features of hyperpigmented macules caused by exposure to burrowing bugs. Dermatologists should be aware of this entity to prevent misdiagnosis and unnecessary investigations and treatment.

Case Series

A 36-year-old woman and 6 children (age range, 6-12 years) presented with a widespread, acute, brown-pigmented, macular eruption with lesions that increased in number over a 1-week period. All 7 patients resided in the same locality and were otherwise systemically healthy. Initially, the index case, a 7-year-old girl, was referred to our tertiary care center by a dermatologist with a provisional diagnosis of idiopathic macular eruptive pigmentation. The patient’s mother recalled noticing a tiny black insect on the child's scalp that left pigment on the skin when she crushed it between her fingers. The rest of the patients presented over the next few days: 3 of the children belonged to the same household as the index case, and there was history of all 6 children playing in the neighborhood park during late evening hours. The adult patient was the parent of one of the affected children. The lesions were associated with mild itching and tingling in 3 children but were asymptomatic in the other patients.

Clinical examination of the patients revealed multiple dark- to light-brown, discrete, irregularly shaped macules over the trunk, arms, and soles (eFigure 1). Dermoscopic examination of a pigmented macule showed an irregularly shaped, brownish, structureless area with accentuation of the pigment at skin creases and perieccrine pigmentation (eFigure 2). The pigmentation was unaffected by rubbing with alcohol or water. Clinicoepidemiologic parameters of the patients are summarized in the eTable.

One of the children’s parents conducted a geological examination of the ground in the neighborhood park during evening hours and found tiny burrowing bugs (eFigure 3). When crushed between the fingers, these insects left a similar brownish hyperpigmentation on the skin. The parents were counseled on the nature of the eruption, and the patients were kept under observation for 2 weeks. On follow-up after 5 days, the lesions showed markedly decreased intensity of hyperpigmentation, and no new lesions were observed in any of the 7 patients.

Comment

Pentatomoidae insects generally are benign and harmless to humans. There have been isolated reports of erythematous plaques caused by Antiteuchus mixtus and Edessa maculate.⁷ Malhotra et al⁸ reported the first known series of cases with Cydnidae insect–induced hyperpigmented macules. The reported patients presented with asymptomatic, brown, hyperpigmented macules over exposed sites such as the feet, neck, and chest. All the cases occurred during the monsoon season in tropical and temperate regions of the world, and the patients were characteristically clustered in similar geographic areas. The causative insect was identified as Chilocoris assmuthi Breddin, 1904, belonging to the family Cydnidae. When it was crushed between the fingers, the skin became hyperpigmented, confirming the role of the secretions from the insect in the etiology.⁸

A second case was described by Sonthalia,⁹ who also described the dermoscopic features of hyperpigmented macules caused by burrowing bugs. The lesions showed a stuck-on, clustered appearance of ovoid and bizarre pigmented clods, globules, and granules.⁹ Although the lesions occur mainly over exposed sites, pigmented macules occurring over unusual sites such as the abdomen and back also have been reported in association with burrowing bugs.¹⁰ Characteristically, the lesions initially are faint and darken with time and usually fade within a week. They can be rubbed off with acetone but persist when washed with soap and water. The fleeting nature of the pigmentation also has led to the term transient pseudo-lentigines sign to describe hyperpigmentation caused by burrowing bugs.¹¹

Soil and plants are burrowing bugs’ natural habitats, and the insects typically are seen in vegetation-rich, moist areas adjoining human dwellings (eg, parks, gardens), where clusters of cases can occur. These insects proliferate during the monsoon season in tropical and temperate areas, leading to more cases occurring during these months. 

Compared to prior reports,^8,9 a few of our patients had predominant trunk and neck involvement with an occasional tingling sensation or pruritus while the rest were asymptomatic. Dermoscopic features from our patients shared similar reported features of Cydnidae pigmentation.^4,5 The accentuation of pigment over skin creases seen on dermoscopy was due to accumulation of Cydnidae secretion at these sites. 

The differential diagnosis commonly includes idiopathic macular eruptive pigmentation, which is characterized by an asymptomatic progressive eruption of hyperpigmented macules over the trunk that persists from a few months up to 3 years. Other conditions in the differential include benign conditions such as acral benign melanocytic nevi, lentigines, pigmented purpuric dermatosis, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, as well as malignant conditions such as acral melanoma. Dermoscopy is a helpful, easy-to-use tool in differentiating these pigmentation disorders, obviating the need for an invasive investigation such as histopathologic analysis. Simultaneous involvement in a group of people living together or visiting the same place, abrupt onset, predominant involvement of the exposed sites, characteristic clinical and dermoscopic features, self-limiting course, and timing with the monsoon season should suggest a possibility of Cydnidae dermatitis/pigmentation, which can be confirmed by finding the causative bug in the affected locality.

Management

No specific treatment is required for the pigmentation caused by Cydnidae, as it is self-resolving. The macules can, however, be removed with acetone. Patients must be counseled regarding the benign and fleeting nature of this condition, as the abrupt onset may alarm them of a systemic disease. Affected patients should be advised against walking barefoot in areas where the insects can be found. Spraying insecticides in the affected locality also helps to reduce the presence of burrowing bugs.

Cydnidae is a family of small to medium-sized shield bugs with spiny legs that commonly are known as burrowing bugs (or burrower bugs). The family Cydnidae includes more than 100 genera and approximately 600 species worldwide.¹ These insects are arthropods of the order Hemiptera (suborder: Heteroptera; superfamily: Pentatomoidae) and largely are concentrated in tropical and temperate regions. Approximately 145 species have been recorded in the Neotropical Region and have been included in the subfamilies Amnestinae, Cephalocteinae, and Sehirinae, in addition to Cydnidae.² Burrowing bugs are ovoid in shape and 2 to 20 mm in length and morphologically are well adapted for burrowing. Their life span is 100 to 300 days. Being phytophagous, they burrow to feed on plants and roots. Adult burrowing bugs have wings and can fly. They have specialized glands located in either the abdomen (nymph) or thorax (adult) that secrete odorous chemicals for self-protection.³ The secretions contain hydrocarbonates that function as repellents and danger signals, can cause paralysis in prey, and act as a chemoattractant for mates.^4-6 They also cause hyperpigmentation upon contact with the skin.

In this article, we present a series of cases from the same community to demonstrate the characteristic features of hyperpigmented macules caused by exposure to burrowing bugs. Dermatologists should be aware of this entity to prevent misdiagnosis and unnecessary investigations and treatment.

Case Series

A 36-year-old woman and 6 children (age range, 6-12 years) presented with a widespread, acute, brown-pigmented, macular eruption with lesions that increased in number over a 1-week period. All 7 patients resided in the same locality and were otherwise systemically healthy. Initially, the index case, a 7-year-old girl, was referred to our tertiary care center by a dermatologist with a provisional diagnosis of idiopathic macular eruptive pigmentation. The patient’s mother recalled noticing a tiny black insect on the child's scalp that left pigment on the skin when she crushed it between her fingers. The rest of the patients presented over the next few days: 3 of the children belonged to the same household as the index case, and there was history of all 6 children playing in the neighborhood park during late evening hours. The adult patient was the parent of one of the affected children. The lesions were associated with mild itching and tingling in 3 children but were asymptomatic in the other patients.

Clinical examination of the patients revealed multiple dark- to light-brown, discrete, irregularly shaped macules over the trunk, arms, and soles (eFigure 1). Dermoscopic examination of a pigmented macule showed an irregularly shaped, brownish, structureless area with accentuation of the pigment at skin creases and perieccrine pigmentation (eFigure 2). The pigmentation was unaffected by rubbing with alcohol or water. Clinicoepidemiologic parameters of the patients are summarized in the eTable.

One of the children’s parents conducted a geological examination of the ground in the neighborhood park during evening hours and found tiny burrowing bugs (eFigure 3). When crushed between the fingers, these insects left a similar brownish hyperpigmentation on the skin. The parents were counseled on the nature of the eruption, and the patients were kept under observation for 2 weeks. On follow-up after 5 days, the lesions showed markedly decreased intensity of hyperpigmentation, and no new lesions were observed in any of the 7 patients.

Comment

Pentatomoidae insects generally are benign and harmless to humans. There have been isolated reports of erythematous plaques caused by Antiteuchus mixtus and Edessa maculate.⁷ Malhotra et al⁸ reported the first known series of cases with Cydnidae insect–induced hyperpigmented macules. The reported patients presented with asymptomatic, brown, hyperpigmented macules over exposed sites such as the feet, neck, and chest. All the cases occurred during the monsoon season in tropical and temperate regions of the world, and the patients were characteristically clustered in similar geographic areas. The causative insect was identified as Chilocoris assmuthi Breddin, 1904, belonging to the family Cydnidae. When it was crushed between the fingers, the skin became hyperpigmented, confirming the role of the secretions from the insect in the etiology.⁸

A second case was described by Sonthalia,⁹ who also described the dermoscopic features of hyperpigmented macules caused by burrowing bugs. The lesions showed a stuck-on, clustered appearance of ovoid and bizarre pigmented clods, globules, and granules.⁹ Although the lesions occur mainly over exposed sites, pigmented macules occurring over unusual sites such as the abdomen and back also have been reported in association with burrowing bugs.¹⁰ Characteristically, the lesions initially are faint and darken with time and usually fade within a week. They can be rubbed off with acetone but persist when washed with soap and water. The fleeting nature of the pigmentation also has led to the term transient pseudo-lentigines sign to describe hyperpigmentation caused by burrowing bugs.¹¹

Soil and plants are burrowing bugs’ natural habitats, and the insects typically are seen in vegetation-rich, moist areas adjoining human dwellings (eg, parks, gardens), where clusters of cases can occur. These insects proliferate during the monsoon season in tropical and temperate areas, leading to more cases occurring during these months. 

Compared to prior reports,^8,9 a few of our patients had predominant trunk and neck involvement with an occasional tingling sensation or pruritus while the rest were asymptomatic. Dermoscopic features from our patients shared similar reported features of Cydnidae pigmentation.^4,5 The accentuation of pigment over skin creases seen on dermoscopy was due to accumulation of Cydnidae secretion at these sites. 

The differential diagnosis commonly includes idiopathic macular eruptive pigmentation, which is characterized by an asymptomatic progressive eruption of hyperpigmented macules over the trunk that persists from a few months up to 3 years. Other conditions in the differential include benign conditions such as acral benign melanocytic nevi, lentigines, pigmented purpuric dermatosis, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, as well as malignant conditions such as acral melanoma. Dermoscopy is a helpful, easy-to-use tool in differentiating these pigmentation disorders, obviating the need for an invasive investigation such as histopathologic analysis. Simultaneous involvement in a group of people living together or visiting the same place, abrupt onset, predominant involvement of the exposed sites, characteristic clinical and dermoscopic features, self-limiting course, and timing with the monsoon season should suggest a possibility of Cydnidae dermatitis/pigmentation, which can be confirmed by finding the causative bug in the affected locality.

Management

No specific treatment is required for the pigmentation caused by Cydnidae, as it is self-resolving. The macules can, however, be removed with acetone. Patients must be counseled regarding the benign and fleeting nature of this condition, as the abrupt onset may alarm them of a systemic disease. Affected patients should be advised against walking barefoot in areas where the insects can be found. Spraying insecticides in the affected locality also helps to reduce the presence of burrowing bugs.

Molluscum contagiosum (MC), which is caused by a DNA virus in the Poxviridae family, is a common viral skin infection that primarily affects children.^1-4 The reported incidence and prevalence of MC exhibit notable geographic variation. Worldwide, annual incidence rates per 1000 individuals range from 3.1 to 25, and prevalence ranges from 0.27% to 34.6%.^2-7

Molluscum contagiosum is diagnosed clinically and typically manifests as smooth, flesh-colored papules measuring 2 to 6 mm in diameter with central umbilication. It can manifest as a single lesion or multiple clustered lesions, or in a disseminated pattern. The primary mode of transmission is through contact with skin, lesions, or contaminated personal items, or via self-inoculation. The majority of cases are asymptomatic, but in some patients, MC may be associated with pruritus, tenderness, erythema, or irritation. When present, secondary bacterial infections can cause localized inflammation and pain.^1,3,4 The pathogenesis hinges on MC virus replication within keratinocytes, disrupting cellular differentiation and keratinization. The virus persists in the host by influencing the immune response through various mechanisms, including interference with signaling pathways, apoptosis inhibition, and antigen presentation disruption.^3,4

Molluscum contagiosum typically follows a self-limiting trajectory, resolving over several months to 2 years.^3,4 The resolution timeframe is intricately linked to variables such as the patient’s immune profile, lesion burden, and treatment approach. For symptomatic lesions, a variety of treatment options have been described, including physical ablation (eg, cryotherapy, curettage) and topical agents such as potassium hydroxide, cantharidin, imiquimod, and salicylic acid.^3,4,8,9

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic relapsing inflammatory skin disorder. In the United States, its prevalence ranges from 15% to 30% in children and from 2% to 10% in adults, with ongoing evidence of a growing global incidence.^10-14 While AD can emerge at any age, typical onset is during early childhood. The clinical manifestation of AD includes a spectrum of eczematous features, often accompanied by persistent itching. The pathogenesis is multifactorial, involving a complex interplay of genetic, immunologic, and environmental factors. Key contributors to this multifaceted process encompass a compromised epidermal barrier, alterations in the skin microbiome, and an immune dysregulation promoting a type 2 immune response. Epidermal barrier dysfunction can be attributed to various factors, including diminished ceramide production, altered lipid composition, the release of inflammatory mediators, and mechanical damage from the persistent itch-scratch cycle.^10-13,15 These factors or their interplay may enhance the susceptibility of patients with AD to infections. 

Several studies conducted across various geographic regions examining the relationship between MC and AD have reported variable findings.^2,6,7,16-21 Published studies have reported a prevalence of AD in children with MC ranging from 13.2% to 43%.^2,6,7,16-21 Although some studies suggest a higher rate of atopy in patients with MC, not all research has confirmed this association.^16,21 Dohil et al² reported a greater number of MC lesions in children with AD than those without an atopic background. Silverberg²⁰ reported that in 10% (5/50) of children with MC, the onset of AD was triggered, and in 22% (11/50) MC was associated with flares of pre-existing AD.

In this study, we aimed to assess MC infection rates in children with AD, analyze the epidemiologic aspects and severity differences between atopic children with and without MC infection, and compare data from atopic and nonatopic children with MC.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the medical records of pediatric patients diagnosed with MC, AD, or both conditions at an outpatient dermatology practice in Netanya, HaSharon, Israel, from September 2013 to August 2022. Data were collected from the electronic medical records and included patient demographics, the clinical presentation of MC and/or AD at diagnosis, and the duration of both conditions. Only patients with complete data and at least 6 months of follow-up were included. Key epidemiologic characteristics assessed included patient sex, age at the initial visit, and age at the onset of MC and/or AD. Diagnoses of MC and AD were established through clinical examinations conducted by dermatologists. The clinical evaluation of AD encompassed the assessment of body surface area involvement (categorized as <5%, 5%-10%, or >10%). Atopic dermatitis severity was classified as mild, moderate, or severe using the validated Investigator Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis.²² Clinical evaluation of MC included assessment of the number of lesions (categorized as ≤4, 5-9, or ≥10), presence of inflammatory lesions, and resolution times for individual lesions (categorized as <1 week, several weeks, or unknown), as well as the overall resolution time for all lesions (categorized as <6 months, 6-12 months, 13-18 months, or >18 months). The temporal relationship between the appearance of MC and AD also was assessed.

Statistical Analysis—Numbers and percentages were used for categorical variables. Continuous variables were represented by mean and standard deviation. Categorical variables were compared using the χ² test, and continuous variables between groups were compared using the Student t test. All statistical tests were 2-sided, with statistical significance defined as P≤.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 28 (IBM).

Results

Study Population—A total of 610 children were included in the study; 263 (43%) were female and 347 (57%) were male. The patients ranged in age from 4 months to 10 years, with a mean (SD) age of 4.87 (1.82) years. Five hundred fifty-six (91%) patients had AD, and 336 (55%) had MC. Within this cohort, 274 (45%) children had AD only, 54 (9%) had MC only, and 282 (46%) had both AD and MC. Regarding the temporal sequence, among the 282 children who had both AD and MC, AD preceded MC in 203 (72%) cases, both conditions were diagnosed concomitantly in 43 (15%) cases, and MC preceded AD in 36 (13%) cases. For cases in which the MC diagnosis followed the diagnosis of AD, the mean (SD) time between each diagnosis was 3.17 (1.5) years.

Comparison of Atopic and Nonatopic Children With MC—Although a higher proportion of males were diagnosed with MC (with or without concurrent AD), the differences in sex distribution between the 2 groups did not reach statistical significance. Among all children with MC, the majority (81.5% [274/336]) were aged 1 to 6 years at presentation. Patients with MC as their sole diagnosis had a similar mean age compared with those with concurrent AD. However, a detailed age subgroup analysis revealed a notable distinction: in the group with MC as the sole diagnosis, the majority (95% [51/54]) were younger than 7 years. In contrast, in the combined MC and AD group, MC manifested across a wider age range, with 21% (58/282) of patients being older than 7 years. In MC cases associated with AD, a notably higher lesion count and increased local inflammatory response were observed compared to those without AD. The time for complete resolution of all MC lesions was substantially prolonged in patients with comorbid AD. Specifically, 93% (50/54) of patients with MC without comorbid AD achieved full resolution within 1 year, whereas 52% (146/282) of patients with comorbid AD required more than 1 year for resolution (eTable 1). 

Comparison of Atopic Children With and Without MC—Sex, age distribution, and disease duration showed no differences between atopic patients with and without MC. Atopic patients with MC exhibited greater body surface area involvement and higher validated Investigator Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis scores compared to atopic patients without MC (eTable 2).

Comment

This study examined the relationship between MC and AD in pediatric patients, revealing a notable correlation and yielding valuable epidemiologic and clinical insights. Consistent with previous research, our study demonstrated a high prevalence of AD in children with MC.^2,6,7,16-21 Previous studies indicated AD rates of 13% to 43% in pediatric patients with MC, whereas our study found a higher prevalence (84%), signifying a substantial majority of patients with MC in our cohort had AD. This discrepancy arises from factors such as demographic, genetic, and environmental differences, along with differences in access to medical care, referral practices, and diagnostic approaches across health care systems.¹⁴

Our temporal analysis of MC and AD diagnoses offers important insights. In the majority (72% [203/282]) of cases, the diagnosis of AD preceded MC, supporting previous research suggesting that the underlying pathophysiology of AD heightens susceptibility to MC.^15,17-20 Less frequently, MC was diagnosed before or concurrently with AD, indicating that MC may occasionally trigger or exacerbate milder or undiagnosed AD, as previously proposed.²⁰

A notable finding in our study was the expanded age range for MC onset in patients with AD, encompassing older age groups compared to patients with MC as their sole diagnosis, possibly due to persistent immune dysregulation. To the best of our knowledge, this specific observation has not been systematically reported or documented in prior cohort studies. Visible skin lesions of MC may have a psychological impact on patients, influencing self-consciousness and causing embarrassment and emotional distress. This may be more pronounced in older children, who are more aware of their appearance and social perceptions.^23-25 These considerations should play a role in the management of MC. 

Our study revealed that children with AD and MC displayed higher lesion counts, increased local inflammatory responses, and a more protracted resolution period compared to nonatopic children. In more than 50% of children with AD, MC took more than 1 year for resolution, whereas the majority of those without AD achieved resolution within 1 year. These findings may be attributed to AD-related immune dysregulation, influencing the natural course of MC. Consequently, it suggests that while nonatopic children with MC usually are managed through observation, atopic patients may benefit from an intervention-oriented approach. 

Comparing atopic patients with and without MC showed a heightened occurrence of severe and extensive AD among those with concurrent MC. Several factors could contribute to this observation. On one hand, there could be a direct association between the extent and severity of AD, leading to an elevated susceptibility to MC. Conversely, MC might exacerbate immunologic dysregulation and intensify skin inflammation in atopic individuals.²⁰ Additionally, itching related to both disorders may exacerbate inflammation and compromise the epidermal barrier, facilitating the spread of MC. This interplay suggests that each condition exacerbates the other in a self-reinforcing cycle. The importance of patient and caregiver education is underscored by recognizing these interactions. To manage both conditions effectively, health care providers should counsel patients and caregivers on maintaining proper skin care practices such as gentle cleansing with mild, fragrance-free products, regular moisturization, and avoidance of irritants, encourage them to avoid scratching, and recommend adopting an active treatment approach.

Our study had notable strengths. Firstly, a substantial sample size enhanced the statistical reliability of our findings. Additionally, valuable insights into the epidemiology and clinical aspects of AD and MC were obtained by utilizing real-world data from an outpatient dermatology practice. In our study, clinical evaluations covered body surface area involvement and disease severity for AD while also assessing lesion counts and the presence of inflammatory lesions for MC. This comprehensive approach facilitated a thorough analysis of both conditions. The extended data collection period not only allowed for observation of their clinical course and duration, but also enabled a detailed assessment of their interplay.

Our study also had several limitations. Primarily, its retrospective design relied on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of medical records, which may have introduced bias. The exclusion of some patients due to incomplete data further increased the potential for selection bias. Additionally, this study was conducted in a single outpatient dermatology practice in Israel, resulting in a study population composed predominantly of Jewish patients (94%), with a minority (6%) of Arab patients. Other ethnic groups, including Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations, were not represented. This reflects the country’s demographic composition rather than an intentional selection bias. However, the limited ethnic diversity reduces the generalizability of our findings. Differences in demographics, coding practices, health care utilization (eg, timeliness of seeking care, access to dermatology services), and treatment strategies also may impact the observed prevalence, clinical characteristics, and patient outcomes. Furthermore, while our study highlighted the potential advantages of a proactive treatment approach for atopic children with MC, it did not evaluate specific treatment protocols. Future research should aim to confirm the most efficacious therapeutic strategies for managing MC in atopic individuals and to include a more diverse population to better understand the applicability of findings across various ethnic groups.

Conclusion

Our study found a high prevalence of AD in children with MC and a strong bidirectional relationship between these conditions. Pediatric patients with AD display a broader age range for MC, greater lesion burden, increased local inflammatory responses, prolonged resolution times, and more extensive and severe AD.

Recognizing the interplay between MC and AD is crucial, highlighting the importance of health care providers educating patients and caregivers. Emphasizing skin hygiene, discouraging scratching, and implementing proactive treatment approaches can enhance the outcomes of both conditions. Further research into the underlying mechanisms of this association and effective therapeutic strategies for MC in atopic individuals is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank Zvi Segal, MD (Tel Hashomer, Israel) for his insightful contribution to the statistical analysis of the results. We would like to express our appreciation to the dedicated team of the dermatology practice in Netanya for the support throughout the performance of the study. Additionally, we thank all study participants and their parents for their participation and contribution to our research.

Molluscum contagiosum (MC), which is caused by a DNA virus in the Poxviridae family, is a common viral skin infection that primarily affects children.^1-4 The reported incidence and prevalence of MC exhibit notable geographic variation. Worldwide, annual incidence rates per 1000 individuals range from 3.1 to 25, and prevalence ranges from 0.27% to 34.6%.^2-7

Molluscum contagiosum is diagnosed clinically and typically manifests as smooth, flesh-colored papules measuring 2 to 6 mm in diameter with central umbilication. It can manifest as a single lesion or multiple clustered lesions, or in a disseminated pattern. The primary mode of transmission is through contact with skin, lesions, or contaminated personal items, or via self-inoculation. The majority of cases are asymptomatic, but in some patients, MC may be associated with pruritus, tenderness, erythema, or irritation. When present, secondary bacterial infections can cause localized inflammation and pain.^1,3,4 The pathogenesis hinges on MC virus replication within keratinocytes, disrupting cellular differentiation and keratinization. The virus persists in the host by influencing the immune response through various mechanisms, including interference with signaling pathways, apoptosis inhibition, and antigen presentation disruption.^3,4

Molluscum contagiosum typically follows a self-limiting trajectory, resolving over several months to 2 years.^3,4 The resolution timeframe is intricately linked to variables such as the patient’s immune profile, lesion burden, and treatment approach. For symptomatic lesions, a variety of treatment options have been described, including physical ablation (eg, cryotherapy, curettage) and topical agents such as potassium hydroxide, cantharidin, imiquimod, and salicylic acid.^3,4,8,9

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic relapsing inflammatory skin disorder. In the United States, its prevalence ranges from 15% to 30% in children and from 2% to 10% in adults, with ongoing evidence of a growing global incidence.^10-14 While AD can emerge at any age, typical onset is during early childhood. The clinical manifestation of AD includes a spectrum of eczematous features, often accompanied by persistent itching. The pathogenesis is multifactorial, involving a complex interplay of genetic, immunologic, and environmental factors. Key contributors to this multifaceted process encompass a compromised epidermal barrier, alterations in the skin microbiome, and an immune dysregulation promoting a type 2 immune response. Epidermal barrier dysfunction can be attributed to various factors, including diminished ceramide production, altered lipid composition, the release of inflammatory mediators, and mechanical damage from the persistent itch-scratch cycle.^10-13,15 These factors or their interplay may enhance the susceptibility of patients with AD to infections. 

Several studies conducted across various geographic regions examining the relationship between MC and AD have reported variable findings.^2,6,7,16-21 Published studies have reported a prevalence of AD in children with MC ranging from 13.2% to 43%.^2,6,7,16-21 Although some studies suggest a higher rate of atopy in patients with MC, not all research has confirmed this association.^16,21 Dohil et al² reported a greater number of MC lesions in children with AD than those without an atopic background. Silverberg²⁰ reported that in 10% (5/50) of children with MC, the onset of AD was triggered, and in 22% (11/50) MC was associated with flares of pre-existing AD.

In this study, we aimed to assess MC infection rates in children with AD, analyze the epidemiologic aspects and severity differences between atopic children with and without MC infection, and compare data from atopic and nonatopic children with MC.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the medical records of pediatric patients diagnosed with MC, AD, or both conditions at an outpatient dermatology practice in Netanya, HaSharon, Israel, from September 2013 to August 2022. Data were collected from the electronic medical records and included patient demographics, the clinical presentation of MC and/or AD at diagnosis, and the duration of both conditions. Only patients with complete data and at least 6 months of follow-up were included. Key epidemiologic characteristics assessed included patient sex, age at the initial visit, and age at the onset of MC and/or AD. Diagnoses of MC and AD were established through clinical examinations conducted by dermatologists. The clinical evaluation of AD encompassed the assessment of body surface area involvement (categorized as <5%, 5%-10%, or >10%). Atopic dermatitis severity was classified as mild, moderate, or severe using the validated Investigator Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis.²² Clinical evaluation of MC included assessment of the number of lesions (categorized as ≤4, 5-9, or ≥10), presence of inflammatory lesions, and resolution times for individual lesions (categorized as <1 week, several weeks, or unknown), as well as the overall resolution time for all lesions (categorized as <6 months, 6-12 months, 13-18 months, or >18 months). The temporal relationship between the appearance of MC and AD also was assessed.

Statistical Analysis—Numbers and percentages were used for categorical variables. Continuous variables were represented by mean and standard deviation. Categorical variables were compared using the χ² test, and continuous variables between groups were compared using the Student t test. All statistical tests were 2-sided, with statistical significance defined as P≤.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 28 (IBM).

Results

Study Population—A total of 610 children were included in the study; 263 (43%) were female and 347 (57%) were male. The patients ranged in age from 4 months to 10 years, with a mean (SD) age of 4.87 (1.82) years. Five hundred fifty-six (91%) patients had AD, and 336 (55%) had MC. Within this cohort, 274 (45%) children had AD only, 54 (9%) had MC only, and 282 (46%) had both AD and MC. Regarding the temporal sequence, among the 282 children who had both AD and MC, AD preceded MC in 203 (72%) cases, both conditions were diagnosed concomitantly in 43 (15%) cases, and MC preceded AD in 36 (13%) cases. For cases in which the MC diagnosis followed the diagnosis of AD, the mean (SD) time between each diagnosis was 3.17 (1.5) years.

Comparison of Atopic and Nonatopic Children With MC—Although a higher proportion of males were diagnosed with MC (with or without concurrent AD), the differences in sex distribution between the 2 groups did not reach statistical significance. Among all children with MC, the majority (81.5% [274/336]) were aged 1 to 6 years at presentation. Patients with MC as their sole diagnosis had a similar mean age compared with those with concurrent AD. However, a detailed age subgroup analysis revealed a notable distinction: in the group with MC as the sole diagnosis, the majority (95% [51/54]) were younger than 7 years. In contrast, in the combined MC and AD group, MC manifested across a wider age range, with 21% (58/282) of patients being older than 7 years. In MC cases associated with AD, a notably higher lesion count and increased local inflammatory response were observed compared to those without AD. The time for complete resolution of all MC lesions was substantially prolonged in patients with comorbid AD. Specifically, 93% (50/54) of patients with MC without comorbid AD achieved full resolution within 1 year, whereas 52% (146/282) of patients with comorbid AD required more than 1 year for resolution (eTable 1). 

Comparison of Atopic Children With and Without MC—Sex, age distribution, and disease duration showed no differences between atopic patients with and without MC. Atopic patients with MC exhibited greater body surface area involvement and higher validated Investigator Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis scores compared to atopic patients without MC (eTable 2).

Comment

This study examined the relationship between MC and AD in pediatric patients, revealing a notable correlation and yielding valuable epidemiologic and clinical insights. Consistent with previous research, our study demonstrated a high prevalence of AD in children with MC.^2,6,7,16-21 Previous studies indicated AD rates of 13% to 43% in pediatric patients with MC, whereas our study found a higher prevalence (84%), signifying a substantial majority of patients with MC in our cohort had AD. This discrepancy arises from factors such as demographic, genetic, and environmental differences, along with differences in access to medical care, referral practices, and diagnostic approaches across health care systems.¹⁴

Our temporal analysis of MC and AD diagnoses offers important insights. In the majority (72% [203/282]) of cases, the diagnosis of AD preceded MC, supporting previous research suggesting that the underlying pathophysiology of AD heightens susceptibility to MC.^15,17-20 Less frequently, MC was diagnosed before or concurrently with AD, indicating that MC may occasionally trigger or exacerbate milder or undiagnosed AD, as previously proposed.²⁰

A notable finding in our study was the expanded age range for MC onset in patients with AD, encompassing older age groups compared to patients with MC as their sole diagnosis, possibly due to persistent immune dysregulation. To the best of our knowledge, this specific observation has not been systematically reported or documented in prior cohort studies. Visible skin lesions of MC may have a psychological impact on patients, influencing self-consciousness and causing embarrassment and emotional distress. This may be more pronounced in older children, who are more aware of their appearance and social perceptions.^23-25 These considerations should play a role in the management of MC. 

Our study revealed that children with AD and MC displayed higher lesion counts, increased local inflammatory responses, and a more protracted resolution period compared to nonatopic children. In more than 50% of children with AD, MC took more than 1 year for resolution, whereas the majority of those without AD achieved resolution within 1 year. These findings may be attributed to AD-related immune dysregulation, influencing the natural course of MC. Consequently, it suggests that while nonatopic children with MC usually are managed through observation, atopic patients may benefit from an intervention-oriented approach. 

Comparing atopic patients with and without MC showed a heightened occurrence of severe and extensive AD among those with concurrent MC. Several factors could contribute to this observation. On one hand, there could be a direct association between the extent and severity of AD, leading to an elevated susceptibility to MC. Conversely, MC might exacerbate immunologic dysregulation and intensify skin inflammation in atopic individuals.²⁰ Additionally, itching related to both disorders may exacerbate inflammation and compromise the epidermal barrier, facilitating the spread of MC. This interplay suggests that each condition exacerbates the other in a self-reinforcing cycle. The importance of patient and caregiver education is underscored by recognizing these interactions. To manage both conditions effectively, health care providers should counsel patients and caregivers on maintaining proper skin care practices such as gentle cleansing with mild, fragrance-free products, regular moisturization, and avoidance of irritants, encourage them to avoid scratching, and recommend adopting an active treatment approach.

Our study had notable strengths. Firstly, a substantial sample size enhanced the statistical reliability of our findings. Additionally, valuable insights into the epidemiology and clinical aspects of AD and MC were obtained by utilizing real-world data from an outpatient dermatology practice. In our study, clinical evaluations covered body surface area involvement and disease severity for AD while also assessing lesion counts and the presence of inflammatory lesions for MC. This comprehensive approach facilitated a thorough analysis of both conditions. The extended data collection period not only allowed for observation of their clinical course and duration, but also enabled a detailed assessment of their interplay.

Our study also had several limitations. Primarily, its retrospective design relied on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of medical records, which may have introduced bias. The exclusion of some patients due to incomplete data further increased the potential for selection bias. Additionally, this study was conducted in a single outpatient dermatology practice in Israel, resulting in a study population composed predominantly of Jewish patients (94%), with a minority (6%) of Arab patients. Other ethnic groups, including Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations, were not represented. This reflects the country’s demographic composition rather than an intentional selection bias. However, the limited ethnic diversity reduces the generalizability of our findings. Differences in demographics, coding practices, health care utilization (eg, timeliness of seeking care, access to dermatology services), and treatment strategies also may impact the observed prevalence, clinical characteristics, and patient outcomes. Furthermore, while our study highlighted the potential advantages of a proactive treatment approach for atopic children with MC, it did not evaluate specific treatment protocols. Future research should aim to confirm the most efficacious therapeutic strategies for managing MC in atopic individuals and to include a more diverse population to better understand the applicability of findings across various ethnic groups.

Conclusion

Our study found a high prevalence of AD in children with MC and a strong bidirectional relationship between these conditions. Pediatric patients with AD display a broader age range for MC, greater lesion burden, increased local inflammatory responses, prolonged resolution times, and more extensive and severe AD.

Recognizing the interplay between MC and AD is crucial, highlighting the importance of health care providers educating patients and caregivers. Emphasizing skin hygiene, discouraging scratching, and implementing proactive treatment approaches can enhance the outcomes of both conditions. Further research into the underlying mechanisms of this association and effective therapeutic strategies for MC in atopic individuals is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank Zvi Segal, MD (Tel Hashomer, Israel) for his insightful contribution to the statistical analysis of the results. We would like to express our appreciation to the dedicated team of the dermatology practice in Netanya for the support throughout the performance of the study. Additionally, we thank all study participants and their parents for their participation and contribution to our research.

Molluscum contagiosum (MC), which is caused by a DNA virus in the Poxviridae family, is a common viral skin infection that primarily affects children.^1-4 The reported incidence and prevalence of MC exhibit notable geographic variation. Worldwide, annual incidence rates per 1000 individuals range from 3.1 to 25, and prevalence ranges from 0.27% to 34.6%.^2-7

Molluscum contagiosum is diagnosed clinically and typically manifests as smooth, flesh-colored papules measuring 2 to 6 mm in diameter with central umbilication. It can manifest as a single lesion or multiple clustered lesions, or in a disseminated pattern. The primary mode of transmission is through contact with skin, lesions, or contaminated personal items, or via self-inoculation. The majority of cases are asymptomatic, but in some patients, MC may be associated with pruritus, tenderness, erythema, or irritation. When present, secondary bacterial infections can cause localized inflammation and pain.^1,3,4 The pathogenesis hinges on MC virus replication within keratinocytes, disrupting cellular differentiation and keratinization. The virus persists in the host by influencing the immune response through various mechanisms, including interference with signaling pathways, apoptosis inhibition, and antigen presentation disruption.^3,4

Molluscum contagiosum typically follows a self-limiting trajectory, resolving over several months to 2 years.^3,4 The resolution timeframe is intricately linked to variables such as the patient’s immune profile, lesion burden, and treatment approach. For symptomatic lesions, a variety of treatment options have been described, including physical ablation (eg, cryotherapy, curettage) and topical agents such as potassium hydroxide, cantharidin, imiquimod, and salicylic acid.^3,4,8,9

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic relapsing inflammatory skin disorder. In the United States, its prevalence ranges from 15% to 30% in children and from 2% to 10% in adults, with ongoing evidence of a growing global incidence.^10-14 While AD can emerge at any age, typical onset is during early childhood. The clinical manifestation of AD includes a spectrum of eczematous features, often accompanied by persistent itching. The pathogenesis is multifactorial, involving a complex interplay of genetic, immunologic, and environmental factors. Key contributors to this multifaceted process encompass a compromised epidermal barrier, alterations in the skin microbiome, and an immune dysregulation promoting a type 2 immune response. Epidermal barrier dysfunction can be attributed to various factors, including diminished ceramide production, altered lipid composition, the release of inflammatory mediators, and mechanical damage from the persistent itch-scratch cycle.^10-13,15 These factors or their interplay may enhance the susceptibility of patients with AD to infections. 

Several studies conducted across various geographic regions examining the relationship between MC and AD have reported variable findings.^2,6,7,16-21 Published studies have reported a prevalence of AD in children with MC ranging from 13.2% to 43%.^2,6,7,16-21 Although some studies suggest a higher rate of atopy in patients with MC, not all research has confirmed this association.^16,21 Dohil et al² reported a greater number of MC lesions in children with AD than those without an atopic background. Silverberg²⁰ reported that in 10% (5/50) of children with MC, the onset of AD was triggered, and in 22% (11/50) MC was associated with flares of pre-existing AD.

In this study, we aimed to assess MC infection rates in children with AD, analyze the epidemiologic aspects and severity differences between atopic children with and without MC infection, and compare data from atopic and nonatopic children with MC.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the medical records of pediatric patients diagnosed with MC, AD, or both conditions at an outpatient dermatology practice in Netanya, HaSharon, Israel, from September 2013 to August 2022. Data were collected from the electronic medical records and included patient demographics, the clinical presentation of MC and/or AD at diagnosis, and the duration of both conditions. Only patients with complete data and at least 6 months of follow-up were included. Key epidemiologic characteristics assessed included patient sex, age at the initial visit, and age at the onset of MC and/or AD. Diagnoses of MC and AD were established through clinical examinations conducted by dermatologists. The clinical evaluation of AD encompassed the assessment of body surface area involvement (categorized as <5%, 5%-10%, or >10%). Atopic dermatitis severity was classified as mild, moderate, or severe using the validated Investigator Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis.²² Clinical evaluation of MC included assessment of the number of lesions (categorized as ≤4, 5-9, or ≥10), presence of inflammatory lesions, and resolution times for individual lesions (categorized as <1 week, several weeks, or unknown), as well as the overall resolution time for all lesions (categorized as <6 months, 6-12 months, 13-18 months, or >18 months). The temporal relationship between the appearance of MC and AD also was assessed.

Statistical Analysis—Numbers and percentages were used for categorical variables. Continuous variables were represented by mean and standard deviation. Categorical variables were compared using the χ² test, and continuous variables between groups were compared using the Student t test. All statistical tests were 2-sided, with statistical significance defined as P≤.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 28 (IBM).

Results

Study Population—A total of 610 children were included in the study; 263 (43%) were female and 347 (57%) were male. The patients ranged in age from 4 months to 10 years, with a mean (SD) age of 4.87 (1.82) years. Five hundred fifty-six (91%) patients had AD, and 336 (55%) had MC. Within this cohort, 274 (45%) children had AD only, 54 (9%) had MC only, and 282 (46%) had both AD and MC. Regarding the temporal sequence, among the 282 children who had both AD and MC, AD preceded MC in 203 (72%) cases, both conditions were diagnosed concomitantly in 43 (15%) cases, and MC preceded AD in 36 (13%) cases. For cases in which the MC diagnosis followed the diagnosis of AD, the mean (SD) time between each diagnosis was 3.17 (1.5) years.

Comparison of Atopic and Nonatopic Children With MC—Although a higher proportion of males were diagnosed with MC (with or without concurrent AD), the differences in sex distribution between the 2 groups did not reach statistical significance. Among all children with MC, the majority (81.5% [274/336]) were aged 1 to 6 years at presentation. Patients with MC as their sole diagnosis had a similar mean age compared with those with concurrent AD. However, a detailed age subgroup analysis revealed a notable distinction: in the group with MC as the sole diagnosis, the majority (95% [51/54]) were younger than 7 years. In contrast, in the combined MC and AD group, MC manifested across a wider age range, with 21% (58/282) of patients being older than 7 years. In MC cases associated with AD, a notably higher lesion count and increased local inflammatory response were observed compared to those without AD. The time for complete resolution of all MC lesions was substantially prolonged in patients with comorbid AD. Specifically, 93% (50/54) of patients with MC without comorbid AD achieved full resolution within 1 year, whereas 52% (146/282) of patients with comorbid AD required more than 1 year for resolution (eTable 1). 

Comparison of Atopic Children With and Without MC—Sex, age distribution, and disease duration showed no differences between atopic patients with and without MC. Atopic patients with MC exhibited greater body surface area involvement and higher validated Investigator Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis scores compared to atopic patients without MC (eTable 2).

Comment

This study examined the relationship between MC and AD in pediatric patients, revealing a notable correlation and yielding valuable epidemiologic and clinical insights. Consistent with previous research, our study demonstrated a high prevalence of AD in children with MC.^2,6,7,16-21 Previous studies indicated AD rates of 13% to 43% in pediatric patients with MC, whereas our study found a higher prevalence (84%), signifying a substantial majority of patients with MC in our cohort had AD. This discrepancy arises from factors such as demographic, genetic, and environmental differences, along with differences in access to medical care, referral practices, and diagnostic approaches across health care systems.¹⁴

Our temporal analysis of MC and AD diagnoses offers important insights. In the majority (72% [203/282]) of cases, the diagnosis of AD preceded MC, supporting previous research suggesting that the underlying pathophysiology of AD heightens susceptibility to MC.^15,17-20 Less frequently, MC was diagnosed before or concurrently with AD, indicating that MC may occasionally trigger or exacerbate milder or undiagnosed AD, as previously proposed.²⁰

A notable finding in our study was the expanded age range for MC onset in patients with AD, encompassing older age groups compared to patients with MC as their sole diagnosis, possibly due to persistent immune dysregulation. To the best of our knowledge, this specific observation has not been systematically reported or documented in prior cohort studies. Visible skin lesions of MC may have a psychological impact on patients, influencing self-consciousness and causing embarrassment and emotional distress. This may be more pronounced in older children, who are more aware of their appearance and social perceptions.^23-25 These considerations should play a role in the management of MC. 

Our study revealed that children with AD and MC displayed higher lesion counts, increased local inflammatory responses, and a more protracted resolution period compared to nonatopic children. In more than 50% of children with AD, MC took more than 1 year for resolution, whereas the majority of those without AD achieved resolution within 1 year. These findings may be attributed to AD-related immune dysregulation, influencing the natural course of MC. Consequently, it suggests that while nonatopic children with MC usually are managed through observation, atopic patients may benefit from an intervention-oriented approach. 

Comparing atopic patients with and without MC showed a heightened occurrence of severe and extensive AD among those with concurrent MC. Several factors could contribute to this observation. On one hand, there could be a direct association between the extent and severity of AD, leading to an elevated susceptibility to MC. Conversely, MC might exacerbate immunologic dysregulation and intensify skin inflammation in atopic individuals.²⁰ Additionally, itching related to both disorders may exacerbate inflammation and compromise the epidermal barrier, facilitating the spread of MC. This interplay suggests that each condition exacerbates the other in a self-reinforcing cycle. The importance of patient and caregiver education is underscored by recognizing these interactions. To manage both conditions effectively, health care providers should counsel patients and caregivers on maintaining proper skin care practices such as gentle cleansing with mild, fragrance-free products, regular moisturization, and avoidance of irritants, encourage them to avoid scratching, and recommend adopting an active treatment approach.

Our study had notable strengths. Firstly, a substantial sample size enhanced the statistical reliability of our findings. Additionally, valuable insights into the epidemiology and clinical aspects of AD and MC were obtained by utilizing real-world data from an outpatient dermatology practice. In our study, clinical evaluations covered body surface area involvement and disease severity for AD while also assessing lesion counts and the presence of inflammatory lesions for MC. This comprehensive approach facilitated a thorough analysis of both conditions. The extended data collection period not only allowed for observation of their clinical course and duration, but also enabled a detailed assessment of their interplay.

Our study also had several limitations. Primarily, its retrospective design relied on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of medical records, which may have introduced bias. The exclusion of some patients due to incomplete data further increased the potential for selection bias. Additionally, this study was conducted in a single outpatient dermatology practice in Israel, resulting in a study population composed predominantly of Jewish patients (94%), with a minority (6%) of Arab patients. Other ethnic groups, including Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations, were not represented. This reflects the country’s demographic composition rather than an intentional selection bias. However, the limited ethnic diversity reduces the generalizability of our findings. Differences in demographics, coding practices, health care utilization (eg, timeliness of seeking care, access to dermatology services), and treatment strategies also may impact the observed prevalence, clinical characteristics, and patient outcomes. Furthermore, while our study highlighted the potential advantages of a proactive treatment approach for atopic children with MC, it did not evaluate specific treatment protocols. Future research should aim to confirm the most efficacious therapeutic strategies for managing MC in atopic individuals and to include a more diverse population to better understand the applicability of findings across various ethnic groups.

Conclusion

Our study found a high prevalence of AD in children with MC and a strong bidirectional relationship between these conditions. Pediatric patients with AD display a broader age range for MC, greater lesion burden, increased local inflammatory responses, prolonged resolution times, and more extensive and severe AD.

Recognizing the interplay between MC and AD is crucial, highlighting the importance of health care providers educating patients and caregivers. Emphasizing skin hygiene, discouraging scratching, and implementing proactive treatment approaches can enhance the outcomes of both conditions. Further research into the underlying mechanisms of this association and effective therapeutic strategies for MC in atopic individuals is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank Zvi Segal, MD (Tel Hashomer, Israel) for his insightful contribution to the statistical analysis of the results. We would like to express our appreciation to the dedicated team of the dermatology practice in Netanya for the support throughout the performance of the study. Additionally, we thank all study participants and their parents for their participation and contribution to our research.

Practice Gap

Pain during minimally invasive dermatologic procedures such as lidocaine injections, cryotherapy, nail unit injections, and cosmetic procedures including neurotoxin injections can cause patient discomfort leading to procedural anxiety, poor compliance with treatment regimens, and avoidance of necessary care. Current solutions to manage pain during dermatologic procedures present several limitations; for example, topical anesthetics seldom alleviate procedural pain,¹ particularly in sensitive areas (eg, nail unit, face) or for patients with a needle phobia. Additionally, topical anesthetics often require up to 2 hours to take effect, making them impractical for quick outpatient procedures. Other pain reduction strategies including vibration devices or cold sprays^2,3 can be effective but are an added expense to the physician or clinic, which may preclude their use in resource-limited settings. Psychological distraction techniques such as deep breathing require active patient participation and might reinforce pain expectations and increase patient anxiety.⁴ Given these challenges, there is a need for effective, affordable, nonpharmacologic pain reduction strategies that can be integrated seamlessly into clinical practice to enhance the patient experience.

The Technique

Tapping is a simple noninvasive distraction technique that may alleviate procedural pain by exploiting the gate control theory of pain.⁵ According to this theory, tactile stimuli activate mechanoreceptors that send inhibitory signals to the spinal cord, effectively closing the gate to pain transmission. Unlike the Helfer skin tap technique,⁶ which involves 15 preinjection taps and 3 postinjection taps directly on the injection site, our approach targets distant bony prominences. This modification allows for immediate needle insertion without interfering with the sterile field or increasing the risk for needlestick injuries from tapping near the injection site. Bony sites such as the shoulder or knee are ideal for this technique due to their high density and rigidity that efficiently transmit tactile stimuli––similar to how sound travels faster through solids than through liquids or gases.⁷

To implement this technique in practice, we first stabilize the injection site to reduce movement from tapping. This can be done by stabilizing the injection site (eg, resting the hand on an instrument stand during a nail unit injection). A second person—such as a medical assistant, medical student, resident, or even the patient’s family member—taps at a distant site at least an arm’s length away from the injection site (Figure). The tapping pressure should be firm enough for the patient to feel the vibration but not forceful enough that it becomes unpleasant or disrupts the injection area. Tapping starts just before needle insertion and continues through the injection. No warning is given to the patient, as the surprise element may help distract them from pain. Varying the rhythm, intensity, or location of the tapping can enhance its distracting effect. 

This tapping technique can be effectively combined with other pain reduction strategies in a multimodal approach; for example, when used concurrently with topical anesthetics, both the central (tapping) and peripheral (anesthetic) pain pathways are addressed, potentially yielding additive effects. For patients with a needle ­phobia, pairing tapping with cognitive distraction (eg, talkesthesia) may further reduce anxiety. In our nail specialty clinic at Weill Cornell Medicine (New York, New York), we often combine tapping with cold sprays and talkesthesia, which improves patient comfort without prolonging the visit. Importantly, the technique enables seamless integration with most pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic methods, eliminating the need for additional patient education or procedure time.

Practice Implications

The tapping technique described here is free, easy to implement, and requires no additional resources aside from another person to tap the patient during the procedure. It can be used for a wide range of dermatologic procedures, including biopsies, intralesional injections, and cosmetic treatments, including neurotoxin injections. The minimal learning curve and ease of integration into procedural workflows make this technique a valuable tool for dermatologists aiming to improve patient comfort without disrupting workflow. In our practice, we have observed that tapping reduces self-reported pain and helps ease anxiety, particularly in patients with a needle phobia. Its simplicity and accessibility make it a valuable addition to a wide range of dermatologic procedures. Prospective studies investigating patient-reported outcomes could help establish this technique’s role in clinical practice.

Practice Gap

Pain during minimally invasive dermatologic procedures such as lidocaine injections, cryotherapy, nail unit injections, and cosmetic procedures including neurotoxin injections can cause patient discomfort leading to procedural anxiety, poor compliance with treatment regimens, and avoidance of necessary care. Current solutions to manage pain during dermatologic procedures present several limitations; for example, topical anesthetics seldom alleviate procedural pain,¹ particularly in sensitive areas (eg, nail unit, face) or for patients with a needle phobia. Additionally, topical anesthetics often require up to 2 hours to take effect, making them impractical for quick outpatient procedures. Other pain reduction strategies including vibration devices or cold sprays^2,3 can be effective but are an added expense to the physician or clinic, which may preclude their use in resource-limited settings. Psychological distraction techniques such as deep breathing require active patient participation and might reinforce pain expectations and increase patient anxiety.⁴ Given these challenges, there is a need for effective, affordable, nonpharmacologic pain reduction strategies that can be integrated seamlessly into clinical practice to enhance the patient experience.

The Technique

Tapping is a simple noninvasive distraction technique that may alleviate procedural pain by exploiting the gate control theory of pain.⁵ According to this theory, tactile stimuli activate mechanoreceptors that send inhibitory signals to the spinal cord, effectively closing the gate to pain transmission. Unlike the Helfer skin tap technique,⁶ which involves 15 preinjection taps and 3 postinjection taps directly on the injection site, our approach targets distant bony prominences. This modification allows for immediate needle insertion without interfering with the sterile field or increasing the risk for needlestick injuries from tapping near the injection site. Bony sites such as the shoulder or knee are ideal for this technique due to their high density and rigidity that efficiently transmit tactile stimuli––similar to how sound travels faster through solids than through liquids or gases.⁷

To implement this technique in practice, we first stabilize the injection site to reduce movement from tapping. This can be done by stabilizing the injection site (eg, resting the hand on an instrument stand during a nail unit injection). A second person—such as a medical assistant, medical student, resident, or even the patient’s family member—taps at a distant site at least an arm’s length away from the injection site (Figure). The tapping pressure should be firm enough for the patient to feel the vibration but not forceful enough that it becomes unpleasant or disrupts the injection area. Tapping starts just before needle insertion and continues through the injection. No warning is given to the patient, as the surprise element may help distract them from pain. Varying the rhythm, intensity, or location of the tapping can enhance its distracting effect. 

This tapping technique can be effectively combined with other pain reduction strategies in a multimodal approach; for example, when used concurrently with topical anesthetics, both the central (tapping) and peripheral (anesthetic) pain pathways are addressed, potentially yielding additive effects. For patients with a needle ­phobia, pairing tapping with cognitive distraction (eg, talkesthesia) may further reduce anxiety. In our nail specialty clinic at Weill Cornell Medicine (New York, New York), we often combine tapping with cold sprays and talkesthesia, which improves patient comfort without prolonging the visit. Importantly, the technique enables seamless integration with most pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic methods, eliminating the need for additional patient education or procedure time.

Practice Implications

The tapping technique described here is free, easy to implement, and requires no additional resources aside from another person to tap the patient during the procedure. It can be used for a wide range of dermatologic procedures, including biopsies, intralesional injections, and cosmetic treatments, including neurotoxin injections. The minimal learning curve and ease of integration into procedural workflows make this technique a valuable tool for dermatologists aiming to improve patient comfort without disrupting workflow. In our practice, we have observed that tapping reduces self-reported pain and helps ease anxiety, particularly in patients with a needle phobia. Its simplicity and accessibility make it a valuable addition to a wide range of dermatologic procedures. Prospective studies investigating patient-reported outcomes could help establish this technique’s role in clinical practice.

Practice Gap

Pain during minimally invasive dermatologic procedures such as lidocaine injections, cryotherapy, nail unit injections, and cosmetic procedures including neurotoxin injections can cause patient discomfort leading to procedural anxiety, poor compliance with treatment regimens, and avoidance of necessary care. Current solutions to manage pain during dermatologic procedures present several limitations; for example, topical anesthetics seldom alleviate procedural pain,¹ particularly in sensitive areas (eg, nail unit, face) or for patients with a needle phobia. Additionally, topical anesthetics often require up to 2 hours to take effect, making them impractical for quick outpatient procedures. Other pain reduction strategies including vibration devices or cold sprays^2,3 can be effective but are an added expense to the physician or clinic, which may preclude their use in resource-limited settings. Psychological distraction techniques such as deep breathing require active patient participation and might reinforce pain expectations and increase patient anxiety.⁴ Given these challenges, there is a need for effective, affordable, nonpharmacologic pain reduction strategies that can be integrated seamlessly into clinical practice to enhance the patient experience.

The Technique

Tapping is a simple noninvasive distraction technique that may alleviate procedural pain by exploiting the gate control theory of pain.⁵ According to this theory, tactile stimuli activate mechanoreceptors that send inhibitory signals to the spinal cord, effectively closing the gate to pain transmission. Unlike the Helfer skin tap technique,⁶ which involves 15 preinjection taps and 3 postinjection taps directly on the injection site, our approach targets distant bony prominences. This modification allows for immediate needle insertion without interfering with the sterile field or increasing the risk for needlestick injuries from tapping near the injection site. Bony sites such as the shoulder or knee are ideal for this technique due to their high density and rigidity that efficiently transmit tactile stimuli––similar to how sound travels faster through solids than through liquids or gases.⁷

To implement this technique in practice, we first stabilize the injection site to reduce movement from tapping. This can be done by stabilizing the injection site (eg, resting the hand on an instrument stand during a nail unit injection). A second person—such as a medical assistant, medical student, resident, or even the patient’s family member—taps at a distant site at least an arm’s length away from the injection site (Figure). The tapping pressure should be firm enough for the patient to feel the vibration but not forceful enough that it becomes unpleasant or disrupts the injection area. Tapping starts just before needle insertion and continues through the injection. No warning is given to the patient, as the surprise element may help distract them from pain. Varying the rhythm, intensity, or location of the tapping can enhance its distracting effect. 

This tapping technique can be effectively combined with other pain reduction strategies in a multimodal approach; for example, when used concurrently with topical anesthetics, both the central (tapping) and peripheral (anesthetic) pain pathways are addressed, potentially yielding additive effects. For patients with a needle ­phobia, pairing tapping with cognitive distraction (eg, talkesthesia) may further reduce anxiety. In our nail specialty clinic at Weill Cornell Medicine (New York, New York), we often combine tapping with cold sprays and talkesthesia, which improves patient comfort without prolonging the visit. Importantly, the technique enables seamless integration with most pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic methods, eliminating the need for additional patient education or procedure time.

Practice Implications

The tapping technique described here is free, easy to implement, and requires no additional resources aside from another person to tap the patient during the procedure. It can be used for a wide range of dermatologic procedures, including biopsies, intralesional injections, and cosmetic treatments, including neurotoxin injections. The minimal learning curve and ease of integration into procedural workflows make this technique a valuable tool for dermatologists aiming to improve patient comfort without disrupting workflow. In our practice, we have observed that tapping reduces self-reported pain and helps ease anxiety, particularly in patients with a needle phobia. Its simplicity and accessibility make it a valuable addition to a wide range of dermatologic procedures. Prospective studies investigating patient-reported outcomes could help establish this technique’s role in clinical practice.

What are the most important things to look at when considering joining a practice after residency?

DR. WORSWICK: When considering a private practice job, I think the most important things to determine might be how much control you will have over your day-to-day work experience (eg, will you be involved in the hiring/ firing of staff, how many rooms will you have in which to see patients, what flexibility exists for your daily schedule), who you will be working with, opportunities for growth and ownership, and the many extraneous things included in your contract (eg, medical insurance, time off, other benefits).

If you are considering joining an academic group, often times many of these things will be out of your control, but you will want to make sure you are finding a program where your teaching or research interests will be supported, that you are choosing a group with people and a mission statement similar to your own, and that you have mentorship available from faculty you want to emulate. There are many fun twists and turns that occur in careers in academic dermatology, so you want to be in a place that will foster your professional interests and allow you to grow and change.

What do academic dermatology programs look for when hiring new junior faculty members?

DR. WORSWICK: I think this depends a lot on time and place. At any given time, a program may need to find a specialist in a particular disease or niche (eg, a mycosis fungoides expert, a pediatric dermatologist, or someone doing hidradenitis suppurativa research). But in general, most academic places are looking to hire people who are excited to care for patients, will work well with the team and support the department’s mission, and enjoy teaching residents and students. For me, much of the fun of being in academics comes from mentorship (as a junior faculty member, this came from being a mentor to residents and students while also being mentored by more senior faculty), teaching, and the ability to care for patients with complicated problems that often require team-based care.

What are some red flags to watch for when considering joining a new practice?

DR. WORSWICK: I think the biggest red flags would be a practice that allows you no control over your schedule and no potential for growth of your compensation. We’ve had many residents choose to work for Kaiser lately, and I think in part that is because Kaiser is very clear regarding what salary, schedule, and expectations are. Fewer and fewer graduating residents are going into solo practice and even dermatologist-owned private practice, but I would encourage residents looking for jobs to consider these models rather than venture capital–funded practices that may not be patient care centered.

How many positions should graduating residents apply for?

DR. WORSWICK: I think this depends a lot on who you are, how specific your preferences are, and what part of the country/world you are looking to practice in. In general, there is a great need for dermatologists, and it shouldn’t be hard to find a job. If you’re in a more saturated urban area, you’re going to want to apply for multiple positions. But if you really know what you want, you may only apply to one practice. I generally advise our residents to consider at least 3 places, if only to compare them to give a better idea of best fit or to ensure that their “top choice” is indeed their top choice.

What are the most important things to look at when considering joining a practice after residency?

DR. WORSWICK: When considering a private practice job, I think the most important things to determine might be how much control you will have over your day-to-day work experience (eg, will you be involved in the hiring/ firing of staff, how many rooms will you have in which to see patients, what flexibility exists for your daily schedule), who you will be working with, opportunities for growth and ownership, and the many extraneous things included in your contract (eg, medical insurance, time off, other benefits).

If you are considering joining an academic group, often times many of these things will be out of your control, but you will want to make sure you are finding a program where your teaching or research interests will be supported, that you are choosing a group with people and a mission statement similar to your own, and that you have mentorship available from faculty you want to emulate. There are many fun twists and turns that occur in careers in academic dermatology, so you want to be in a place that will foster your professional interests and allow you to grow and change.

What do academic dermatology programs look for when hiring new junior faculty members?

DR. WORSWICK: I think this depends a lot on time and place. At any given time, a program may need to find a specialist in a particular disease or niche (eg, a mycosis fungoides expert, a pediatric dermatologist, or someone doing hidradenitis suppurativa research). But in general, most academic places are looking to hire people who are excited to care for patients, will work well with the team and support the department’s mission, and enjoy teaching residents and students. For me, much of the fun of being in academics comes from mentorship (as a junior faculty member, this came from being a mentor to residents and students while also being mentored by more senior faculty), teaching, and the ability to care for patients with complicated problems that often require team-based care.

What are some red flags to watch for when considering joining a new practice?

DR. WORSWICK: I think the biggest red flags would be a practice that allows you no control over your schedule and no potential for growth of your compensation. We’ve had many residents choose to work for Kaiser lately, and I think in part that is because Kaiser is very clear regarding what salary, schedule, and expectations are. Fewer and fewer graduating residents are going into solo practice and even dermatologist-owned private practice, but I would encourage residents looking for jobs to consider these models rather than venture capital–funded practices that may not be patient care centered.

How many positions should graduating residents apply for?

DR. WORSWICK: I think this depends a lot on who you are, how specific your preferences are, and what part of the country/world you are looking to practice in. In general, there is a great need for dermatologists, and it shouldn’t be hard to find a job. If you’re in a more saturated urban area, you’re going to want to apply for multiple positions. But if you really know what you want, you may only apply to one practice. I generally advise our residents to consider at least 3 places, if only to compare them to give a better idea of best fit or to ensure that their “top choice” is indeed their top choice.

What are the most important things to look at when considering joining a practice after residency?

DR. WORSWICK: When considering a private practice job, I think the most important things to determine might be how much control you will have over your day-to-day work experience (eg, will you be involved in the hiring/ firing of staff, how many rooms will you have in which to see patients, what flexibility exists for your daily schedule), who you will be working with, opportunities for growth and ownership, and the many extraneous things included in your contract (eg, medical insurance, time off, other benefits).

If you are considering joining an academic group, often times many of these things will be out of your control, but you will want to make sure you are finding a program where your teaching or research interests will be supported, that you are choosing a group with people and a mission statement similar to your own, and that you have mentorship available from faculty you want to emulate. There are many fun twists and turns that occur in careers in academic dermatology, so you want to be in a place that will foster your professional interests and allow you to grow and change.

What do academic dermatology programs look for when hiring new junior faculty members?

DR. WORSWICK: I think this depends a lot on time and place. At any given time, a program may need to find a specialist in a particular disease or niche (eg, a mycosis fungoides expert, a pediatric dermatologist, or someone doing hidradenitis suppurativa research). But in general, most academic places are looking to hire people who are excited to care for patients, will work well with the team and support the department’s mission, and enjoy teaching residents and students. For me, much of the fun of being in academics comes from mentorship (as a junior faculty member, this came from being a mentor to residents and students while also being mentored by more senior faculty), teaching, and the ability to care for patients with complicated problems that often require team-based care.

What are some red flags to watch for when considering joining a new practice?

DR. WORSWICK: I think the biggest red flags would be a practice that allows you no control over your schedule and no potential for growth of your compensation. We’ve had many residents choose to work for Kaiser lately, and I think in part that is because Kaiser is very clear regarding what salary, schedule, and expectations are. Fewer and fewer graduating residents are going into solo practice and even dermatologist-owned private practice, but I would encourage residents looking for jobs to consider these models rather than venture capital–funded practices that may not be patient care centered.

How many positions should graduating residents apply for?

DR. WORSWICK: I think this depends a lot on who you are, how specific your preferences are, and what part of the country/world you are looking to practice in. In general, there is a great need for dermatologists, and it shouldn’t be hard to find a job. If you’re in a more saturated urban area, you’re going to want to apply for multiple positions. But if you really know what you want, you may only apply to one practice. I generally advise our residents to consider at least 3 places, if only to compare them to give a better idea of best fit or to ensure that their “top choice” is indeed their top choice.