Shimza Ali is a medical student at the University of Glasgow
Somewhere between primary school and secondary school, the skincare routine arrived. Products I recognise from dermatology textbooks now sit in pastel packaging on bedroom shelves because someone online said they were non-negotiable. I can imagine that this is playing out in households across the country, quietly and quickly, driven by the same pressure that has always made fitting in feel like a full-time job.
Keeping up appearances has always been part of growing up. Social media has made it relentless. The algorithm does not take weekends off. It does not care that a child’s skin is healthy. It exists, in part, to make her feel it is not.
Dove’s research found that nine in ten girls follow at least one account that undermines their self perception, and seven in ten believe using social media less would improve their confidence.
As a GP working at the deep end in Glasgow, I see the consequences in clinic. As a father, I feel something harder to name. A quiet sense that childhood itself is becoming increasingly commercialised, filtered, and medicalised before children are old enough to understand what is happening to them.
The clinical picture
Dermatological concerns are a staple of general practice, with most cases managed entirely within the community.1 What has changed is who is presenting, and why. In 2024, under 14s accounted for almost half of skincare purchases through pharmacies and beauty retailers. This shift is not being driven by clinical need. It is being driven by content.
Children are arriving in consultations fluent in the language of skincare before they have even reached adolescence.2 They talk about skin cycling. They ask about retinoids. They have learned, from people with no clinical training, that tingling means a product is working and that expensive means effective.3
Neither is true. But the algorithm has told them otherwise, and the algorithm is very persuasive.
The skin does not recognise trends. Retinoids, exfoliating acids, and high concentration vitamin C formulations are ingredients with real clinical effects. In adults, used correctly, they can confer genuine dermatological benefit. In children, whose skin barrier is still developing, these same ingredients can cause burns, irritant contact dermatitis, and lasting barrier disruption.2
There is also a regulatory gap operating quietly in the background. Parents buying these products in good faith, assuming hypoallergenic means safe for children, are working with incomplete information. Research presented at the British Association of Dermatologists’ Annual Conference found that almost two fifths of products marketed as hypoallergenic contained at least one allergen from the BSCA baseline series.4 The packaging offers reassurance it cannot deliver.
Beyond the skin
The dermatological risks are tangible. The psychological ones may run deeper. Many products marketed to children carry anti-ageing claims. The message absorbed by girls barely into adolescence is that ageing is something to fear, that their natural skin is already falling short, and that correction is something to be purchased. This is not a neutral commercial transaction. It is conditioning, and it starts early.
Part of what makes this so effective is that children often do not realise the skin they are trying to replicate does not exist outside a filter. The faces they compare themselves to have been altered, smoothed, corrected. No one on the other side of the screen has any incentive to tell them that. The gap between what they see online and what they find in the mirror keeps widening.
Dove’s research found that nine in ten girls follow at least one account that undermines their self perception, and seven in ten believe using social media less would improve their confidence.5 Increasingly, GPs are seeing these statistics translated into consultation time: anxiety, low mood, disturbed sleep, and reduced functioning in young people who have internalised standards that were never achievable to begin with.6
The primary care reality
GPs are already overstretched. Preventable skin conditions driven by inappropriate product use are occupying appointments that did not need to be made. The mental health consequences that follow add complexity that cannot be resolved in ten minutes.
In the consulting room, the advice is usually straightforward: a gentle cleanser, a moisturiser if needed, and daily sunscreen.3 If a child’s skin needs more than that, the conversation should happen with a clinician, not in a comments section.
A growing number of dermatologists and clinicians have built audiences by doing what the algorithm rarely rewards: telling the truth.
Beyond that, responsibility is shared and it needs to be taken seriously. Platforms must do more than gesture at safeguarding. Stronger signposting to healthcare professionals, clearer disclaimers on sponsored content, and genuine accountability for the harm caused by unregulated beauty advice aimed at young people would be a start. The skincare industry should be held to higher standards on age suitability and transparent labelling. Schools should also be teaching children to read product marketing critically, in the same way we teach them to interrogate other forms of media.
It is worth acknowledging that not every online voice is pulling in the wrong direction. A growing number of dermatologists and clinicians have built audiences by doing what the algorithm rarely rewards: telling the truth. For young people who will not be prised away from their phones, a trusted clinical voice in their feed may matter more than any public health campaign. The question is whether we are doing enough to amplify it.
Children are learning to scrutinise their faces before they are old enough to understand their worth. General practice is left managing the fallout.
References
- Le Roux E, Edwards PJ, Sanderson E, Barnes RK, Ridd MJ. The content and conduct of GP consultations for dermatology problems: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Oct 1;70(699):e723-e730. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X712577
- Wetstone R, Grant-Kels JM. The skincare craze among tweens: Ethical and dermatologic implications of social media beauty trends. Clin Dermatol. 2025 Nov-Dec;43(6):897-899. DOI: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2025.02.009
- ProDermUK. Dermatology Consultant Clinics. Skincare Red Flags: TikTok Trends to Avoid. [Internet]. [2025]. Available from: https://prodermuk.com/blog/skincare-red-flags-tiktok-trends-to-avoid. [Date Accessed: 26/11/2025].
- British Association of Dermatologists. Warning to consumers as more than a third of ‘hypoallergenic’ products feature common allergens. [Internet]. [2024]. Available from: https://www.bad.org.uk/warning-to-consumers-as-more-than-a-third-of-hypoallergenic-products-feature-common-allergens. [Date Accessed: 25/11/2025].
- Dove Self-Esteem and Social Media Report. Social media and body image: The stats. [Internet]. [2022]. Available from: https://www.dove.com/us/en/campaigns/purpose/social-media-and-body-image.html. [Date Accessed: 26/11/2025].
- Liu T, Cheng Y, Luo Y, Wang Z, Pang PC, Xia Y, Lau Y. The Impact of Social Media on Children’s Mental Health: A Systematic Scoping Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Nov 28;12(23):2391. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12232391. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare1223239
Featured Photo by Rami Al-zayat on Unsplash
