Exploring the Impact of Maternity Leave on Aesthetic Clinicians and the Need for a Return-to-Work Scheme.

Abstract

Background: The primarily self-employed aesthetics healthcare sector frequently overlooks key issues concerning maternity leave and the return-to-work (RTW) process. These are areas that significantly impact aesthetic clinicians, predominantly women. This study explores the effects of maternity leave on aesthetic clinicians, an area previously unexplored in the literature. It examines the challenges encountered during the RTW process and identifies critical elements for a successful RTW scheme.

Methods: Female aesthetic clinicians from the UK participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Participants were female doctors, dentist or nurses who perform non-surgical facial aesthetics and had at least one child during their aesthetic career. The interviews, conducted with an interview guide, explored: experiences of maternity leave, challenges of returning to work, and perspectives on an ideal RTW scheme. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. They underwent reflexive thematic analysis by two independent researchers. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached.

Results: Participants (n=8) took an average of 2.6 months of maternity leave, which was influenced by economic factors, client retention concerns and botulinum toxin treatment scheduling. Returning to work presented obstacles such as breastfeeding, psychological struggle and staying updated. Participants unanimously agreed there was no formal guidance and informal networks played a crucial role. RTW scheme should prioritise mentorship, support and a system of maternity cover that safeguards against client attrition.

Conclusion: RTW in aesthetics has not been examined previously. This research contributes new insights into a RTW process in aesthetics, highlighting the need for tailored support structures within this predominantly self-employed sector.

Level of evidence v: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .