肯尼亚脐带美学:形状、位置和性别偏好的调查。

IF 1.8 Q3 SURGERY
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open Pub Date : 2025-10-02 eCollection Date: 2025-10-01 DOI:10.1097/GOX.0000000000007171
Sama K Fofung, Benjamin Wabwire, Joseph K Wanjeri
{"title":"肯尼亚脐带美学:形状、位置和性别偏好的调查。","authors":"Sama K Fofung, Benjamin Wabwire, Joseph K Wanjeri","doi":"10.1097/GOX.0000000000007171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although the golden ratio (1.62) is frequently proposed for ideal umbilical positioning, aesthetic judgments vary across cultures and individual preferences. This survey examined shape and ratio preferences among Kenyan adults, exploring whether local norms (1.69) or the golden ratio (1.62) better match subjective ideals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with 440 participants recruited from a Kenyan referral hospital. Five umbilical shapes (oval, vertical, T-shaped, horizontal, and distorted/protruded) were digitally positioned at 1.62 or 1.69. Respondents selected their preferred position, identified most/least attractive shapes, and indicated separate choices for masculine versus feminine figures. Statistical analyses were done using χ² tests and logistic regressions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The gender distribution was balanced, with 48.9% men and 51.1% women. Overall, 55% favored 1.62 for oval, vertical, T-shaped, and horizontal shapes, whereas distorted was often chosen at 1.69 (52.5%). The vertical shape was ranked the most attractive overall (39.8%), especially for feminine figures (55.9%). Men showed significantly greater preference than women for distorted shapes (odds ratio = 2.89; <i>P</i> = 0.010). Oval and T-shaped were equally popular for masculine figures (29.1% each).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Kenyan preferences lean toward the classic golden ratio in certain shapes, but not universally. Distorted navels garnered significant support at the local 1.69 ratio, underscoring that patient desires do not strictly align with a single numeric standard. This preference-based study complements morphometric data from a companion article, highlighting the interplay between objective norms and subjective ideals in Kenyan abdominal aesthetics.</p>","PeriodicalId":20149,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","volume":"13 10","pages":"e7171"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490648/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Umbilical Aesthetics in Kenya: A Survey of Shape, Position, and Gender Preferences.\",\"authors\":\"Sama K Fofung, Benjamin Wabwire, Joseph K Wanjeri\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/GOX.0000000000007171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although the golden ratio (1.62) is frequently proposed for ideal umbilical positioning, aesthetic judgments vary across cultures and individual preferences. This survey examined shape and ratio preferences among Kenyan adults, exploring whether local norms (1.69) or the golden ratio (1.62) better match subjective ideals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with 440 participants recruited from a Kenyan referral hospital. Five umbilical shapes (oval, vertical, T-shaped, horizontal, and distorted/protruded) were digitally positioned at 1.62 or 1.69. Respondents selected their preferred position, identified most/least attractive shapes, and indicated separate choices for masculine versus feminine figures. Statistical analyses were done using χ² tests and logistic regressions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The gender distribution was balanced, with 48.9% men and 51.1% women. Overall, 55% favored 1.62 for oval, vertical, T-shaped, and horizontal shapes, whereas distorted was often chosen at 1.69 (52.5%). The vertical shape was ranked the most attractive overall (39.8%), especially for feminine figures (55.9%). Men showed significantly greater preference than women for distorted shapes (odds ratio = 2.89; <i>P</i> = 0.010). Oval and T-shaped were equally popular for masculine figures (29.1% each).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Kenyan preferences lean toward the classic golden ratio in certain shapes, but not universally. Distorted navels garnered significant support at the local 1.69 ratio, underscoring that patient desires do not strictly align with a single numeric standard. This preference-based study complements morphometric data from a companion article, highlighting the interplay between objective norms and subjective ideals in Kenyan abdominal aesthetics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open\",\"volume\":\"13 10\",\"pages\":\"e7171\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490648/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000007171\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000007171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然黄金比例(1.62)经常被认为是理想的脐带定位,但审美判断因文化和个人偏好而异。这项调查调查了肯尼亚成年人对体型和比例的偏好,探索当地标准(1.69)和黄金比例(1.62)哪个更符合主观理想。方法:我们从肯尼亚一家转诊医院招募了440名参与者,进行了一项横断面在线调查。五种脐带形状(椭圆形、垂直、t形、水平和扭曲/突出)的数字定位为1.62或1.69。受访者选择了他们最喜欢的姿势,确定了最吸引人/最不吸引人的身材,并指出了男性化和女性化身材的不同选择。采用χ 2检验和logistic回归进行统计分析。结果:性别分布均衡,男性占48.9%,女性占51.1%。总的来说,55%的人喜欢1.62的椭圆,垂直,t形和水平形状,而扭曲往往选择1.69(52.5%)。整体来看,垂直身材最具吸引力(39.8%),尤其是女性身材(55.9%)。男性对扭曲形状的偏好明显高于女性(优势比= 2.89;P = 0.010)。男性化身材中,椭圆型和t型身材同样受欢迎(各占29.1%)。结论:肯尼亚人的偏好倾向于某些形状的经典黄金比例,但并非普遍如此。扭曲的肚脐获得了当地1.69的显著支持,强调患者的愿望并不严格符合单一的数字标准。这项基于偏好的研究补充了同伴文章的形态测量数据,强调了肯尼亚腹部美学中客观规范和主观理想之间的相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Umbilical Aesthetics in Kenya: A Survey of Shape, Position, and Gender Preferences.

Background: Although the golden ratio (1.62) is frequently proposed for ideal umbilical positioning, aesthetic judgments vary across cultures and individual preferences. This survey examined shape and ratio preferences among Kenyan adults, exploring whether local norms (1.69) or the golden ratio (1.62) better match subjective ideals.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with 440 participants recruited from a Kenyan referral hospital. Five umbilical shapes (oval, vertical, T-shaped, horizontal, and distorted/protruded) were digitally positioned at 1.62 or 1.69. Respondents selected their preferred position, identified most/least attractive shapes, and indicated separate choices for masculine versus feminine figures. Statistical analyses were done using χ² tests and logistic regressions.

Results: The gender distribution was balanced, with 48.9% men and 51.1% women. Overall, 55% favored 1.62 for oval, vertical, T-shaped, and horizontal shapes, whereas distorted was often chosen at 1.69 (52.5%). The vertical shape was ranked the most attractive overall (39.8%), especially for feminine figures (55.9%). Men showed significantly greater preference than women for distorted shapes (odds ratio = 2.89; P = 0.010). Oval and T-shaped were equally popular for masculine figures (29.1% each).

Conclusions: Kenyan preferences lean toward the classic golden ratio in certain shapes, but not universally. Distorted navels garnered significant support at the local 1.69 ratio, underscoring that patient desires do not strictly align with a single numeric standard. This preference-based study complements morphometric data from a companion article, highlighting the interplay between objective norms and subjective ideals in Kenyan abdominal aesthetics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
1584
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open is an open access, peer reviewed, international journal focusing on global plastic and reconstructive surgery.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open publishes on all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including basic science/experimental studies pertinent to the field and also clinical articles on such topics as: breast reconstruction, head and neck surgery, pediatric and craniofacial surgery, hand and microsurgery, wound healing, and cosmetic and aesthetic surgery. Clinical studies, experimental articles, ideas and innovations, and techniques and case reports are all welcome article types. Manuscript submission is open to all surgeons, researchers, and other health care providers world-wide who wish to communicate their research results on topics related to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Furthermore, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open, a complimentary journal to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, provides an open access venue for the publication of those research studies sponsored by private and public funding agencies that require open access publication of study results. Its mission is to disseminate high quality, peer reviewed research in plastic and reconstructive surgery to the widest possible global audience, through an open access platform. As an open access journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open offers its content for free to any viewer. Authors of articles retain their copyright to the materials published. Additionally, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open provides rapid review and publication of accepted papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信