This is the best I could find...
I highlighted the connection between apples and oranges. But in general it has not affect.
There are no comprehensive patient surveys of hair transplant patients because there are no mutually shared databases for patients undergoing cosmetic procedures. Also it would be unethical for physicians to make their database available to outside sources for profit or science. Patients could only become part of a universal database by first volunteering their demographic and procedure data in writing.
I agree it would be unethical for doctors to share their databases with other organizations pursuing a profit, but in what way is it unethical if they share their database in the interests of science? The survey I describe would surely fall under the category of social science, psychology of hair loss, psychology of cosmetic surgery, etc., Also, what’s stopping physicians from asking their patients if they wouldn’t mind being contacted about their satisfaction? The patient can always say “Noâ€.
On the other hand, many physician groups do perform patient surveys to gauge their patients’ satisfaction and to accumulate data for research.
Where is this research published, such that prospective consumers can access it?
If you are interested in a physician to perform your surgery you may be surprised to find out he has done extensive surveys to his own patient database already.
I applaud hair transplant physicians who actually do this, but such surveys are only useful to the doctor for improving his own skills. They are of no value to a prospective patient. How can any would-be customer trust such a survey when it is conducted by the organization that the survey purports to study? What checks are in place to insure that the results presented to the prospective patient aren't tweaked, or outright fabricated? That’s why auto consumers read Consumer Reports, JD Powers, etc., instead of taking the word of the auto salesman. That’s why TV advertisers pay fees based on viewership data from AC Nielsen, instead of taking the word of the networks.
I can already hear the protestations: "But you're comparing apples to oranges. Doctors are not slimy car salesmen or Madison Avenue types! Doctors take a hipocratic oath. Doctors are here to serve mankind." BULLSHIT! Doctors have no special immunization against greed. One could argue that the high cost of becoming a doctor (both $$$ and a youth sacrificed to the demands of med school, internship, residency, etc.,) might provide even more of an incentive for doctors to put income ahead of a patients interests.
Funny, I've been a hair transplant patient/customer since late 1985, and my previous doctor has never asked me how I liked the results, via a formal survey or otherwise.