This multicentric online study aimed to evaluate Indian healthcare professionals' perspectives on infant skincare practices, product recommendations, prescribing behavior, and perceived unmet needs in management of sensitive skin and atopic dermatitis in infants. The work sought to capture contemporary clinical practices and evolving views among pediatricians, dermatologists, and other clinicians across India.
A structured questionnaire was administered as four independent cross-sectional online surveys. In total, 358 healthcare professionals across India responded. The sample included pediatricians, dermatologists, and other clinicians; specific respondent counts by specialty were not reported in the source. The surveys queried clinicians on presenting skin concerns in infants, first-line management strategies, product attributes they prefer when recommending baby skincare, awareness of traditional formulations, and perceptions about prevention and long-term control of atopic disease.
Respondents identified sensitive skin as the most frequently encountered infant skincare concern (91%). Eczema or atopic dermatitis was reported by 89% of clinicians as a common issue, and diaper rash was reported by 83%. These findings indicate that barrier dysfunction and inflammatory skin disease are dominant clinical problems in infant dermatologic care according to surveyed HCPs.
For mild-to-moderate sensitive infant skin, clinicians most commonly selected emollients as the preferred first-line management strategy (69%). Natural skincare products were endorsed by 63% of respondents as another preferred option, reflecting an emphasis on moisturization and barrier-supportive therapies.
A very large proportion of HCPs (92.9%) preferred baby skincare products that are free from harsh chemicals. The survey also found that more than 90% of clinicians routinely recommend natural or ayurvedic formulations for infant skincare, indicating widespread clinical acceptance of such products in routine practice among the respondents.
Awareness of cow ghee–based baby skincare products was high among surveyed clinicians, with 93.8% reporting familiarity. The source reports this awareness but does not provide data on clinical efficacy perceptions, frequency of prescribing, or safety concerns specific to cow ghee products beyond the awareness metric.
Most surveyed HCPs considered early, barrier-focused infant skincare important in preventing atopic dermatitis and the subsequent atopic march. The proportion endorsing this prevention-oriented view was reported in the range of 81–87%. This reflects a prevailing clinician belief that proactive barrier care in infancy may reduce progression to or severity of eczema and related atopic conditions.
Consistent daily skincare was strongly endorsed by 89% of respondents as a key strategy for preventing flares and maintaining long-term control in infant atopic dermatitis. This recommendation aligns with the survey's broader finding that preventive, barrier-supportive regimens (especially emollients) are central to clinicians' approaches for infants at risk of or with established atopic disease.
Although clinicians reported clear preferences for barrier-focused and natural formulations, the authors note an emphasis among HCPs on the need for stronger clinical evidence to guide management of sensitive skin and atopic dermatitis in infants. The source states that respondents emphasized the requirement for more robust data to underpin recommendations and product selection, but specific research priorities or trial designs were not detailed in the manuscript.
The authors declared that all relevant ethical guidelines were followed and that necessary institutional review board/ethics committee approvals were obtained. They also stated that participant consent was obtained and documentation archived. The manuscript reports that any prospective interventional studies would be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry where applicable. The authors declared no competing interests. The source indicates that all data produced in the work are contained within the manuscript.
Note: The source provides percentages and general findings as summarized above. Detailed breakdowns by clinician specialty, regional distribution, questionnaire items, and statistical analyses were not reported in the provided source text.