Vol. 7, Issue 1, Part A (2025)

Introduction: Aesthetic medicine has undergone rapid global expansion, driven by increasing patient demand for minimally invasive procedures that enhance appearance with minimal downtime. This trend is seen across diverse healthcare systems, with significant growth in both medically regulated and commercially driven markets. While countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia have documented variability in training pathways and regulatory oversight, concerns persist worldwide regarding practitioner preparedness and patient safety. Singapore represents a unique case study: it enforces a Certificate of Competence (COC) requirement for specific aesthetic procedures, providing a more formalized regulatory structure than many peer systems. However, the adequacy of such credentialing in equipping practitioners with the necessary clinical skills and experience remains underexamined. This study seeks to evaluate the training experiences, perceived challenges, and educational priorities of aesthetic physicians in Singapore, with the goal of informing policy and guiding international dialogue on competency-based training in aesthetic medicine. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from November 2023 to February 2024 among aesthetic physicians registered with the Society of Aesthetic Medicine Singapore. A total of 134 practitioners responded (response rate: 78.8%). The survey included structured multiple-choice and open-ended questions exploring demographics, procedural experience, training adequacy, and perceived gaps in current credentialing systems. Descriptive statistics and thematic analyses were used to interpret responses. Results: Most respondents (64.2%) had over 10 years of aesthetic experience. Injectables, particularly botulinum toxin and dermal fillers, constituted the majority of procedures performed across all experience levels. 69.7% of respondents identified gaps in hands-on training and mentorship. Over 83% supported supervised practice for at least 6 months, and 96.3% endorsed formal mentorship models. Additionally, 88.8% advocated for minimum supervised case numbers before independent practice. Perceived inadequacies in the COC framework were reported by both employee and owner-physicians. Conclusion: While Singapore’s regulatory foundation is strong, this study identifies a need to strengthen hands-on training, mentorship, and competency-based assessments. Incorporating structured supervision and mentorship, minimum procedural requirements, and broader training in safety and ethics should be considered.