Topical-Steroid Phobia Among 301 Saudi Parents of Children With Eczema

Research brief: The median TOPICOP score was 66.6, indicating substantial concern in this clinical sample and highlighting the need for specific, nonjudgmental counseling. [1]

Topical corticosteroids are prescribed medicines. The useful question is not whether they are universally “safe” or “unsafe,” but whether the right medicine, potency, amount, body site and duration were matched to the individual patient. This article examines one cross-sectional hospital-based survey in 301 Saudi parents of children with eczema and places it beside related evidence rather than turning a single result into a blanket recommendation. [2]

Research design	cross-sectional hospital-based survey
Population	301 Saudi parents of children with eczema
Main signal	The median TOPICOP score was 66.6, indicating substantial concern in this clinical sample and highlighting the need for specific, nonjudgmental counseling.
Most important limitation	Convenience recruitment from two hospitals may overrepresent families seeking specialty care and cannot establish national prevalence.

Why this research question matters

Eczema plans often fail for reasons that are invisible in a prescription list. A family may worry about thinning skin, confuse potency with percentage, receive conflicting advice, dislike a vehicle, forget applications, stop as soon as redness improves or apply more only before a follow-up. TOPICOP and related surveys were developed to make those beliefs discussable, while electronic monitors provide a different window into actual treatment routines. [3]

These tools answer different questions. A high concern score is not proof of nonadherence, and a low score is not proof that medicine was used correctly. Likewise, an electronic cap records an opening, not the quantity applied, body site covered or whether another family member opened the container. Careful interpretation keeps measurement from becoming accusation. [4]

How the study was designed

The focal publication used a cross-sectional hospital-based survey and enrolled 301 Saudi parents of children with eczema. The investigators’ central aim was to examine treatment beliefs, education, adherence or safety in a defined context. Design matters: randomized trials can test an assigned intervention, cross-sectional surveys can describe patterns, qualitative studies can reveal reasoning, and systematic reviews can combine—but not erase—the limitations of their source studies. [5]

For this reason, the most defensible reading begins with the population and time frame. Results from specialty clinics may not represent primary care. Parent reports may not match adolescent reports. Short monitored courses cannot establish years-long safety. A validated score can improve consistency without creating a biological diagnosis. [6]

What the researchers found

The median TOPICOP score was 66.6, indicating substantial concern in this clinical sample and highlighting the need for specific, nonjudgmental counseling. [7]

The result is clinically useful because it replaces vague labels such as “noncompliant” with testable possibilities: fear, unclear instructions, access problems, competing responsibilities, vehicle dislike, rapid stopping after improvement or concern amplified by previous adverse experiences. Similar studies across countries show large variation, reminding readers that health systems, language and culture affect questionnaire results. [8]

Objective-adherence studies add another layer. Several reported lower monitored use than self-reported use and increased use near scheduled visits. That pattern does not imply dishonesty; recall is imperfect, daily life is complicated and people often report the plan they intended to follow. [9]

What the study cannot prove

Convenience recruitment from two hospitals may overrepresent families seeking specialty care and cannot establish national prevalence. [10]

Association must not be rewritten as causation. Greater disease severity can increase fear because stronger medicines are prescribed, while fear can also contribute to undertreatment. More healthcare use can reflect concern, severe eczema, poor access to effective care or all three. The same two-way problem applies to internet information, family quality of life and prior treatment experience.

Nor should safety data be stripped of dose and context. Potency, treated surface area, thin-skin sites, occlusion, age and duration affect systemic absorption. Laboratory HPA-axis suppression is not identical to symptomatic adrenal insufficiency, and results from short controlled trials do not make prolonged unsupervised use risk-free. [11]

Safety context for babies, children and adults

Infants have a larger skin-surface-area-to-body-mass ratio and require age-, site- and potency-specific prescribing. Eyelids, face, folds and diaper-covered skin can absorb medication differently from thicker body sites. Parents should use the medicine that was prescribed for that child, follow the written duration and ask before substituting another product or using occlusion or wet wraps. [12]

Seek prompt medical advice for painful rapidly worsening skin, fever, widespread blisters, punched-out erosions, eye involvement or suspected infection. Do not delay prescribed anti-inflammatory treatment because of a blog article, and do not extend or abruptly change a prescription because a survey or meta-analysis sounds reassuring or alarming.

For adults, long-term plans should address total exposure, application sites, intermittent maintenance when prescribed, pregnancy or breastfeeding questions, eye-area treatment and concurrent immunosuppressive medicines. Persistent concern deserves a specific answer from the prescriber or pharmacist—not dismissal.

Questions that improve a treatment conversation

• Which medicine goes on which body site, and what potency is it?
• How much should be applied, how often and for how many days?
• What should improvement look like, and when should the plan be reviewed?
• Which adverse effects are plausible for this exact plan, and which are commonly misunderstood?
• What should happen after the flare improves: stop, step down or use proactive maintenance?
• Is vehicle texture, cost, school, work, caregiving or fear making the routine difficult?

Written action plans, fingertip-unit demonstrations and teach-back can turn an abstract prescription into a practical routine. Education works best when it acknowledges uncertainty and prior experiences, gives exact instructions and leaves room for questions. [13]

Where Dr. Arsy #003 fits—and does not fit

Dr. Arsy #003 was not the study product. It is a cosmetic moisturizer for dry, sensitive, eczema-prone skin and is not a topical corticosteroid or substitute for prescribed care. No result from the medicine, intervention or monitoring method in this research should be transferred to #003. Readers looking for the actual 4-oz cosmetic product can view Dr. Arsy Moisturizer #003. This link is product context, not evidence that #003 treats, cures or prevents eczema.

Related Dr. Arsy research articles

• Caregiver adherence in childhood eczema
• Pediatric treatment-adherence review
• EduDerm storytelling-video trial
• Nurse-led eczema education trial
• Proactive weekend topical-steroid evidence
• How potency, percentage and vehicle differ
• Once- versus twice-daily topical-steroid evidence
• Topical-steroid withdrawal clinician review

Bottom line

This cross-sectional hospital-based survey contributes a focused piece of evidence: The median TOPICOP score was 66.6, indicating substantial concern in this clinical sample and highlighting the need for specific, nonjudgmental counseling. The result becomes most useful when paired with its design limits, individualized prescribing and an open conversation about what the patient or caregiver actually believes and can realistically do.

References

1. Topical corticosteroid phobia among Saudi parents. PubMed PMID 37936715.
2. Development and validation of the TOPICOP scale for topical corticosteroid phobia. PubMed PMID 24146878.
3. Targeted education for topical corticosteroid phobia: randomized controlled trial. PubMed PMID 32171815.
4. Topical corticosteroid phobia in atopic dermatitis: systematic review. PubMed PMID 28724128.
5. Topical corticosteroid concerns among Slovenian parents. PubMed PMID 41797838.
6. Frequency and origins of corticophobia in atopic dermatitis. PubMed PMID 21671892.
7. TOPICOP scores among Thai caregivers. PubMed PMID 41035840.
8. Parental TOPICOP scores and healthcare use in Denmark. PubMed PMID 33047404.
9. International feasibility of the TOPICOP questionnaire. PubMed PMID 28439896.
10. Multicenter survey of parental corticosteroid concern. PubMed PMID 28245844.
11. Topical corticosteroid phobia among Korean parents. PubMed PMID 26512163.
12. TOPICOP among Japanese caretakers. PubMed PMID 30882946.
13. Parental corticosteroid concerns in Norway. PubMed PMID 25174954.
14. Parents and healthcare professionals: comparative corticophobia study. PubMed PMID 30338542.
15. Risk factors for high TOPICOP scores. PubMed PMID 37959278.
16. Parent focus groups on topical corticosteroid use. PubMed PMID 30316560.
17. TOPICOP-P survey of Dutch healthcare professionals. PubMed PMID 39496255.
18. Steroid stigma, perception and adherence in atopic dermatitis. PubMed PMID 37518909.
19. Video education for caregiver topical-corticosteroid concerns. PubMed PMID 38126606.
20. Topical corticosteroid knowledge in adults with atopic dermatitis. PubMed PMID 31260432.
21. Multidisciplinary caregiver education and TOPICOP. PubMed PMID 33298043.