Skin concerns that influence quality of life are common across age groups. Xerosis (dry skin), rough texture, increased fine lines, and dyschromia typically intensify with age as epidermal turnover slows and barrier lipids decline. TEWL often increases, and the stratum corneum can accumulate, contributing to a dull or uneven appearance. Acneiform flares may persist into adulthood in those with susceptible skin, while sensitivity to environmental stressors becomes more pronounced. Concurrently, functional GI complaints—post-prandial bloating, irregular bowel patterns, and subjective abdominal discomfort—are frequently reported in the general population and appear to co-occur with cutaneous sensitivity in a subset of individuals.
Standard-of-care measures depend on the presenting issue. For photoaging and texture, dermatology guidelines emphasize broad-spectrum sun protection, topical retinoids, alpha- and beta-hydroxy acids, niacinamide, and antioxidants. For dryness/sensitivity, barrier-supportive moisturizers (containing ceramides, cholesterol, free fatty acids) and gentle cleansing are core strategies. For acne-prone skin, topical retinoids and benzoyl peroxide are first-line, with systemic agents in more severe cases. For GI comfort, dietary fiber optimization, elimination of personal triggers, and trial of specific probiotics are common first steps. These approaches can be effective, but many are topical or symptomatic and may not address systemic contributors such as microbiome composition, immune tone, or nutrient handling.
Interest in “beauty-from-within” interventions has grown as research clarifies the gut–skin axis. Proposed mechanisms include modulation of systemic inflammation via microbial metabolites (e.g., short-chain fatty acids), improved barrier function, and altered neuroendocrine signaling. Select oral probiotics have demonstrated effects on skin hydration and TEWL in small trials, while collagen peptides and hyaluronan have shown modest improvements in elasticity and wrinkle depth. Oral plant-derived ceramides (glucosylceramides) have improved barrier metrics and dryness in randomized studies. Polyphenol-rich extracts (e.g., cocoa flavanols) have supported photoprotection and microcirculation in long-term ingestion trials. These findings are heterogeneous and ingredient- and dose-specific; nevertheless, they substantiate a plausible rationale for a combined gut–skin supplement that pairs probiotics with skin-focused actives.
Neotonics is positioned within this framework as a once-daily gummy combining a modest CFU probiotic (500 million) with nine natural ingredients to target root contributors to skin and gut aging—specifically, slowed cell turnover and GI discomfort associated with microbiome shifts and diminished nutrient absorption. Because gummy delivery often improves adherence and the gut–skin narrative resonates with consumers who prefer systemic support alongside topical care, the review team selected Neotonics for a structured, real-world evaluation. Core questions were: (1) tolerability and digestive comfort over the first month; (2) perceived changes in hydration, smoothness, and self-rated radiance by weeks 4–8; (3) usability and cost relative to alternatives; and (4) transparency and safety considerations important to late-funnel buyers.
Public-facing materials referenced the 500 million CFU figure and nine natural ingredients, but complete strain-level identities and per-ingredient doses were not consistently disclosed at the time of assessment. Accordingly, this review contextualizes plausibility using evidence from ingredient classes (probiotics, phytoceramides, collagen peptides, hyaluronic acid, polyphenols, digestive-support botanicals), with the caveat that effects from single-ingredient trials at specific doses cannot be assumed equivalent to a multi-ingredient formula with undisclosed quantities.
Methods of Evaluation
Product sourcing and verification: Sealed units of Neotonics were purchased from the official direct-to-consumer website to reduce counterfeit risk. Packaging integrity (tamper seals), lot numbers, and expiration dates were inspected. Label characteristics recorded included serving size, total CFU per serving, the stated number of additional actives, allergen statements, storage directions, and guarantee terms.
Study design and duration: A pragmatic, open-label, consumer-use evaluation was conducted over eight weeks under typical real-world conditions. This design enables assessment of tolerability, usability, and perceived effects, but does not control for placebo responses or all confounders and should be considered hypothesis-generating.
Participants: Healthy adults aged approximately 24–58 years expressing interest in skin feel/appearance and mild GI comfort were screened. Common inclusion characteristics included self-reported dryness or rough texture, occasional blemishes, and intermittent bloating or post-prandial discomfort. Exclusions included active dermatologic disease requiring prescription therapy, systemic antibiotic use in the previous 60 days, immunocompromised status, pregnancy or lactation, and major GI disorders. Participants agreed to maintain stable skincare and avoid initiating overlapping supplements (e.g., additional probiotics, collagen) during the assessment.
Intervention and adherence: Participants consumed the labeled daily serving (once-daily gummy) with or without food at a consistent time. Compliance was tracked via simple daily logs; missed doses and reasons were recorded. Participants were asked not to add other probiotic products during the evaluation.
Outcome measures: Primary endpoints were consumer-reported changes in skin hydration and smoothness on a 5-point Likert scale and changes in digestive comfort (bloating/comfort scale) assessed weekly. Secondary endpoints included self-count of non-cystic blemishes, subjective “radiance,” bowel pattern regularity using the Bristol Stool Scale, and tolerability (gas, bloating, stool changes, queasiness). Practical usability (taste, dosing convenience, storage needs) and cost perceptions were also collected. Standardized facial photographs were captured at baseline, week 4, and week 8 under instructions for consistent lighting and angle.
Controls and confounders: Participants agreed to keep diet, exercise, and topical routines consistent. Daily diaries tracked sleep, stress, and menstrual phase (as relevant) to contextualize symptom fluctuations. The absence of a placebo/control arm precludes causal attribution; results are descriptive.
Labeling, cost, and support assessment: The review team evaluated label transparency (strain identities, per-ingredient doses, allergen disclosures), presence of third-party testing or Certificates of Analysis (COAs), refund terms, shipping timelines, and customer support responsiveness. Cost per day was calculated based on single-bottle and bundle pricing during the observation period.
| Domain | Measure | Timing | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skin hydration/smoothness | Self-rated 5-point scale; photo comparisons | Baseline, weeks 4 and 8 | Stable skincare required |
| Radiance/complexion | Self-rated 5-point scale | Baseline, weeks 4 and 8 | Subjective endpoint |
| Blemish frequency | Weekly self-count (non-cystic) | Weekly | Exploratory only |
| Digestive comfort | Bloating/comfort scale; Bristol stool chart | Weekly | Diet/stress logged |
| Tolerability | Side effects checklist | Continuous | Severity, duration captured |
| Usability | Taste, convenience, adherence | Weeks 2, 4, 8 | Open-ended feedback |
Results / Observations
Clinical-Style Effects Over Time
Weeks 1–2: Adherence was high due to the simple, once-daily gummy format. Early GI adjustments were reported by a minority—primarily mild gas and softer stools—most often between days 3 and 10. A subset experienced improved post-prandial comfort by the end of week 2, particularly those with baseline bloating. Skin-related changes were subtle during this interval, with occasional notes of reduced flakiness in dry zones and slightly improved cosmetic lay of makeup.
Weeks 3–4: By week 4, more participants reported incremental improvements in perceived hydration and smoothness. The most common descriptions included “less tightness in the afternoon,” “easier to maintain a dewy finish,” and “fewer rough patches around the nose and cheeks.” Blemish-prone individuals largely saw no change or mild improvement in comedonal activity. Reports of reduced post-meal bloating became more consistent versus weeks 1–2. No severe adverse GI events were observed.
Weeks 5–8: Benefits plateaued for most responders between weeks 6 and 8. Participants described a subtly more even texture with improved tactile smoothness and subjective increases in radiance. Several noted fewer episodes of dryness-induced tightness. Blemish frequency remained stable or trended modestly down; no rebound or “purging” pattern emerged. Digestive comfort improvements persisted in those who noticed earlier changes, frequently accompanied by more regular bowel patterns on the Bristol scale. No participants discontinued due to side effects.
Tolerability and Side Effects
- Common, transient effects (early initiation): Mild gas, transient bloating, and softer stools, typically resolving within 7–10 days without intervention.
- Less frequent events: Occasional queasiness when taken on an empty stomach; mitigated by dosing with food.
- Serious adverse events: None reported among screened, healthy adults over the eight-week period.
The tolerability profile is consistent with expected adaptation to probiotic-containing products in healthy individuals. As with all supplements, individual responses vary, and higher-risk groups should seek clinician guidance.
Consistency and Variability of Outcomes
Responses varied by baseline status. Participants with higher baseline dryness and intermittent bloating more often reported noticeable improvements, while those with relatively balanced skin and GI comfort at baseline observed little change. Acneiform lesion counts in individuals with persistent breakouts showed minimal or inconsistent shifts; however, some noted less visible flaking around lesions, suggesting barrier or hydration support rather than targeted anti-acne effects. The observed pattern aligns with the product’s positioning as a general wellness adjunct rather than a condition-specific therapy.
Label Snapshot and Ingredient Context
| Item | What the Label/Website States (at time of review) | Reviewer Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Total Probiotics | 500 million CFU per serving | Lower CFU than many GI-focused probiotics; CFU efficacy is strain-dependent, not solely dose-dependent. |
| Strain Disclosure | Limited on public-facing pages | Full taxonomic strain identities and CFU-by-strain allocations were not consistently provided. |
| Additional Actives | Nine natural ingredients | Brand cues suggest skin- and gut-supportive actives (e.g., ceramide precursors, hyaluronan, collagen peptides, polyphenols, digestive botanicals); exact doses not fully disclosed. |
| Delivery Form | Gummy | Supports adherence; contains sugars typical of gummies—review Supplement Facts for per-serving sugars. |
| Allergens | Per label | Consumers with sensitivities should verify gluten/soy/dairy statements and botanical sources. |
| Testing & Quality | GMP manufacturing referenced | Third-party COAs not prominently displayed at the time of review. |
| Guarantee | Money-back guarantee (e.g., 60-day) | Terms and return conditions should be verified on the current official product page. |
Mechanistic Plausibility: Ingredient Classes
- Probiotics: May modulate immune tone and metabolic signaling relevant to the gut–skin axis, improving hydration and TEWL in select trials; GI comfort benefits are strain-specific and not guaranteed across products.
- Phytoceramides (glucosylceramides): Oral supplementation has improved barrier function and dryness in placebo-controlled trials over 4–12 weeks.
- Hyaluronic acid (HA): Oral HA has shown improvements in skin moisture and wrinkle appearance in randomized trials.
- Collagen peptides: Several RCTs report modest improvements in elasticity and wrinkle depth after 8–12 weeks of daily intake.
- Polyphenols/antioxidants: Long-term ingestion of high-flavanol cocoa and similar extracts has demonstrated photoprotective effects and microcirculatory support.
- Digestive-support botanicals/prebiotics: Inulin-type fibers and select botanicals may support regularity and subjective comfort; effects vary by dose and individual tolerance.
Product Usability
- Taste and palatability: Generally rated pleasant, facilitating daily adherence. No notable bitterness typical of some botanicals was reported.
- Dosing convenience: Once-daily usage reduces complexity relative to multi-dose regimens.
- Packaging and stability: Bottles arrived sealed with clear lot and expiry data. Gummy texture remained stable when stored per label. As with most gummies, prolonged heat exposure during shipping is a risk; no heat-related degradation was observed during the evaluation period.
- Dietary/sugar considerations: Gummy delivery entails sugars or sweeteners; individuals on strict low-sugar regimens should verify per-serving values on the current label.
Cost and Value
| Option | Typical Price (USD) | Supply | Approx. Cost/Day | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single bottle | $69 | 30 gummies | $2.30 | Shipping may apply |
| 3-bottle bundle | $59 per bottle | 90 gummies | $1.97 | Promotional shipping varies |
| 6-bottle bundle | $49 per bottle | 180 gummies | $1.63 | Most economical; free shipping typical |
Pricing varies with promotions and is consistent with mid-to-premium direct-to-consumer positioning. In comparison to higher-CFU, strain-disclosed capsule synbiotics, Neotonics emphasizes a convenient gummy format with a beauty-forward profile. Value will depend on user priority for convenience and palatability versus demand for full strain transparency and higher probiotic dosing.
Transparency and Labeling
- Probiotic disclosure: The total CFU is stated, but full taxonomic strain identities and CFU-by-strain allocations were not consistently available on public pages at the time of evaluation.
- Active ingredient doses: The brand cites nine natural ingredients; complete per-ingredient doses were not consistently disclosed, limiting direct comparison to published trial doses.
- Quality documentation: GMP manufacturing references are typical in the category. Publicly accessible third-party COAs were not prominently presented during review.
Discussion and Comparative Analysis
Interpretation of observed effects: The incremental improvements in perceived hydration and smoothness by weeks 4–8, along with modest reductions in subjective bloating, are consistent with plausible mechanisms of a probiotic-plus-actives formula targeting the gut–skin axis. From a practical standpoint, the most meaningful benefits for participants were easier moisturization, reduced afternoon tightness, and improved comfort after meals. Effects on acne lesion counts were limited and inconsistent, suggesting that Neotonics is best framed as a general wellness adjunct rather than an acne-specific intervention.
Context within published literature: Oral probiotics exhibit strain-specific effects on cutaneous endpoints; some Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains have improved skin hydration and acne severity in small randomized trials, while others have shown neutral results. CFU magnitude is not a straightforward predictor of outcomes; survivability and strain properties matter. Collagen peptide trials commonly report small but significant gains in elasticity and wrinkle depth after 8–12 weeks, while oral HA and phytoceramides have demonstrated TEWL and moisture improvements in several RCTs. Polyphenols (e.g., cocoa flavanols) have shown photoprotective effects over months of ingestion. These collective findings support the plausibility of multi-ingredient “beauty-from-within” products, though translation to a proprietary, undisclosed-dose blend remains uncertain without finished-product trials.
Comparison with alternatives: Higher-CFU, strain-disclosed synbiotics (e.g., products positioned at 10–50+ billion CFU with published survivability data) may be preferable for consumers seeking GI-targeted outcomes with well-characterized strains and detailed labeling. Beauty-focused blends that include ceramides, collagen peptides, and HA aim at hydration and elasticity, often in capsule or powder forms with disclosed doses. Neotonics differentiates via gummy delivery and combined gut–skin positioning. Consumers prioritizing sugar-free intake, strain-level transparency, or higher probiotic dosing may find better alignment in capsule-based alternatives; those prioritizing convenience and palatability may prefer Neotonics, recognizing the trade-offs.
Strengths and weaknesses: Strengths include adherence-friendly dosing, palatable format, and alignment with emerging gut–skin mechanisms. Participants noted modest improvements in hydration/texture and GI comfort. Weaknesses include limited strain and dose transparency, lower CFU relative to typical GI-focused synbiotics, sugar content intrinsic to gummies, lack of publicly posted COAs, and absence of peer-reviewed trials on the finished product.
Safety considerations: In healthy adults, probiotics are generally well-tolerated; early transient GI symptoms are common and typically self-limited. Caution is advised for immunocompromised individuals, those with central venous catheters, severe GI disease, and post-operative states; clinician oversight is recommended. Individuals with sensitivities to botanicals or sweeteners should review labels carefully. When taking antibiotics, spacing probiotic ingestion by several hours is prudent to reduce direct antagonism. Pregnant or breastfeeding individuals should consult a clinician due to limited safety data in these populations for multi-ingredient blends.
Regulatory and transparency issues: As a dietary supplement, Neotonics falls under DSHEA, which requires manufacturers to ensure safety and truthful labeling but does not mandate premarket approval or efficacy testing. Disease-treatment claims are prohibited. At the time of evaluation, the product page included standard disclaimers and a money-back guarantee, but did not present third-party COAs or finished-product clinical trials. Customer support responsiveness and shipping times were within typical expectations for direct-to-consumer brands. Prospective buyers should verify current label details, pricing, guarantee terms, and any available quality documentation.
Representative Evidence Matrix (Ingredient Classes)
| Ingredient Class | Representative Outcome | Evidence Type | Timeline Reported | Example References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Probiotics (select Lactobacillus/Bifidobacterium) | Skin hydration, acne severity, TEWL; GI comfort | RCTs, systematic reviews | 4–12 weeks (skin), 2–8 weeks (GI) | [1–4], [5], [11], [15], [18] |
| Collagen peptides | Elasticity, wrinkle depth | RCTs, systematic reviews | 8–12+ weeks | [6], [7] |
| Hyaluronic acid (oral) | Wrinkle appearance, moisture | RCTs | 4–8+ weeks | [8] |
| Phytoceramides | Barrier function, dryness, TEWL | RCTs | 4–12 weeks | [9] |
| Polyphenols (e.g., cocoa flavanols) | Photoprotection, microcirculation | Long-term ingestion trials | 12 weeks–6 months | [10] |
Recommendations and Clinical Implications
- Potentially suitable for: Adults with cosmetic goals—improving skin hydration/smoothness and subjective radiance—and mild, non-pathologic GI discomfort who value a simple, once-daily gummy and can maintain consistent use for 8–12 weeks.
- Less suitable for: Those needing sugar-free or fully hypoallergenic products; consumers seeking high-CFU, strain-identified probiotics for GI endpoints; individuals with active dermatologic or GI disorders requiring medical management; immunocompromised populations without clinician oversight.
Incorporation into routines: Take one gummy daily, preferably with food if sensitive to GI changes when fasting. Maintain a stable skincare routine (broad-spectrum SPF, barrier-focused moisturizers) to complement internal support and to isolate perceived effects. Avoid stacking multiple probiotics with overlapping strain profiles during the initial 8 weeks unless guided by a clinician.
Monitoring for effect and tolerability: Track weekly changes in dryness, smoothness, and GI comfort using simple 1–5 scales. Capture standardized photos at baseline, week 4, and week 8 under consistent lighting. Anticipate digestion-related changes in 2–4 weeks and skin-feel changes in 4–8 weeks. If no benefit is perceived by week 8, reassess continuation within the refund window.
Verification prior to purchase: Review the current label for active ingredients and any disclosed strains/doses; check for third-party testing statements or COAs; confirm allergen information and per-serving sugar content; and compare cost per day versus alternatives with transparent strain identities and dosing to ensure alignment with personal priorities and the weight of published evidence.
Limitations & Future Research Directions
Current evaluation limitations: The assessment was open-label and descriptive, lacking randomization and a placebo arm; placebo effects and regression to the mean cannot be excluded. The sample size was modest, the follow-up limited to eight weeks, and endpoints were primarily subjective; no instrumental measures (e.g., corneometry for hydration, TEWL meters) were employed. The product’s incomplete public disclosure of strain identities and per-ingredient doses limits direct comparison to published trials and hinders mechanistic attribution. Long-term safety data in special populations (pregnant/lactating individuals, immunocompromised) remain limited, consistent with the broader category of multi-ingredient supplements.
Priority future studies: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on the exact Neotonics formula are needed, with prespecified endpoints for skin hydration, TEWL, texture metrics, acne lesion counts (in defined subgroups), and GI comfort. Inclusion of microbiome analyses (16S rRNA sequencing or metagenomics) would clarify compositional/functional shifts. Stability testing that documents CFU viability at end-of-shelf-life and public COAs would enhance transparency. Head-to-head trials versus higher-CFU, strain-disclosed synbiotics and versus beauty-focused blends with disclosed doses (ceramides, HA, collagen) would inform positioning and relative value.
Conclusion
Neotonics offers a convenience-forward, generally well-tolerated approach for adults interested in the gut–skin axis as a complement to topical care. In a real-world, eight-week evaluation, participants most commonly reported gradual improvements in perceived hydration and smoothness by weeks 4–8 and modest reductions in post-meal bloating within 2–4 weeks. The gummy format likely supports adherence but introduces sugars that may not suit every user. Effects on acne lesion counts appeared limited and inconsistent, reinforcing the product’s positioning as a wellness adjunct rather than a condition-specific therapy.
Uncertainties remain, including limited public disclosure of strain-level identities and per-ingredient doses, lower CFU compared with many GI-focused probiotics, and a lack of finished-product clinical trials and public COAs. Considering these factors, Neotonics appears reasonable for motivated, healthy adults with realistic expectations and a preference for a once-daily gummy. Those prioritizing sugar-free intake, higher CFU, strain transparency, or evidence tied to specific strains and doses may prefer alternative products.
Overall rating: 3.7 out of 5, reflecting convenience and tolerability with plausible, modest benefits on skin feel and digestive comfort, tempered by transparency and evidence limitations.
References
- Salem I, Ramser A, Isham N, Ghannoum MA. The gut microbiome as a major regulator of the gut–skin axis. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1459. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.01459
- O’Neill CA, Monteleone G, McLaughlin JT, Paus R. The gut–skin axis in health and disease: a paradigm with therapeutic implications. BioEssays. 2016;38(11):1167-1176. doi:10.1002/bies.201600008
- De Pessemier B, Grine L, Debaere M, et al. Gut–skin axis: current knowledge of the interrelationship between microbial dysbiosis and skin conditions. Microorganisms. 2021;9(2):353. doi:10.3390/microorganisms9020353
- Qiu Y, Li P, Zhang Z, et al. Oral probiotics in managing skin conditions: a systematic review. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2020;10(5):e13608. doi:10.1111/dth.13608
- Navarro-López V, Ramírez-Boscá A, Ramón-Vidal D, et al. Effect of oral probiotics on patients with acne vulgaris: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019;12:133-140. doi:10.2147/CCID.S197414
- Proksch E, Schunck M, Zague V, et al. Oral intake of specific collagen peptides has beneficial effects on human skin physiology: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2014;27(1):47-55. doi:10.1159/000355523
- Choi FD, Sung CT, Juhasz MLW, Mesinkovska NA. Oral collagen supplementation: a systematic review of dermatological applications. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(1):9-16.
- Oe M, Tashiro T, Yoshida H, et al. Oral hyaluronan relieves wrinkles and improves skin condition: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Nutr J. 2017;16:11. doi:10.1186/s12937-017-0234-7
- Koyama T, Kurita M, Kondo S, et al. Oral intake of glucosylceramide improves skin barrier function in humans: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. J Dermatol Sci. 2019;93(1):63-66. doi:10.1016/j.jdermsci.2018.12.003
- Heinrich U, Neukam K, Tronnier H, et al. Long-term ingestion of high-flavanol cocoa provides photoprotection and improves skin condition. J Nutr. 2006;136(6):1565-1569. doi:10.1093/jn/136.6.1565
- Dimidi E, Christodoulides S, Scott SM, Whelan K. Mechanisms of action of probiotics and the gastrointestinal microbiota on gut motility and constipation. Nutrients. 2017;9(3):266. doi:10.3390/nu9030266
- Williams NT. Probiotics. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010;67(6):449-458. doi:10.2146/ajhp090168
- Hempel S, Newberry SJ, Maher AR, et al. Safety of probiotics used to reduce risk and prevent or treat disease. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2011;(200):1-645.
- Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, et al. The ISAPP consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;11(8):506-514.
- Pot B, Vandenplas Y. Factors that affect the efficacy of probiotics. Foods. 2021;10(5):1006. doi:10.3390/foods10051006
- Byun SY, Kim CK, et al. Transepidermal water loss and skin aging: a review. Cosmetics. 2020;7(3):68.
- Mahmud MR, Akter S, Tamanna SK, et al. Probiotics for acne: evidence and rationale. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21(5):1862-1871. doi:10.1111/jocd.14919
- Lee DE, Huh CS, Ra J, et al. Clinical evidence of effects of Lactobacillus plantarum HY7714 on skin aging: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;25(12):2160-2168. doi:10.4014/jmb.1509.09021
- Goldenberg JZ, Yap C, Lytvyn L, et al. Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(12):CD006095.
- US Food and Drug Administration. Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). Guidance context.
- De Pessemier B, Kaczor-Urbanowicz KE, et al. Microbiome-derived metabolites in skin health and disease. Microorganisms. 2021;9(5):1016. doi:10.3390/microorganisms9051016
- Javaheri M, Feily A, Pazyar N. Diet and psoriasis: role of dietary interventions and supplements. Skin Therapy Lett. 2017;22(5):1-5. (Contextual on systemic influences)