Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Indoor Tanning Attitudes and Practices of US Dermatologists Compared With Other Medical Specialists

Indoor Tanning Attitudes and Practices of US Dermatologists Compared With Other Medical Specialists ObjectiveTo compare the indoor tanning attitudes and practices of dermatologists with physicians in other medical specialties (internal medicine, pediatrics, and family medicine) commonly providing sun safety counseling to patients.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingQuestionnaire mailed to randomly selected US dermatologists, internists, family practitioners, and pediatricians.ResultsThe overall response rate was 38% (364/949): 71% indicated that patients had asked their opinions about indoor UV tanning, 80% believed that UV tanning was unsafe, and 90% agreed they would counsel patients against nonmedical indoor UV tanning. Many supported increased UV tanning legislation, including minimum age restrictions (91%) and parental consent requirements (90%). Dermatologists were significantly more likely than other physicians to respond to the survey (52% vs 31%, P<.001), speak with patients about indoor UV tanning (odds ratio [OR], 26.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-74.1]), believe that indoor UV tanning is unsafe (OR, 14.0; 95% CI, 5.0-39.4), and support increased regulation (OR, 11.7; 95% CI, 1.5-88.5). Women discouraged indoor UV tanning more than men (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.8-15.2). Physicians who had used indoor UV tanning (19%) more often agreed that non-UV tanning lotion (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8) and airbrush tanning (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4) were safe but did not differ in attitudes regarding UV tanning safety. Physicians practicing in the Northeast and Midwest were more likely to support UV tanning to improve mood (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5) and more commonly believed that UV tanning could help treat depression (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.6) or prevent vitamin D deficiency (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8).ConclusionsPhysicians, especially dermatologists, are frequently asked about and generally discourage indoor UV tanning. Dermatologists regard indoor UV tanning more negatively compared with other physicians. Physician sex and geographic location were associated with specific indoor UV tanning attitudes.Indoor tanning has grown over the past several decades into a more than $5 billion-per-year industry, with traditional UV tanning being the most popular service offered by tanning salons.UV tanning bed use has been associated with adverse health consequences including cutaneous and ocular burns; altered immune responses; polymorphous light eruptions; drug- and cosmetic-induced photosensitivity; DNA mutation in human skin; and increased risk of squamous cell, basal cell, and melanoma skin cancers.Non-UV tanning booths that apply dihydroxyacetone containing mist are increasingly available.The Food and Drug Administration has approved dihydroxyacetone as safe for external use for cosmetic tanning purposes, with the caveat that the effects of eye, lip, mucous membrane, and internal exposure are untested.The attitudes and personal practices of physicians correlate with their sun protection recommendations: physicians who view skin cancer prevention as important and who use sun protection themselves are more likely to recommend sun protection to patients.Better understanding of physician beliefs and behaviors regarding UV exposure may identify opportunities to improve patient counseling regarding indoor tanning.METHODSA 29-question survey (available in an online eBox) was developed that assessed (1) indoor UV tanning perceptions, (2) personal indoor UV tanning history, (3) interactions with patients regarding indoor UV and non-UV tanning, (4) opinions regarding indoor UV tanning legislation, (5) personal history of skin cancer or actinic keratoses, (6) skin cancer risk factors including skin color and family history of skin cancer or actinic keratoses, and (7) demographic data. All questions except for state where practice is located used either a multiple choice format or a 5-point Likert scale. Questionnaire development included 2 rounds of piloting and review by physicians in each of the surveyed specialties prior to the first mailing.One thousand physicians likely to provide preventive skin care counseling (250 each listing dermatology, internal medicine, family practice, or pediatrics as their primary medical specialty) were randomly selected in May 2004 from 794 347 names in the American Medical Association (AMA) physician database. The AMA database contains 99% of the practicing and nonpracticing physicians in the United States and its territories, and is not contingent on membership in the AMA.Permission to use the computer-generated list for this survey protocol was purchased from KM Lists (http://www.kmlists.com) for approximately US $1000.Physicians were surveyed between September and November 2004 with up to 3 mailings separated by 3-week periods. Each mailing included a cover letter, the questionnaire, and a stamped return envelope marked with a unique numeric identifier. No monetary or other incentives were offered to respondents. Respondent characteristics are given in Table 1.Table 1. Respondent Characteristics*CharacteristicDermatologistsNondermatologistsPValueAge, y <304/136 (3)19/226 (8).006 30-3929/136 (21)70/226 (31) 40-4939/136 (29)55/226 (24) 50-5937/136 (27)56/226 (25) 60-6924/136 (18)17/226 (8) ≥703/136 (2)9/226 (4)Sex, F/total M + F85/136 (63)139/226 (62).85Region of practice Midwest28/134 (21)55/221 (25).81 Northeast25/134 (19)33/221 (15) South49/134 (37)79/221 (36) West31/134 (23)51/221 (23) Other1/134 (1)3/221 (1)Type of practice Private practice110/133 (83)111/216 (51)<.001 Academic practice13/133 (10)22/216 (10) Residency/fellowship5/133 (4)24/216 (11) HMO3/133 (2)12/216 (6) Other2/133 (2)47/216 (22)Personal history of: Melanoma3/136 (2)3/228 (1).68 Nonmelanoma   skin cancer12/136 (9)14/228 (6).34 Actinic keratoses24/136 (18)26/228 (11).09Family history of: Melanoma13/136 (10)18/228 (8).58 Nonmelanoma   skin cancer54/136 (40)55/228 (24).002 Actinic keratoses45/136 (33)55/228 (24).06 Fair or medium   white skin108/135 (80)144/227 (63)<.001 Have personally used   indoor UV tanning21/133 (16)46/224 (21).27 Abbreviation: HMO, health maintenance organization. *Data are given as number/number of respondents (percentage).A password-secured database accessible only to study personnel contained the unique numeric identifiers with associated names and addresses, and identifying numbers on returned envelopes were deleted from the key on receipt of all surveys. No specific identifying information was requested on the questionnaire. This protocol was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB Protocol No. 03-592).Survey responses were entered into a database by 2 independent investigators, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data analysis including descriptive statistics, &khgr;2tests, ttests, Fisher exact tests, and logistic regression was performed using SAS version 9 (SAS Inc, Cary, NC) statistical software. Missing values were excluded, and physician self-reported specialty was used for analysis. For Likert scale questions, dichotomous categorical (strongly agree + agree responses vs strongly disagree + disagree + neutral responses) analysis is presented herein with odds ratios (ORs) or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and mean Likert scores are presented in Table 2and Table 3.Table 2. Indoor Tanning Attitudes and Practices of Dermatologists Compared With Other Medical Specialists*ResponseDermatologistsNondermatologistsPValueEver asked by a patient about indoor UV tanning132/136 (97)†126/227 (56)†<.001With how many patients have discussed indoor UV tanning in past 12 mo? None4/136 (3)†111/227 (49)†<.001 1-1038/136 (28)†92/227 (41)† 11-5039/136 (29)†18/227 (8)† ≥5055/136 (40)†6/227 (3)†Important to discuss risk with patients who regularly use indoor UV tanning1.3 (1.2-1.4)1.8 (1.7-1.9)<.001Would discourage indoor UV tanning1.1 (1.0-1.2)1.8 (1.7-1.9)<.001Believe indoor UV tanning is safe4.5 (4.4-4.6)3.8 (3.6-3.9)<.001Believe outdoor UV tanning is safe4.4 (4.3-4.5)4.1 (4.0-4.2)<.001Likely to tan in next 12 mo4.9 (4.8-5.0)4.7 (4.6-4.8).001Indoor UV tanning increases risk of: Melanoma1.5 (1.3-1.6)1.8 (1.7-1.9)<.001 Nonmelanoma skin cancer1.2 (1.1-1.3)1.6 (1.5-1.7)<.001 Premature aging1.1 (1.0-1.2)1.5 (1.4-1.5)<.001 Sunburn2.2 (2.0-2.4)2.0 (1.8-2.1).09Benefit provided by indoor UV tanning: Prevent vitamin D deficiency3.6 (3.4-3.8)3.0 (2.9-3.2)<.001 Treat depression3.6 (3.4-3.8)3.3 (3.1-3.4).02 Lower blood pressure4.4 (4.2-4.5)4.0 (3.9-4.2)<.001 Decrease risk of nonskin cancers (eg, prostate, breast, or colon)4.4 (4.3-4.6)4.1 (4.0-4.2)<.001Acceptable to tan in order to: Improve mood4.1 (3.9-4.2)3.5 (3.3-3.6)<.001 Improve appearance4.5 (4.4-4.7)3.9 (3.7-4.0)<.001 Prevent sunburn by developing base tan4.4 (4.2-4.5)3.7 (3.6-3.9)<.001 Treat psoriasis2.6 (2.4-2.8)2.6 (2.5-2.8).75 Treat eczema3.0 (2.8-3.2)3.4 (3.2-3.5).001Support minimum age limit1.3 (1.1-1.4)1.7 (1.6-1.8)<.001Support parental consent requirements1.3 (1.2-1.5)1.7 (1.6-1.9)<.001Support excise tax on tanning services2.1 (1.9-2.3)3.0 (2.8-3.2)<.001Asked by patients about non-UV tanning124/136 (91)†33/226 (15)†<.001Non-UV tanning lotion is safe1.5 (1.4-1.6)2.4 (2.3-2.5)<.001Non-UV airbrush tanning is safe1.7 (1.6-1.9)2.6 (2.5-2.7)<.001 *Unless otherwise indicated data are given as mean (95% confidence interval) based on 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, strongly encourage, or very safe; 5 = strongly disagree, strongly discourage, or very unsafe) unless otherwise specified. †Fraction of respondents (percentage).Table 3. Survey Responses According to Respondent Sex, Personal History of Actinic Keratoses (AK) or Skin Cancer, and Personal Tanning History*ResponseMenWomenPValueWould discourage indoor UV tanning1.6 (1.5-1.8)1.4 (1.3-1.5).001Believe indoor UV tanning is safe4.0 (3.8-4.1)4.2 (4.0-4.3).02Believe outdoor UV tanning is safe4.1 (4.0-4.2)4.4 (4.2-4.5).003Support minimum age limit1.6 (1.5-1.8)1.4 (1.3-1.5).02Support parental consent requirements1.7 (1.5-1.8)1.5 (1.3-1.6).08Support excise tax on tanning services2.8 (2.6-3.0)2.4 (2.2-2.6).01Have used indoor UV tanning32/222 (14)†35/134 (26)†.006Have used indoor UV tanning in last 12 mo4/32 (13)†6/35 (17)†.74Positive History (AK or Skin Cancer)Negative History (AK or Skin Cancer)Would discourage indoor UV tanning1.5 (1.2-1.7)1.6 (1.5-1.7).30Support minimum age limit1.5 (1.2-1.7)1.5 (1.4-1.7).49Support parental consent requirements1.5 (1.3-1.8)1.6 (1.5-1.7).63Support excise tax on tanning services2.2 (1.9-2.6)2.8 (2.6-2.9).007Personal Indoor UV Tanning HistoryNo Personal Indoor UV Tanning HistoryWould discourage indoor UV tanning1.6 (1.4-1.8)1.5 (1.4-1.6).26Non-UV tanning lotion is safe1.9 (1.7-2.0)2.2 (2.1-2.3).006Non-UV airbrush tanning is safe2.1 (1.9-2.3)2.3 (2.2-2.4).02 *Unless otherwise indicated data are given as mean (95% confidence interval) based on 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, strongly encourage, or very safe; 5 = strongly disagree, strongly discourage, or very unsafe) unless otherwise specified. †Fraction of respondents (percentage).RESULTSFifty-one surveys were undeliverable owing to incorrect mailing addresses, 364 physicians returned completed surveys, and 40 respondents or their representatives returned blank surveys and/or notes describing the reason for declining to answer the survey (addressee deceased [n = 3], no longer in practice [n = 5], retired [n = 9], out of the country [n = 1], not an AMA member [n = 3], had no opinion on the matter [n = 1], survey topic not a patient concern [eg, neonatal intensive care pediatrician] [n = 3], and blank survey returned without explanation [n = 15]), giving an overall response rate of 38% (364/949). Response rate for each question ranged from 98% to 100% for dermatologists and 95% to 100% for other physician responders.Women respondents tended to be younger than men (P<.001); sex of respondents showed no statistical differences across the surveyed specialties. Eighteen respondents (<5%) reported not regularly seeing patients in a clinical setting during the past year. Dermatologists responded to the questionnaire more frequently than other physicians (52% dermatologists vs 31% other physicians; P<.001). Blank surveys or letters otherwise declining to answer were returned by 2% of dermatologists and 5% of nondermatologists (P = .06). Dermatologists were older (P = .004) and more frequently reported light or medium white skin color (P<.001) and family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (P = .002) (Table 1).INDOOR UV TANNINGIndoor UV tanning had been used by 16% of dermatologists vs 21% of other physicians (OR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.3]), with 6% overall indicating use for treatment of a medical condition. Reasons for indoor UV tanning included improving appearance (57%), preventing sunburn by developing a base tan (43%), and improving mood (10%). Fewer than 15% of those reporting tanning bed use had done so in the previous 12 months, and 73% had first used indoor UV tanning prior to age 30 years. Dermatologists less commonly planned to use indoor UV tanning in the next 12 months (1% vs 6%; OR, 0.1 [95% CI, 0.02-0.9]). Indoor UV tanning sessions were obtained from multiple sources including tanning salons (82%), health clubs or gyms (22%), physicians' offices (6%), or home tanning beds (6%).More dermatologists had discussed indoor UV tanning for nonmedical purposes with a patient in the preceding 12 months than other physicians (97% vs 51%; OR, 31.5 [95% CI, 11.3-88.5]), and the number of patients with whom they had spoken about indoor UV tanning was significantly greater (P<.001) (Table 2). More than 90% of all physicians agreed that it is important to discuss potential risks with patients who indoor UV tan frequently (at least once monthly) for nonmedical purposes, although dermatologists believed significantly more strongly that this was important (Table 2). At least 4 of 5 physicians believed that both indoor and outdoor UV tanning was unsafe, and only 20% agreed that indoor UV tanning devices emit less dangerous forms of UV radiation compared with outdoor sunlight. Dermatologists had more negative opinions about the safety of both indoor and outdoor UV tanning compared with nondermatologist physicians (Table 2). Differences between dermatologists and nondermatologists regarding the perceived safety of indoor UV tanning (OR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01-0.5]) and number of patients counseled regarding indoor tanning (OR, 30.0 [95% CI 10.7-84.5]) remained significant after controlling for age, sex, and skin tone.When discussing the use of indoor UV tanning for nonmedical purposes with a healthy patient, 100% of dermatologists and 84% of nondermatologists would discourage UV tanning. Most respondents did not believe that a desire to improve one's mood (61%) or appearance (77%) or to prevent sunburn by developing a base tan (72%) provided adequate justification for UV tanning use. Dermatologists were more likely to believe that regular indoor UV tanning increased an individual's risk for melanoma and premature aging but were less likely to believe that indoor tanning increased risk of sunburn and less likely to believe that indoor UV tanning could benefit users by preventing vitamin D deficiency or treating depression (Table 2). Very few respondents agreed with statements that indoor UV tanning lowered blood pressure or prevented nonskin cancers (5 and 2 respondents, respectively).Most respondents favored legislation regulating indoor UV tanning, especially minimum age limits (91%) or a regulation requiring parental consent for minors (90%). Forty-four percent supported an excise tax on tanning services to decrease demand. Dermatologists more strongly supported such legislative measures (Table 2). Other regulations recommended by responding physicians included more strict inspection and regulation of tanning bed equipment, limits on UV dose exposure, required education on the potential risks prior to use, prohibition of marketing aimed at youth, and outright bans on tanning bed use.Male and female physicians counseled similar numbers of patients about indoor UV tanning in the past year, and both were frequently asked by patients for opinions on UV tanning. Logistic regression analysis controlling for specialty, age, and skin tone revealed that women were more likely to discourage patients from tanning compared with men (97% vs 85%; OR, 6.5 [95% CI, 2.1-19.6]). Women were also more likely than men to have used indoor UV tanning at any time in the past, but they were not more likely to have tanned in the last 12 months (Table 3). Men who had used indoor UV tanning tended to have first tanned at a later age compared with women (P = .004) and were less likely to have tanned at a tanning salon (72% vs 91%; OR, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.06-1.0]). Women more commonly support tanning legislation (Table 3), and this difference remained significant (OR, 3.9 [95% CI, 1.1-13.9]) after controlling for specialty, age, and skin tone.Logistic regression analysis controlling for age, sex, specialty, and skin tone revealed that respondents with a personal history of skin cancer (melanoma or nonmelanoma) (9%) or actinic keratoses (14%) were less likely than those without to agree that indoor UV tanning increased risk for melanoma (OR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.7]). However, they did not differ otherwise in attitudes toward the safety, risks, and potential benefits of indoor UV tanning or personal history of tanning bed use (Table 3). History of indoor UV tanning bed use did not significantly predict perceptions of the safety of indoor UV tanning (OR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.4-2.8]) or likelihood to discourage indoor tanning or support tanning legislation (Table 3).Older physicians tended to agree more often that UV tanning was unsafe (OR, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.7-2.2]) and that it was important to discuss the risks with patients who tanned (OR, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.6-3.5]) and to discourage patients from tanning (OR, 1.8 [95% CI, 0.8-4.0]). No trend with age was seen in relation to tanning legislation. Physicians in the Northeast and Midwest more strongly supported indoor UV tanning for improving mood (23% vs 13%; OR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.5]), treating depression (33% vs 16%; OR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.5-4.6]), and preventing vitamin D deficiency (35% vs 24%; OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0-2.8]) compared with physicians in the South and West. Those practicing in states with indoor UV tanning youth access restrictionsshowed no significantly different indoor UV tanning attitudes compared with those in states without such laws.NON-UV TANNINGOf the dermatologists, 91% had been asked by patients about non-UV tanning, such as tanning lotions or airbrush tanning, compared with 24% of the family practitioners, 13% of internists, and 4% of pediatricians. Respondents generally considered non-UV tanning safe, with dermatologists considering self-applied tanning lotions (94% vs 52%; OR, 14.5 [95% CI, 6.8-31.1]) and airbrush tanning (86% vs 41%; OR, 8.9 [95% CI, 5.1-15.5]) safe much more often compared with other physicians (Table 2). Those with a history of indoor UV tanning were significantly more likely to agree that tanning lotions (79% vs 65%; OR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.8]) and airbrush tanning (70% vs 54%; OR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1-3.4]) were safe compared with those with no such history (Table 3).COMMENTMost physicians agreed that indoor UV tanning was unsafe (80%) and that patients should be discouraged from indoor UV tanning (90%); however, the opinions of dermatologists toward indoor UV tanning were significantly more negative than those of other physicians. Conversely, dermatologists had more favorable opinions of non-UV tanning compared with other physicians. Women more commonly discouraged indoor UV tanning compared with men, but other factors examined were not predictive of most responses.This study has strengths and limitations. Use of a random sample from the AMA database containing all practicing physicians in the United States and its territories helped to ensure a representative sample that increases the generalizability of results, and the 38% overall response rate is similar to the response rates of other published postal surveys of physicians, a demographic group that generally responds at a rate approximately 10% lower than that of other populations.Nondermatologists responded at a lower rate (31% vs 52% of dermatologists), allowing for the possibility of a response bias. Nondermatologist respondents are more likely to be concerned about the risks of indoor UV tanning compared with nonrespondents, favoring an overestimation of the frequency of patient interactions regarding tanning and a more negative attitude toward indoor tanning than may exist across the sample. In addition, this survey did not assess distribution of printed materials on indoor tanning or counseling offered by other office staff members. A social acceptability bias may be seen with studies regarding controversial issues such as tanning, which might lead to overestimation of the frequency of patient counseling regarding tanning. This survey was made anonymous to minimize this effect.Few previous studies have examined the attitudes and practices of physicians regarding indoor tanning. A survey study of 1616 members of the American Academy of Pediatrics regarding sun protection found that pediatricians believed sun protection should be discussed with patients (93%) and that most had recently counseled patients regarding sun protection (88%).Attitudes toward sun protection counseling and skin cancer risk did not vary with practice characteristics or personal or family history of skin cancer; however, women and physicians practicing in the Northeast or Midwest were more likely to frequently counsel patients on sun protection. Another study of pediatricians found that personal sun protection practices were predictive of professional practices regarding sun protection counseling.These studies did not address indoor tanning. A pilot study of employees of a health care system in the United Kingdom (UK) examined the association of specific attitudes and demographic characteristics with the likelihood to use a UV tanning bed.Of the respondents, 18% believed that tanning bed use was safer than tanning outdoors, similar to results of the present study. However, results of the UK study varied from the present study in that those who reported tanning bed use differed significantly in their perceptions of the safety of indoor tanning and association with skin cancer. Because our study was limited to physicians, our study population may have been more uniformly informed about skin cancer risk factors. Another UK study of 56 health care professionals including 28 junior physicians found that 14% of physicians reported tanning bed use.This small study did not appear to be anonymous, allowing for the possibility of social desirability bias, which may underestimate the frequency of tanning in this population. Neither of these studies addressed physician interactions with patients regarding indoor tanning.The high frequency with which physicians are asked by patients about indoor tanning highlights the importance of all physicians being well informed about the risks and potential benefits. Although nearly all physicians in our study would discourage indoor UV tanning when speaking with patients, a major question remains: to what degree can physician recommendations regarding tanning affect actual patient behavior? Physician opinion regarding the safety of non-UV tanning were generally positive, especially among dermatologists and physicians who had previously used a tanning bed and may support promotion of non-UV tanning in favor of UV tanning as a safer alternative for those seeking a tan. Further studies are needed to determine how physicians promoting non-UV tanning affects UV tanning practices.Correspondence:Robert P. Dellavalle, MD, PhD, MSPH, Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dermatology Service, 1055 Clermont St, Mail Code No. 165, Denver, CO 80220 (robert.dellavalle@uchsc.edu).Accepted for Publication:November 6, 2005.Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Johnson, Heilig, Hester, and Dellavalle. Acquisition of data: Johnson, Heilig, Francis, Deakyne, and Dellavalle. Analysis and interpretation of data: Johnson, Heilig, Hester, and Dellavalle. Drafting of the manuscript: Johnson, Heilig, and Dellavalle. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Johnson, Heilig, Hester, Francis, Deakyne, and Dellavalle. Statistical analysis: Johnson, Heilig, and Hester. Obtained funding: Dellavalle; Administrative, technical, and material support: Heilig and Deakyne. Study supervision: Heilig and Dellavalle.Financial Disclosure:None.Funding/Support:This study was supported by grants T32 AR07411 (Drs Johnson and Hester) and CA92550 (Dr Dellavalle) from the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md, and by the University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora (Dr Dellavalle).Previous Presentation:This study was presented as a poster at the American Society for Preventive Oncology Annual Meeting; March 13-15, 2005; San Francisco, Calif.Additional Resources:The online-only eBoxis available.Acknowledgment:We thank Avanta Collier, MD, Jennifer Myers, BS, and David Crockett for their help with mailings and other contributions.REFERENCESIndoor Tanning Association, IncAbout indoor tanning.Available at: http://www.theita.com/indoor/. Accessed June 27, 2005Committee on Environmental HealthUltraviolet light: a hazard to children.Pediatrics199910432833310429020Centers for Disease Control and PreventionInjuries associated with ultraviolet tanning devices—Wisconsin.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep1989383333352497327NSAgarGMHallidayRSBarnetsonHNAnanthaswamyMWheelerAMJonesThe basal layer in human squamous tumors harbors more UVA than UVB fingerprint mutations: a role for UVA in human skin carcinogenesis.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A20041014954495915041750SEWhitmoreWLMorisonCSPottenCChadwickTanning salon exposure and molecular alterations.J Am Acad Dermatol20014477578011312423MRKaragasVAStannardLAMottMJSlatterySKSpencerMAWeinstockUse of tanning devices and risk of basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers.J Natl Cancer Inst20029422422611830612RPGallagherJJSpinelliTKLeeTanning beds, sunlamps, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev20051456256615767329MBVeierodEWeiderpassMThornA prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women.J Natl Cancer Inst2003951530153814559875JMFuSWDuszaACHalpernSunless tanning.J Am Acad Dermatol20045070671315097954US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Cosmetics and ColorsDHA-spray sunless “tanning” booths.Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-tan4.html. Accessed June 27, 2005ERGritzMKTrippCAde MoorSkin cancer prevention counseling and clinical practices of pediatricians.Pediatr Dermatol200320162412558840RVermaDACorleyHow should we select health professionals for studies?Outcomes Manag2003712913312892047SOFrancisDLBurkhardtRPDellavalle2005: A banner year for new US youth access tanning restrictions.Arch Dermatol200514152452515837878DAAschMKJedrziewskiNAChristakisDAAschMKJedrziewskiNAChristakisResponse rates to mail surveys published in medical journals.J Clin Epidemiol199750112911369368521SJBalkKGO'ConnorMSaraiyaCounseling parents and children on sun protection: a national survey of pediatricians.Pediatrics20041141056106415466105ZAmirAWrightEEKernohanGHartAttitudes, beliefs and behaviour regarding the use of sunbeds amongst healthcare workers in Bradford.Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)20009767911261014MDarlingSHIbbotsonSun awareness and behaviour in healthcare professionals and the general public.Clin Exp Dermatol20022744244412372079HIMahlerJAKulikJHarrellACorreaFXGibbonsMGerrardEffects of UV photographs, photoaging information, and use of sunless tanning lotion on sun protection behaviors.Arch Dermatol200514137338015781679 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA Dermatology American Medical Association

Indoor Tanning Attitudes and Practices of US Dermatologists Compared With Other Medical Specialists

Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/indoor-tanning-attitudes-and-practices-of-us-dermatologists-compared-GIjE9oLPFS

References (18)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2006 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
2168-6068
eISSN
2168-6084
DOI
10.1001/archderm.142.4.465
pmid
16618866
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the indoor tanning attitudes and practices of dermatologists with physicians in other medical specialties (internal medicine, pediatrics, and family medicine) commonly providing sun safety counseling to patients.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingQuestionnaire mailed to randomly selected US dermatologists, internists, family practitioners, and pediatricians.ResultsThe overall response rate was 38% (364/949): 71% indicated that patients had asked their opinions about indoor UV tanning, 80% believed that UV tanning was unsafe, and 90% agreed they would counsel patients against nonmedical indoor UV tanning. Many supported increased UV tanning legislation, including minimum age restrictions (91%) and parental consent requirements (90%). Dermatologists were significantly more likely than other physicians to respond to the survey (52% vs 31%, P<.001), speak with patients about indoor UV tanning (odds ratio [OR], 26.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-74.1]), believe that indoor UV tanning is unsafe (OR, 14.0; 95% CI, 5.0-39.4), and support increased regulation (OR, 11.7; 95% CI, 1.5-88.5). Women discouraged indoor UV tanning more than men (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.8-15.2). Physicians who had used indoor UV tanning (19%) more often agreed that non-UV tanning lotion (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8) and airbrush tanning (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4) were safe but did not differ in attitudes regarding UV tanning safety. Physicians practicing in the Northeast and Midwest were more likely to support UV tanning to improve mood (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5) and more commonly believed that UV tanning could help treat depression (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.6) or prevent vitamin D deficiency (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8).ConclusionsPhysicians, especially dermatologists, are frequently asked about and generally discourage indoor UV tanning. Dermatologists regard indoor UV tanning more negatively compared with other physicians. Physician sex and geographic location were associated with specific indoor UV tanning attitudes.Indoor tanning has grown over the past several decades into a more than $5 billion-per-year industry, with traditional UV tanning being the most popular service offered by tanning salons.UV tanning bed use has been associated with adverse health consequences including cutaneous and ocular burns; altered immune responses; polymorphous light eruptions; drug- and cosmetic-induced photosensitivity; DNA mutation in human skin; and increased risk of squamous cell, basal cell, and melanoma skin cancers.Non-UV tanning booths that apply dihydroxyacetone containing mist are increasingly available.The Food and Drug Administration has approved dihydroxyacetone as safe for external use for cosmetic tanning purposes, with the caveat that the effects of eye, lip, mucous membrane, and internal exposure are untested.The attitudes and personal practices of physicians correlate with their sun protection recommendations: physicians who view skin cancer prevention as important and who use sun protection themselves are more likely to recommend sun protection to patients.Better understanding of physician beliefs and behaviors regarding UV exposure may identify opportunities to improve patient counseling regarding indoor tanning.METHODSA 29-question survey (available in an online eBox) was developed that assessed (1) indoor UV tanning perceptions, (2) personal indoor UV tanning history, (3) interactions with patients regarding indoor UV and non-UV tanning, (4) opinions regarding indoor UV tanning legislation, (5) personal history of skin cancer or actinic keratoses, (6) skin cancer risk factors including skin color and family history of skin cancer or actinic keratoses, and (7) demographic data. All questions except for state where practice is located used either a multiple choice format or a 5-point Likert scale. Questionnaire development included 2 rounds of piloting and review by physicians in each of the surveyed specialties prior to the first mailing.One thousand physicians likely to provide preventive skin care counseling (250 each listing dermatology, internal medicine, family practice, or pediatrics as their primary medical specialty) were randomly selected in May 2004 from 794 347 names in the American Medical Association (AMA) physician database. The AMA database contains 99% of the practicing and nonpracticing physicians in the United States and its territories, and is not contingent on membership in the AMA.Permission to use the computer-generated list for this survey protocol was purchased from KM Lists (http://www.kmlists.com) for approximately US $1000.Physicians were surveyed between September and November 2004 with up to 3 mailings separated by 3-week periods. Each mailing included a cover letter, the questionnaire, and a stamped return envelope marked with a unique numeric identifier. No monetary or other incentives were offered to respondents. Respondent characteristics are given in Table 1.Table 1. Respondent Characteristics*CharacteristicDermatologistsNondermatologistsPValueAge, y <304/136 (3)19/226 (8).006 30-3929/136 (21)70/226 (31) 40-4939/136 (29)55/226 (24) 50-5937/136 (27)56/226 (25) 60-6924/136 (18)17/226 (8) ≥703/136 (2)9/226 (4)Sex, F/total M + F85/136 (63)139/226 (62).85Region of practice Midwest28/134 (21)55/221 (25).81 Northeast25/134 (19)33/221 (15) South49/134 (37)79/221 (36) West31/134 (23)51/221 (23) Other1/134 (1)3/221 (1)Type of practice Private practice110/133 (83)111/216 (51)<.001 Academic practice13/133 (10)22/216 (10) Residency/fellowship5/133 (4)24/216 (11) HMO3/133 (2)12/216 (6) Other2/133 (2)47/216 (22)Personal history of: Melanoma3/136 (2)3/228 (1).68 Nonmelanoma   skin cancer12/136 (9)14/228 (6).34 Actinic keratoses24/136 (18)26/228 (11).09Family history of: Melanoma13/136 (10)18/228 (8).58 Nonmelanoma   skin cancer54/136 (40)55/228 (24).002 Actinic keratoses45/136 (33)55/228 (24).06 Fair or medium   white skin108/135 (80)144/227 (63)<.001 Have personally used   indoor UV tanning21/133 (16)46/224 (21).27 Abbreviation: HMO, health maintenance organization. *Data are given as number/number of respondents (percentage).A password-secured database accessible only to study personnel contained the unique numeric identifiers with associated names and addresses, and identifying numbers on returned envelopes were deleted from the key on receipt of all surveys. No specific identifying information was requested on the questionnaire. This protocol was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB Protocol No. 03-592).Survey responses were entered into a database by 2 independent investigators, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data analysis including descriptive statistics, &khgr;2tests, ttests, Fisher exact tests, and logistic regression was performed using SAS version 9 (SAS Inc, Cary, NC) statistical software. Missing values were excluded, and physician self-reported specialty was used for analysis. For Likert scale questions, dichotomous categorical (strongly agree + agree responses vs strongly disagree + disagree + neutral responses) analysis is presented herein with odds ratios (ORs) or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and mean Likert scores are presented in Table 2and Table 3.Table 2. Indoor Tanning Attitudes and Practices of Dermatologists Compared With Other Medical Specialists*ResponseDermatologistsNondermatologistsPValueEver asked by a patient about indoor UV tanning132/136 (97)†126/227 (56)†<.001With how many patients have discussed indoor UV tanning in past 12 mo? None4/136 (3)†111/227 (49)†<.001 1-1038/136 (28)†92/227 (41)† 11-5039/136 (29)†18/227 (8)† ≥5055/136 (40)†6/227 (3)†Important to discuss risk with patients who regularly use indoor UV tanning1.3 (1.2-1.4)1.8 (1.7-1.9)<.001Would discourage indoor UV tanning1.1 (1.0-1.2)1.8 (1.7-1.9)<.001Believe indoor UV tanning is safe4.5 (4.4-4.6)3.8 (3.6-3.9)<.001Believe outdoor UV tanning is safe4.4 (4.3-4.5)4.1 (4.0-4.2)<.001Likely to tan in next 12 mo4.9 (4.8-5.0)4.7 (4.6-4.8).001Indoor UV tanning increases risk of: Melanoma1.5 (1.3-1.6)1.8 (1.7-1.9)<.001 Nonmelanoma skin cancer1.2 (1.1-1.3)1.6 (1.5-1.7)<.001 Premature aging1.1 (1.0-1.2)1.5 (1.4-1.5)<.001 Sunburn2.2 (2.0-2.4)2.0 (1.8-2.1).09Benefit provided by indoor UV tanning: Prevent vitamin D deficiency3.6 (3.4-3.8)3.0 (2.9-3.2)<.001 Treat depression3.6 (3.4-3.8)3.3 (3.1-3.4).02 Lower blood pressure4.4 (4.2-4.5)4.0 (3.9-4.2)<.001 Decrease risk of nonskin cancers (eg, prostate, breast, or colon)4.4 (4.3-4.6)4.1 (4.0-4.2)<.001Acceptable to tan in order to: Improve mood4.1 (3.9-4.2)3.5 (3.3-3.6)<.001 Improve appearance4.5 (4.4-4.7)3.9 (3.7-4.0)<.001 Prevent sunburn by developing base tan4.4 (4.2-4.5)3.7 (3.6-3.9)<.001 Treat psoriasis2.6 (2.4-2.8)2.6 (2.5-2.8).75 Treat eczema3.0 (2.8-3.2)3.4 (3.2-3.5).001Support minimum age limit1.3 (1.1-1.4)1.7 (1.6-1.8)<.001Support parental consent requirements1.3 (1.2-1.5)1.7 (1.6-1.9)<.001Support excise tax on tanning services2.1 (1.9-2.3)3.0 (2.8-3.2)<.001Asked by patients about non-UV tanning124/136 (91)†33/226 (15)†<.001Non-UV tanning lotion is safe1.5 (1.4-1.6)2.4 (2.3-2.5)<.001Non-UV airbrush tanning is safe1.7 (1.6-1.9)2.6 (2.5-2.7)<.001 *Unless otherwise indicated data are given as mean (95% confidence interval) based on 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, strongly encourage, or very safe; 5 = strongly disagree, strongly discourage, or very unsafe) unless otherwise specified. †Fraction of respondents (percentage).Table 3. Survey Responses According to Respondent Sex, Personal History of Actinic Keratoses (AK) or Skin Cancer, and Personal Tanning History*ResponseMenWomenPValueWould discourage indoor UV tanning1.6 (1.5-1.8)1.4 (1.3-1.5).001Believe indoor UV tanning is safe4.0 (3.8-4.1)4.2 (4.0-4.3).02Believe outdoor UV tanning is safe4.1 (4.0-4.2)4.4 (4.2-4.5).003Support minimum age limit1.6 (1.5-1.8)1.4 (1.3-1.5).02Support parental consent requirements1.7 (1.5-1.8)1.5 (1.3-1.6).08Support excise tax on tanning services2.8 (2.6-3.0)2.4 (2.2-2.6).01Have used indoor UV tanning32/222 (14)†35/134 (26)†.006Have used indoor UV tanning in last 12 mo4/32 (13)†6/35 (17)†.74Positive History (AK or Skin Cancer)Negative History (AK or Skin Cancer)Would discourage indoor UV tanning1.5 (1.2-1.7)1.6 (1.5-1.7).30Support minimum age limit1.5 (1.2-1.7)1.5 (1.4-1.7).49Support parental consent requirements1.5 (1.3-1.8)1.6 (1.5-1.7).63Support excise tax on tanning services2.2 (1.9-2.6)2.8 (2.6-2.9).007Personal Indoor UV Tanning HistoryNo Personal Indoor UV Tanning HistoryWould discourage indoor UV tanning1.6 (1.4-1.8)1.5 (1.4-1.6).26Non-UV tanning lotion is safe1.9 (1.7-2.0)2.2 (2.1-2.3).006Non-UV airbrush tanning is safe2.1 (1.9-2.3)2.3 (2.2-2.4).02 *Unless otherwise indicated data are given as mean (95% confidence interval) based on 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, strongly encourage, or very safe; 5 = strongly disagree, strongly discourage, or very unsafe) unless otherwise specified. †Fraction of respondents (percentage).RESULTSFifty-one surveys were undeliverable owing to incorrect mailing addresses, 364 physicians returned completed surveys, and 40 respondents or their representatives returned blank surveys and/or notes describing the reason for declining to answer the survey (addressee deceased [n = 3], no longer in practice [n = 5], retired [n = 9], out of the country [n = 1], not an AMA member [n = 3], had no opinion on the matter [n = 1], survey topic not a patient concern [eg, neonatal intensive care pediatrician] [n = 3], and blank survey returned without explanation [n = 15]), giving an overall response rate of 38% (364/949). Response rate for each question ranged from 98% to 100% for dermatologists and 95% to 100% for other physician responders.Women respondents tended to be younger than men (P<.001); sex of respondents showed no statistical differences across the surveyed specialties. Eighteen respondents (<5%) reported not regularly seeing patients in a clinical setting during the past year. Dermatologists responded to the questionnaire more frequently than other physicians (52% dermatologists vs 31% other physicians; P<.001). Blank surveys or letters otherwise declining to answer were returned by 2% of dermatologists and 5% of nondermatologists (P = .06). Dermatologists were older (P = .004) and more frequently reported light or medium white skin color (P<.001) and family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (P = .002) (Table 1).INDOOR UV TANNINGIndoor UV tanning had been used by 16% of dermatologists vs 21% of other physicians (OR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.3]), with 6% overall indicating use for treatment of a medical condition. Reasons for indoor UV tanning included improving appearance (57%), preventing sunburn by developing a base tan (43%), and improving mood (10%). Fewer than 15% of those reporting tanning bed use had done so in the previous 12 months, and 73% had first used indoor UV tanning prior to age 30 years. Dermatologists less commonly planned to use indoor UV tanning in the next 12 months (1% vs 6%; OR, 0.1 [95% CI, 0.02-0.9]). Indoor UV tanning sessions were obtained from multiple sources including tanning salons (82%), health clubs or gyms (22%), physicians' offices (6%), or home tanning beds (6%).More dermatologists had discussed indoor UV tanning for nonmedical purposes with a patient in the preceding 12 months than other physicians (97% vs 51%; OR, 31.5 [95% CI, 11.3-88.5]), and the number of patients with whom they had spoken about indoor UV tanning was significantly greater (P<.001) (Table 2). More than 90% of all physicians agreed that it is important to discuss potential risks with patients who indoor UV tan frequently (at least once monthly) for nonmedical purposes, although dermatologists believed significantly more strongly that this was important (Table 2). At least 4 of 5 physicians believed that both indoor and outdoor UV tanning was unsafe, and only 20% agreed that indoor UV tanning devices emit less dangerous forms of UV radiation compared with outdoor sunlight. Dermatologists had more negative opinions about the safety of both indoor and outdoor UV tanning compared with nondermatologist physicians (Table 2). Differences between dermatologists and nondermatologists regarding the perceived safety of indoor UV tanning (OR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01-0.5]) and number of patients counseled regarding indoor tanning (OR, 30.0 [95% CI 10.7-84.5]) remained significant after controlling for age, sex, and skin tone.When discussing the use of indoor UV tanning for nonmedical purposes with a healthy patient, 100% of dermatologists and 84% of nondermatologists would discourage UV tanning. Most respondents did not believe that a desire to improve one's mood (61%) or appearance (77%) or to prevent sunburn by developing a base tan (72%) provided adequate justification for UV tanning use. Dermatologists were more likely to believe that regular indoor UV tanning increased an individual's risk for melanoma and premature aging but were less likely to believe that indoor tanning increased risk of sunburn and less likely to believe that indoor UV tanning could benefit users by preventing vitamin D deficiency or treating depression (Table 2). Very few respondents agreed with statements that indoor UV tanning lowered blood pressure or prevented nonskin cancers (5 and 2 respondents, respectively).Most respondents favored legislation regulating indoor UV tanning, especially minimum age limits (91%) or a regulation requiring parental consent for minors (90%). Forty-four percent supported an excise tax on tanning services to decrease demand. Dermatologists more strongly supported such legislative measures (Table 2). Other regulations recommended by responding physicians included more strict inspection and regulation of tanning bed equipment, limits on UV dose exposure, required education on the potential risks prior to use, prohibition of marketing aimed at youth, and outright bans on tanning bed use.Male and female physicians counseled similar numbers of patients about indoor UV tanning in the past year, and both were frequently asked by patients for opinions on UV tanning. Logistic regression analysis controlling for specialty, age, and skin tone revealed that women were more likely to discourage patients from tanning compared with men (97% vs 85%; OR, 6.5 [95% CI, 2.1-19.6]). Women were also more likely than men to have used indoor UV tanning at any time in the past, but they were not more likely to have tanned in the last 12 months (Table 3). Men who had used indoor UV tanning tended to have first tanned at a later age compared with women (P = .004) and were less likely to have tanned at a tanning salon (72% vs 91%; OR, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.06-1.0]). Women more commonly support tanning legislation (Table 3), and this difference remained significant (OR, 3.9 [95% CI, 1.1-13.9]) after controlling for specialty, age, and skin tone.Logistic regression analysis controlling for age, sex, specialty, and skin tone revealed that respondents with a personal history of skin cancer (melanoma or nonmelanoma) (9%) or actinic keratoses (14%) were less likely than those without to agree that indoor UV tanning increased risk for melanoma (OR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.7]). However, they did not differ otherwise in attitudes toward the safety, risks, and potential benefits of indoor UV tanning or personal history of tanning bed use (Table 3). History of indoor UV tanning bed use did not significantly predict perceptions of the safety of indoor UV tanning (OR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.4-2.8]) or likelihood to discourage indoor tanning or support tanning legislation (Table 3).Older physicians tended to agree more often that UV tanning was unsafe (OR, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.7-2.2]) and that it was important to discuss the risks with patients who tanned (OR, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.6-3.5]) and to discourage patients from tanning (OR, 1.8 [95% CI, 0.8-4.0]). No trend with age was seen in relation to tanning legislation. Physicians in the Northeast and Midwest more strongly supported indoor UV tanning for improving mood (23% vs 13%; OR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.5]), treating depression (33% vs 16%; OR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.5-4.6]), and preventing vitamin D deficiency (35% vs 24%; OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0-2.8]) compared with physicians in the South and West. Those practicing in states with indoor UV tanning youth access restrictionsshowed no significantly different indoor UV tanning attitudes compared with those in states without such laws.NON-UV TANNINGOf the dermatologists, 91% had been asked by patients about non-UV tanning, such as tanning lotions or airbrush tanning, compared with 24% of the family practitioners, 13% of internists, and 4% of pediatricians. Respondents generally considered non-UV tanning safe, with dermatologists considering self-applied tanning lotions (94% vs 52%; OR, 14.5 [95% CI, 6.8-31.1]) and airbrush tanning (86% vs 41%; OR, 8.9 [95% CI, 5.1-15.5]) safe much more often compared with other physicians (Table 2). Those with a history of indoor UV tanning were significantly more likely to agree that tanning lotions (79% vs 65%; OR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.8]) and airbrush tanning (70% vs 54%; OR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1-3.4]) were safe compared with those with no such history (Table 3).COMMENTMost physicians agreed that indoor UV tanning was unsafe (80%) and that patients should be discouraged from indoor UV tanning (90%); however, the opinions of dermatologists toward indoor UV tanning were significantly more negative than those of other physicians. Conversely, dermatologists had more favorable opinions of non-UV tanning compared with other physicians. Women more commonly discouraged indoor UV tanning compared with men, but other factors examined were not predictive of most responses.This study has strengths and limitations. Use of a random sample from the AMA database containing all practicing physicians in the United States and its territories helped to ensure a representative sample that increases the generalizability of results, and the 38% overall response rate is similar to the response rates of other published postal surveys of physicians, a demographic group that generally responds at a rate approximately 10% lower than that of other populations.Nondermatologists responded at a lower rate (31% vs 52% of dermatologists), allowing for the possibility of a response bias. Nondermatologist respondents are more likely to be concerned about the risks of indoor UV tanning compared with nonrespondents, favoring an overestimation of the frequency of patient interactions regarding tanning and a more negative attitude toward indoor tanning than may exist across the sample. In addition, this survey did not assess distribution of printed materials on indoor tanning or counseling offered by other office staff members. A social acceptability bias may be seen with studies regarding controversial issues such as tanning, which might lead to overestimation of the frequency of patient counseling regarding tanning. This survey was made anonymous to minimize this effect.Few previous studies have examined the attitudes and practices of physicians regarding indoor tanning. A survey study of 1616 members of the American Academy of Pediatrics regarding sun protection found that pediatricians believed sun protection should be discussed with patients (93%) and that most had recently counseled patients regarding sun protection (88%).Attitudes toward sun protection counseling and skin cancer risk did not vary with practice characteristics or personal or family history of skin cancer; however, women and physicians practicing in the Northeast or Midwest were more likely to frequently counsel patients on sun protection. Another study of pediatricians found that personal sun protection practices were predictive of professional practices regarding sun protection counseling.These studies did not address indoor tanning. A pilot study of employees of a health care system in the United Kingdom (UK) examined the association of specific attitudes and demographic characteristics with the likelihood to use a UV tanning bed.Of the respondents, 18% believed that tanning bed use was safer than tanning outdoors, similar to results of the present study. However, results of the UK study varied from the present study in that those who reported tanning bed use differed significantly in their perceptions of the safety of indoor tanning and association with skin cancer. Because our study was limited to physicians, our study population may have been more uniformly informed about skin cancer risk factors. Another UK study of 56 health care professionals including 28 junior physicians found that 14% of physicians reported tanning bed use.This small study did not appear to be anonymous, allowing for the possibility of social desirability bias, which may underestimate the frequency of tanning in this population. Neither of these studies addressed physician interactions with patients regarding indoor tanning.The high frequency with which physicians are asked by patients about indoor tanning highlights the importance of all physicians being well informed about the risks and potential benefits. Although nearly all physicians in our study would discourage indoor UV tanning when speaking with patients, a major question remains: to what degree can physician recommendations regarding tanning affect actual patient behavior? Physician opinion regarding the safety of non-UV tanning were generally positive, especially among dermatologists and physicians who had previously used a tanning bed and may support promotion of non-UV tanning in favor of UV tanning as a safer alternative for those seeking a tan. Further studies are needed to determine how physicians promoting non-UV tanning affects UV tanning practices.Correspondence:Robert P. Dellavalle, MD, PhD, MSPH, Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dermatology Service, 1055 Clermont St, Mail Code No. 165, Denver, CO 80220 (robert.dellavalle@uchsc.edu).Accepted for Publication:November 6, 2005.Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Johnson, Heilig, Hester, and Dellavalle. Acquisition of data: Johnson, Heilig, Francis, Deakyne, and Dellavalle. Analysis and interpretation of data: Johnson, Heilig, Hester, and Dellavalle. Drafting of the manuscript: Johnson, Heilig, and Dellavalle. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Johnson, Heilig, Hester, Francis, Deakyne, and Dellavalle. Statistical analysis: Johnson, Heilig, and Hester. Obtained funding: Dellavalle; Administrative, technical, and material support: Heilig and Deakyne. Study supervision: Heilig and Dellavalle.Financial Disclosure:None.Funding/Support:This study was supported by grants T32 AR07411 (Drs Johnson and Hester) and CA92550 (Dr Dellavalle) from the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md, and by the University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora (Dr Dellavalle).Previous Presentation:This study was presented as a poster at the American Society for Preventive Oncology Annual Meeting; March 13-15, 2005; San Francisco, Calif.Additional Resources:The online-only eBoxis available.Acknowledgment:We thank Avanta Collier, MD, Jennifer Myers, BS, and David Crockett for their help with mailings and other contributions.REFERENCESIndoor Tanning Association, IncAbout indoor tanning.Available at: http://www.theita.com/indoor/. Accessed June 27, 2005Committee on Environmental HealthUltraviolet light: a hazard to children.Pediatrics199910432833310429020Centers for Disease Control and PreventionInjuries associated with ultraviolet tanning devices—Wisconsin.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep1989383333352497327NSAgarGMHallidayRSBarnetsonHNAnanthaswamyMWheelerAMJonesThe basal layer in human squamous tumors harbors more UVA than UVB fingerprint mutations: a role for UVA in human skin carcinogenesis.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A20041014954495915041750SEWhitmoreWLMorisonCSPottenCChadwickTanning salon exposure and molecular alterations.J Am Acad Dermatol20014477578011312423MRKaragasVAStannardLAMottMJSlatterySKSpencerMAWeinstockUse of tanning devices and risk of basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers.J Natl Cancer Inst20029422422611830612RPGallagherJJSpinelliTKLeeTanning beds, sunlamps, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev20051456256615767329MBVeierodEWeiderpassMThornA prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women.J Natl Cancer Inst2003951530153814559875JMFuSWDuszaACHalpernSunless tanning.J Am Acad Dermatol20045070671315097954US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Cosmetics and ColorsDHA-spray sunless “tanning” booths.Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-tan4.html. Accessed June 27, 2005ERGritzMKTrippCAde MoorSkin cancer prevention counseling and clinical practices of pediatricians.Pediatr Dermatol200320162412558840RVermaDACorleyHow should we select health professionals for studies?Outcomes Manag2003712913312892047SOFrancisDLBurkhardtRPDellavalle2005: A banner year for new US youth access tanning restrictions.Arch Dermatol200514152452515837878DAAschMKJedrziewskiNAChristakisDAAschMKJedrziewskiNAChristakisResponse rates to mail surveys published in medical journals.J Clin Epidemiol199750112911369368521SJBalkKGO'ConnorMSaraiyaCounseling parents and children on sun protection: a national survey of pediatricians.Pediatrics20041141056106415466105ZAmirAWrightEEKernohanGHartAttitudes, beliefs and behaviour regarding the use of sunbeds amongst healthcare workers in Bradford.Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)20009767911261014MDarlingSHIbbotsonSun awareness and behaviour in healthcare professionals and the general public.Clin Exp Dermatol20022744244412372079HIMahlerJAKulikJHarrellACorreaFXGibbonsMGerrardEffects of UV photographs, photoaging information, and use of sunless tanning lotion on sun protection behaviors.Arch Dermatol200514137338015781679

Journal

JAMA Dermatology – American Medical Association

Published: Apr 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.