Sun exposure behaviours as a compromise to paradoxical injunctions: Insight from a worldwide survey.
Journal
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV
ISSN: 1468-3083
Titre abrégé: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9216037
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
31
01
2023
accepted:
12
07
2023
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
17
8
2023
entrez:
17
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Behavioural interventions can improve attitudes towards sun protection but the impact remains inconsistent worldwide. To assess awareness of and attitudes towards the multiple facets of sun exposure and suggest ways to improve prevention from overexposure to the sun in all geographical zones and multiple skin types. Online survey was conducted from 28 September to 18 October 2021. Study population was selected from the Ipsos online Panel (3,540,000 panellists), aged ≥18 years, from 17 countries around the five continents. Demographics, sun-exposure habits and practices, understanding of risks and information on phototypes were documented and analysed using descriptive statistics. Eighty-eight per cent of participants knew that sunlight can cause skin health problems (90% phototypes I-II, 82% phototypes V-VI, >90% in American and European countries, 72% in Asia and 85% in Africa). Eighty-five per cent used some form of protection against sunlight, predominantly: Seeking shade (77%), avoiding the midday sun (66%), facial application of sunscreen (60%) and wearing protective clothing (44%). The perception of sunlight itself is positive ('it gives energy' for 82%; 'tanned skin looks attractive' for 72%), although less in Asian countries and among individuals with dark skin phototypes. Eighty-three per cent reported having experienced sunburn, mainly in Australia, Canada, USA, Germany, France and Russia, and among individuals with dark skin phototypes. Only 12% systematically/often used all types of protection during exposure to the sun and 23% believed it is safe to go out in the sun with no protection when their skin is already tanned. From 13% (skin phototype I) to 26% (phototype VI) reported not using any form of protection against the sun. Knowledge and habits were significantly superior among people who are accustomed to seeing a dermatologist for a complete skin exam. Dermatologists could play a crucial role in relaying novel prevention messages, more finely tailored to specific risks, populations and areas of the world.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Behavioural interventions can improve attitudes towards sun protection but the impact remains inconsistent worldwide.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To assess awareness of and attitudes towards the multiple facets of sun exposure and suggest ways to improve prevention from overexposure to the sun in all geographical zones and multiple skin types.
METHODS
METHODS
Online survey was conducted from 28 September to 18 October 2021. Study population was selected from the Ipsos online Panel (3,540,000 panellists), aged ≥18 years, from 17 countries around the five continents. Demographics, sun-exposure habits and practices, understanding of risks and information on phototypes were documented and analysed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eighty-eight per cent of participants knew that sunlight can cause skin health problems (90% phototypes I-II, 82% phototypes V-VI, >90% in American and European countries, 72% in Asia and 85% in Africa). Eighty-five per cent used some form of protection against sunlight, predominantly: Seeking shade (77%), avoiding the midday sun (66%), facial application of sunscreen (60%) and wearing protective clothing (44%). The perception of sunlight itself is positive ('it gives energy' for 82%; 'tanned skin looks attractive' for 72%), although less in Asian countries and among individuals with dark skin phototypes. Eighty-three per cent reported having experienced sunburn, mainly in Australia, Canada, USA, Germany, France and Russia, and among individuals with dark skin phototypes. Only 12% systematically/often used all types of protection during exposure to the sun and 23% believed it is safe to go out in the sun with no protection when their skin is already tanned. From 13% (skin phototype I) to 26% (phototype VI) reported not using any form of protection against the sun. Knowledge and habits were significantly superior among people who are accustomed to seeing a dermatologist for a complete skin exam.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Dermatologists could play a crucial role in relaying novel prevention messages, more finely tailored to specific risks, populations and areas of the world.
Substances chimiques
Sunscreening Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2481-2489Subventions
Organisme : La Roche-Posay
Informations de copyright
© 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Références
Woodby B, Penta K, Pecorelli A, Lila MA, Valacchi G. Skin health from the inside out. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol. 2020;11:235-254.
Passeron T, Krutmann J, Andersen ML, Katta R, Zouboulis CC. Clinical and biological impact of the exposome on the skin. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(Suppl 4):4-25.
Rigel DS, Lim HW, Draelos ZD, Weber TM, Taylor SC. Photoprotection for all: current gaps and opportunities. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86(3s):S18-S26.
Battie C, Jitsukawa S, Bernerd F, Del Bino S, Marionnet C, Verschoore M. New insights in photoaging, UVA induced damage and skin types. Exp Dermatol. 2014;23(Suppl 1):7-12.
Sklar LR, Almutawa F, Lim HW, Hamzavi I. Effects of ultraviolet radiation, visible light, and infrared radiation on erythema and pigmentation: a review. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2013;12(1):54-64.
Addor FAS, Barcaui CB, Gomes EE, Lupi O, Marçon CR, Miot HA. Sunscreen lotions in the dermatological prescription: review of concepts and controversies. An Bras Dermatol. 2022;97(2):204-222.
Austin E, Geisler AN, Nguyen J, Kohli I, Hamzavi I, Lim HW, et al. Visible light. Part I: properties and cutaneous effects of visible light. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84(5):1219-1231.
Geisler AN, Austin E, Nguyen J, Hamzavi I, Jagdeo J, Lim HW. Visible light. Part II: photoprotection against visible and ultraviolet light. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84(5):1233-1244.
Krutmann J, Morita A, Chung JH. Sun exposure: what molecular photodermatology tells us about its good and bad sides. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132(3 Pt 2):976-984.
Boukari F, Jourdan E, Fontas E, Montaudié H, Castela E, Lacour JP, et al. Prevention of melasma relapses with sunscreen combining protection against UV and short wavelengths of visible light: a prospective randomized comparative trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(1):189-190.e181.
Tsai J, Chien AL. Photoprotection for skin of color. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022;23:195-205.
Passeron T, Lim HW, Goh CL, Kang HY, Ly F, Morita A, et al. Photoprotection according to skin phototype and dermatoses: practical recommendations from an expert panel. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021;35(7):1460-1469.
Schalka S, Steiner D, Ravelli FN, Steiner T, Terena AC, Marçon CR, et al. Brazilian consensus on photoprotection. An Bras Dermatol. 2014;89(6 Suppl 1):1-74.
Randle HW. Suntanning: differences in perceptions throughout history. Mayo Clin Proc. 1997;72(5):461-466.
Chen HY, Robinson JK, Jablonski NG. A cross-cultural exploration on the psychological aspects of skin color aesthetics: implications for sun-related behavior. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(1):234-243.
Arthur K, Belliard JC, Hardin SB, Knecht K, Chen CS, Montgomery S. Practices, attitudes, and beliefs associated with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients. Integr Cancer Ther. 2012;11(3):232-242.
Bränström R, Kasparian NA, Chang YM, Affleck P, Tibben A, Aspinwall LG, et al. Predictors of sun protection behaviors and severe sunburn in an international online study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(9):2199-2210.
World Health Organization. Radiation: Sun protection. 2003 [cited 2022 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-sun-protection
Tabbakh T, Volkov A, Wakefield M, Dobbinson S. Implementation of the SunSmart program and population sun protection behaviour in Melbourne, Australia: results from cross-sectional summer surveys from 1987 to 2017. PLoS Med. 2019;16(10):e1002932.
Hedevik H, Guorgis G, Anderson CD, Falk M. Sustainable effect of individualised sun protection advice on sun protection behaviour: a 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled study in primary care. BJGP Open. 2019;3(3):bjgpopen19X101653.
Mallett KA, Turrisi R, Billingsley E, Trager B, Ackerman S, Reavy R, et al. Evaluation of a brief dermatologist-delivered intervention vs usual care on sun protection behavior. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154(9):1010-1016.
Williams AL, Grogan S, Clark-Carter D, Buckley E. Appearance-based interventions to reduce ultraviolet exposure and/or increase sun protection intentions and behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Br J Health Psychol. 2013;18(1):182-217.
McWhirter JE, Hoffman-Goetz L. Systematic review of population-based studies on the impact of images on UV attitudes and behaviours. Health Promot Int. 2015;30(2):397-410.
Henrikson NB, Morrison CC, Blasi PR, Nguyen M, Shibuya KC, Patnode CD. Behavioral counseling for skin cancer prevention: evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA. 2018;319(11):1143-1157.
Lucas RM, Neale RE, Madronich S, McKenzie RL. Are current guidelines for sun protection optimal for health? Exploring the evidence. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2018;17(12):1956-1963.
Seité S, Del Marmol V, Moyal D, Friedman AJ. Public primary and secondary skin cancer prevention, perceptions and knowledge: an international cross-sectional survey. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(5):815-820.
Lucas RM, Norval M, Wright CY. Solar ultraviolet radiation in Africa: a systematic review and critical evaluation of the health risks and use of photoprotection. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2016;15(1):10-23.
Krutmann J, Bouloc A, Sore G, Bernard BA, Passeron T. The skin aging exposome. J Dermatol Sci. 2017;85(3):152-161.
Arnold M, Singh D, Laversanne M, Vignat J, Vaccarella S, Meheus F, et al. Global burden of cutaneous melanoma in 2020 and projections to 2040. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158:495-503.
International Agency for Resaerch on Cancer (IARC). Cancer Today - Data visualization tools for exploring the global cancer burden in 2020 (Globocan 2020). 2020 [cited 2022 Mar 18]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/home
Zhang W, Zeng W, Jiang A, He Z, Shen X, Dong X, et al. Global, regional and national incidence, mortality and disability-adjusted life-years of skin cancers and trend analysis from 1990 to 2019: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Cancer Med. 2021;10(14):4905-4922.
Urban K, Mehrmal S, Uppal P, Giesey RL, Delost GR. The global burden of skin cancer: a longitudinal analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study, 1990-2017. JAAD Int. 2021;2:98-108.
Arnold M, de Vries E, Whiteman DC, Jemal A, Bray F, Parkin DM, et al. Global burden of cutaneous melanoma attributable to ultraviolet radiation in 2012. Int J Cancer. 2018;143(6):1305-1314.
Wu Y, Wang Y, Wang L, Yin P, Lin Y, Zhou M. Burden of melanoma in China, 1990-2017: findings from the 2017 global burden of disease study. Int J Cancer. 2020;147(3):692-701.
Li H, Colantonio S, Dawson A, Lin X, Beecker J. Sunscreen application, safety, and sun protection: the evidence. J Cutan Med Surg. 2019;23(4):357-369.