Assessing Sunscreen Protection Using UV Photography: Descriptive Study.

UV photography health promotion melanoma mobile phone preventive medicine public health skin neoplasms sunburn sunscreening agents

Journal

JMIR dermatology
ISSN: 2562-0959
Titre abrégé: JMIR Dermatol
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101770607

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 May 2021
Historique:
received: 23 12 2020
accepted: 09 04 2021
revised: 07 04 2021
medline: 26 5 2021
pubmed: 26 5 2021
entrez: 26 8 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Photography using a UV transmitting filter allows UV light to pass and can be used to illuminate UV blocking lotions such as sunscreens. The aim of this study is to compare currently available UV photography cameras and assess whether these devices can be used as visualization tools for adequate coverage of sun protection lotions. This study was conducted in 3 parts: in phase 1, 3 different UV cameras were tested; in phase 2, we explored whether UV photography could work on a range of sun protection products; and in phase 3, a UV webcam was developed and was field-tested in a beach setting. In phase 1, volunteers were recruited, and researchers applied 3 sun protection products (ranging from sun protection factor [SPF] 15 to 50+) to the participants' faces and arms. UV photography was performed using 3 UV cameras, and the subsequent images were compared. In phase 2, volunteers were recruited and asked to apply their own SPF products to their faces in their usual manner. UV photographs were collected in the morning and afternoon to assess whether the coverage remained over time. Qualitative interviews were conducted to assess the participants' level of satisfaction with the UV image. In phase 3, a small portable UV webcam was designed using a plug-and-play approach to enable the viewing of UV images on a larger screen. The developed webcam was deployed at a public beach setting for use by the public for 7 days. The 3 UV camera systems tested during phase 1 identified the application of a range of sun protection lotions of SPF 15 to 50+. The sensitivity of the UV camera devices was shown to be adequate, with SPF-containing products applied at concentrations of 2 and 1 mg/cm In this study, we found that UV photography could identify the areas missed by sun protection lotions with chemical filters, and participants were engaged with personalized feedback. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12619000975190; http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377089 ; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12619000145101; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376672.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Photography using a UV transmitting filter allows UV light to pass and can be used to illuminate UV blocking lotions such as sunscreens.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to compare currently available UV photography cameras and assess whether these devices can be used as visualization tools for adequate coverage of sun protection lotions.
METHODS METHODS
This study was conducted in 3 parts: in phase 1, 3 different UV cameras were tested; in phase 2, we explored whether UV photography could work on a range of sun protection products; and in phase 3, a UV webcam was developed and was field-tested in a beach setting. In phase 1, volunteers were recruited, and researchers applied 3 sun protection products (ranging from sun protection factor [SPF] 15 to 50+) to the participants' faces and arms. UV photography was performed using 3 UV cameras, and the subsequent images were compared. In phase 2, volunteers were recruited and asked to apply their own SPF products to their faces in their usual manner. UV photographs were collected in the morning and afternoon to assess whether the coverage remained over time. Qualitative interviews were conducted to assess the participants' level of satisfaction with the UV image. In phase 3, a small portable UV webcam was designed using a plug-and-play approach to enable the viewing of UV images on a larger screen. The developed webcam was deployed at a public beach setting for use by the public for 7 days.
RESULTS RESULTS
The 3 UV camera systems tested during phase 1 identified the application of a range of sun protection lotions of SPF 15 to 50+. The sensitivity of the UV camera devices was shown to be adequate, with SPF-containing products applied at concentrations of 2 and 1 mg/cm
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we found that UV photography could identify the areas missed by sun protection lotions with chemical filters, and participants were engaged with personalized feedback.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12619000975190; http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377089 ; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12619000145101; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376672.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37632801
pii: v4i1e24653
doi: 10.2196/24653
pmc: PMC10501517
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e24653

Informations de copyright

©Caitlin Horsham, Helen Ford, Jeremy Herbert, Alexander Wall, Sebastian Walpole, Elke Hacker. Originally published in JMIR Dermatology (http://derma.jmir.org), 26.05.2021.

Références

PLoS One. 2017 Oct 2;12(10):e0185297
pubmed: 28968413
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2016 Jan;32(1):55-6
pubmed: 26409211
Int J Cosmet Sci. 1997 Jun;19(3):119-29
pubmed: 18507639
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 20;29(3):257-63
pubmed: 21135266
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015 Oct;39(5):471-6
pubmed: 26437734
Psychol Health. 2013;28(9):1009-31
pubmed: 23537173
Health Psychol. 2005 Jul;24(4):358-63
pubmed: 16045371
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Dec;15(6):805-816
pubmed: 28756584
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Sep 16;8(9):e21243
pubmed: 32936083
J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 May;10(2):307-12
pubmed: 15189396
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2017 May;33(3):135-142
pubmed: 28165636
Health Promot J Austr. 2020 Sep;31(3):533-539
pubmed: 31631453
Br J Health Psychol. 2010 Feb;15(Pt 1):1-39
pubmed: 19646331
JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Sep;151(9):982-90
pubmed: 26039788
Science. 2015 May 22;348(6237):880-6
pubmed: 25999502
BMJ. 2012 Aug 21;345:e5342
pubmed: 22915688
Int J Cosmet Sci. 2017 Oct;39(5):550-555
pubmed: 28699163
Arch Dermatol. 2005 Mar;141(3):373-80
pubmed: 15781679
Med J Aust. 2012 Nov 19;197(10):565-8
pubmed: 23163687
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Dec;15(12):2546-8
pubmed: 17132769
Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671-5
pubmed: 22930834
Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2013 Nov;26(6):835-44
pubmed: 23962207
Arch Dermatol. 2012 May;148(5):606-12
pubmed: 22250190
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2018 Mar;34(2):130-136
pubmed: 29080360

Auteurs

Caitlin Horsham (C)

School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Helen Ford (H)

School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Jeremy Herbert (J)

Designworks Group Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia.

Alexander Wall (A)

Designworks Group Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia.

Sebastian Walpole (S)

Genetics & Population Health Division, QIMR Berghofer, Brisbane, Australia.

Elke Hacker (E)

School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Classifications MeSH