Association Between State Indoor Tanning Legislation and Google Search Trends Data in the United States From 2006 to 2019: Time-Series Analysis.

Google Trends adolescents dermatology indoor tanning internet policy prevention skin cancer skin cancer prevention tanning time series trend web-based health information young adult youth

Journal

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

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 Apr 2021
Historique:
received: 22 12 2020
accepted: 15 03 2021
revised: 08 03 2021
medline: 9 4 2021
pubmed: 9 4 2021
entrez: 26 8 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun or indoor tanning is the cause of most skin cancers. Although indoor tanning has decreased in recent years, it remains most common among adolescents and young adults, whose skin is particularly vulnerable to long-term damage. US states have adopted several types of legislation to attempt to minimize indoor tanning among minors: a ban on indoor tanning among all minors, a partial minor ban by age (eg, <14 years), or the requirement of parental consent or accompaniment for tanning. Currently, only 6 US states have no indoor tanning legislation for minors. This study investigated whether internet searches (as an indicator of interest) related to indoor tanning varied across US states by the type of indoor tanning legislation, using data from Google Trends from 2006 to 2019. We conducted a time-series analysis of Google Trends data on indoor tanning from 2006 to 2019 by US state. Time-series linear regression models were generated to assess the Google Trends data over time by the type of indoor tanning legislation. We found that indoor tanning search rates decreased significantly for all 50 states and the District of Columbia over time (P<.01). The searches peaked in 2012 when indoor tanning received marked attention (eg, indoor tanning was banned for all minors by the first state-California). The reduction in search rates was more marked for states with a complete ban among minors compared to those with less restrictive types of legislation. Our findings are consistent with those of other studies on the association between indoor tanning regulations and attitudinal and behavioral trends related to indoor tanning. The main limitation of the study is that raw search data were not available for more precise analysis. With changes in interest and norms, indoor tanning and skin cancer risk among young people may change. Future studies should continue to determine the impact of such public health policies in order to inform policy efforts and minimize risks to public health.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun or indoor tanning is the cause of most skin cancers. Although indoor tanning has decreased in recent years, it remains most common among adolescents and young adults, whose skin is particularly vulnerable to long-term damage. US states have adopted several types of legislation to attempt to minimize indoor tanning among minors: a ban on indoor tanning among all minors, a partial minor ban by age (eg, <14 years), or the requirement of parental consent or accompaniment for tanning. Currently, only 6 US states have no indoor tanning legislation for minors.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
This study investigated whether internet searches (as an indicator of interest) related to indoor tanning varied across US states by the type of indoor tanning legislation, using data from Google Trends from 2006 to 2019.
METHODS METHODS
We conducted a time-series analysis of Google Trends data on indoor tanning from 2006 to 2019 by US state. Time-series linear regression models were generated to assess the Google Trends data over time by the type of indoor tanning legislation.
RESULTS RESULTS
We found that indoor tanning search rates decreased significantly for all 50 states and the District of Columbia over time (P<.01). The searches peaked in 2012 when indoor tanning received marked attention (eg, indoor tanning was banned for all minors by the first state-California). The reduction in search rates was more marked for states with a complete ban among minors compared to those with less restrictive types of legislation.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our findings are consistent with those of other studies on the association between indoor tanning regulations and attitudinal and behavioral trends related to indoor tanning. The main limitation of the study is that raw search data were not available for more precise analysis. With changes in interest and norms, indoor tanning and skin cancer risk among young people may change. Future studies should continue to determine the impact of such public health policies in order to inform policy efforts and minimize risks to public health.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37632845
pii: v4i1e26707
doi: 10.2196/26707
pmc: PMC10501525
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e26707

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA072720
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

©Carolyn Heckman, Yong Lin, Mary Riley, Yaqun Wang, Trishnee Bhurosy, Anna Mitarotondo, Baichen Xu, Jerod Stapleton. Originally published in JMIR Dermatology (http://derma.jmir.org), 09.04.2021.

Références

J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Jun;76(6):1191-1193
pubmed: 28522044
Health Policy. 2019 Mar;123(3):338-341
pubmed: 30660346
Nature. 2009 Feb 19;457(7232):1012-4
pubmed: 19020500
Dermatol Surg. 2018 Feb;44(2):236-240
pubmed: 28902024
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Apr 14;6(2):e18828
pubmed: 32234709
JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 1;156(4):401-410
pubmed: 32074257
JAMA Dermatol. 2018 May 1;154(5):613-614
pubmed: 29641804
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Apr;182(4):849-859
pubmed: 31381131
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Sep;37(8):1049-54
pubmed: 27348390
JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Aug;151(8):903-5
pubmed: 26061357
JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Feb;152(2):215-7
pubmed: 26719968
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148489
pubmed: 26849567
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Mar;33 Suppl 2:57-62
pubmed: 30811691
Dermatol Surg. 2018 Feb;44(2):186-192
pubmed: 28930787
Am J Public Health. 2018 Jul;108(7):951-956
pubmed: 29771612
Int J Drug Policy. 2021 Jan;87:102984
pubmed: 33091762
Am J Public Health. 2020 Jun;110(6):823-828
pubmed: 32298165
Am J Manag Care. 2010 Aug;16(8):e215-9
pubmed: 20690788
Prev Med. 2019 Jun;123:299-307
pubmed: 30940571
Am J Public Health. 2014 Apr;104(4):e69-74
pubmed: 24524515
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2020 Mar;36(2):83-89
pubmed: 31508854

Auteurs

Carolyn Heckman (C)

Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.

Yong Lin (Y)

Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.

Mary Riley (M)

Medtronic, Denver, CO, United States.

Yaqun Wang (Y)

Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.

Trishnee Bhurosy (T)

Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.

Anna Mitarotondo (A)

Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.

Baichen Xu (B)

Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.

Jerod Stapleton (J)

University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.

Classifications MeSH