4.7 Article

Australian adolescents' sun protection behavior: Who are we kidding?

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 44, Issue 6, Pages 508-512

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.02.015

Keywords

attitudes; SunSmart behavior; adolescents; tan preference and skin type

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To examine the influence of tan preference and skin type on sun protection behaviors of Australian adolescents. Methods. The Australian Secondary School Alcohol and Drug Questionnaires were conducted in 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2002 among randomly selected students aged 12--17. Schools were randomly selected from each education sector in each state. The self-administered questionnaire contained questions about tan preferences, skin type and usual SunSmart behavior (use of sunscreen, bats and covering clothing). Results. The routine use of SunSmart behavior was low in all survey years. There was a significant decrease over time in the proportion of students who practiced SunSmart behavior, with prevalence rates lower in 2002 than in any other survey year (males: p < 0.01 and females: p < 0.01). As desire for a tan increased, routine practice of SunSmart behaviors decreased. Across the four survey periods, male (P < 0.01) and female (p < 0.01) students who preferred no tan were significantly more likely to practice SunSmart behavior than students who prefer-red any sort of tan. Across the four survey years, male (p < 0.01) and female (p < 0.01) students with skin that 'just bums' were most likely to routinely practice SunSmart behavior. Conclusions. Sun protection practices among adolescents have continued to decline significantly over time. Future educational programs require an innovative approach to modify adolescent behaviors in relation to sun exposure and sun protection. Crown Copyright (c) 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available