4.3 Article

Demographic Differences in Sun Protection Beliefs and Behavior: A Community-Based Study in Shanghai, China

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120303232

关键词

-

资金

  1. Vichy Fund of Chinese Medical Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We want to know the attitudes and behaviors towards UV protection and we want to analyze the difference between different Chinese demographic groups in this study. Methods: A community-based study was undertaken in Shanghai from October 2009 to January 2010. The participants, ages 20-60 years old, were screened by cluster sampling and were investigated through interviews at their own homes. Personal basic information and questions pertaining to their knowledge and attitudes towards sunlight and sun protective activities were included in the questionnaire. Results: We completed 5964 questionnaires (2794 men and 3170 women). Eighty-six percent of the respondents belonged to Fitzpatrick skin type IV. Knowledge about UV-induced risks was known by more than half of the participants. However, only one-third of the participants thought they needed sun protection in winter and indoors or in vehicles, and 27% of the participants acknowledged tanning was not favorable. The attitudes towards sun exposure varied greatly, showing significant differences based on gender, age, socioeconomic groups and skin type groups (p < 0.05). Fifty-five percent of the participants never use an umbrella under sunlight, only 26.5% of the respondents wear hats, and 21.3% of the participants applied sunscreen. Females and individuals of a younger age and higher education level were more likely to perform sun-protective behaviors than males and those of an older age and lower education level (p < 0.001). Conclusion: There is a deficit in the use of sun protection existing in our surveyed Chinese population, especially in males and lower socioeconomic population, which could allow for planning prevention campaigns and exploring sun-preventive products.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据