4.6 Article

Prevalence of body art (body piercing and tattooing) in university undergraduates and incidence of medical complications

期刊

MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 29-34

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.4065/77.1.29

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To survey the prevalence of body art (body piercing and tattooing) in university undergraduate students and to determine the incidence of medical complications from these procedures. Subjects and Methods: Between February and May 2 01, students were offered the opportunity to complete an anonymous, voluntary survey at the beginning of class or organizational meetings. The survey instrument requested information concerning body piercing and tattooing (current or removed) by body site, age, sex, height, weight, body mass index, undergraduate class, athletic status, and the occurrence of medical complications. Results: Four hundred fifty-four (94.4%) of 481 students completed the survey (14.7% of total campus enrollment). The prevalence of body piercing was 51%, and that of tattooing was 23%. The chi(2) analysis showed female students were more likely to be pierced than males (P=.002); there was no significant difference in the prevalence of tattooing by sex. Male athletes were more likely to be tattooed than male nonathletes (P=.02). No relationships were shown between piercing/tattooing and age or measures of body somatotype. The incidence of medical complications of piercing was 17%, and these complications included bleeding, tissue trauma, and bacterial infections. Pierced navels were particularly prone to infection. There were no reported medical complications from tattooing. Eighteen percent of piercings (58/315) and 4% of tattoos (6/149) had been removed. Conclusions: Body art is prevalent among undergraduate university students, and there is a significant incidence of medical complications among students with piercing. Male athletes were significantly more likely to be tattooed than male nonathletes.

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

4.6
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