Indoor Tanning Attitudes and Practices of US Dermatologists Compared With Other Medical Specialists | Dermatology | JAMA Dermatology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.177.17. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Indoor Tanning Association, Inc, About indoor tanning. Available at:http://www.theita.com/indoor/Accessed June 27, 2005
2.
Committee on Environmental Health, Ultraviolet light: a hazard to children.  Pediatrics 1999;104328- 333PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Injuries associated with ultraviolet tanning devices—Wisconsin.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1989;38333- 335PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Agar  NSHalliday  GMBarnetson  RSAnanthaswamy  HNWheeler  MJones  AM The basal layer in human squamous tumors harbors more UVA than UVB fingerprint mutations: a role for UVA in human skin carcinogenesis.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;1014954- 4959PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Whitmore  SEMorison  WLPotten  CSChadwick  C Tanning salon exposure and molecular alterations.  J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;44775- 780PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Karagas  MRStannard  VAMott  LASlattery  MJSpencer  SKWeinstock  MA Use of tanning devices and risk of basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers.  J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94224- 226PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Gallagher  RPSpinelli  JJLee  TK Tanning beds, sunlamps, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14562- 566PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Veierod  MBWeiderpass  EThorn  M  et al.  A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women.  J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;951530- 1538PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Fu  JMDusza  SWHalpern  AC Sunless tanning.  J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;50706- 713PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Cosmetics and Colors, DHA-spray sunless “tanning” booths. Available at:http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-tan4.htmlAccessed June 27, 2005
11.
Gritz  ERTripp  MKde Moor  CA Skin cancer prevention counseling and clinical practices of pediatricians.  Pediatr Dermatol 2003;2016- 24PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Verma  RCorley  DA How should we select health professionals for studies?  Outcomes Manag 2003;7129- 133PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Francis  SOBurkhardt  DLDellavalle  RP 2005: A banner year for new US youth access tanning restrictions.  Arch Dermatol 2005;141524- 525PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Asch  DAJedrziewski  MKChristakis  NAAsch  DAJedrziewski  MKChristakis  NA Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals.  J Clin Epidemiol 1997;501129- 1136PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Balk  SJO'Connor  KGSaraiya  M Counseling parents and children on sun protection: a national survey of pediatricians.  Pediatrics 2004;1141056- 1064PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Amir  ZWright  AKernohan  EEHart  G Attitudes, beliefs and behaviour regarding the use of sunbeds amongst healthcare workers in Bradford.  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2000;976- 79PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Darling  MIbbotson  SH Sun awareness and behaviour in healthcare professionals and the general public.  Clin Exp Dermatol 2002;27442- 444PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Mahler  HIKulik  JAHarrell  JCorrea  AGibbons  FXGerrard  M Effects of UV photographs, photoaging information, and use of sunless tanning lotion on sun protection behaviors.  Arch Dermatol 2005;141373- 380PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Study
April 2006

Indoor Tanning Attitudes and Practices of US Dermatologists Compared With Other Medical Specialists

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver (Drs Johnson, Hester, Francis, and Dellavalle and Mss Heilig and Deakyne). Dr Hester is currently with the Department of Dermatology, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland.

Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(4):465-470. doi:10.1001/archderm.142.4.465
Abstract

Objective  To compare the indoor tanning attitudes and practices of dermatologists with physicians in other medical specialties (internal medicine, pediatrics, and family medicine) commonly providing sun safety counseling to patients.

Design  Cross-sectional study.

Setting  Questionnaire mailed to randomly selected US dermatologists, internists, family practitioners, and pediatricians.

Results  The overall response rate was 38% (364/949): 71% indicated that patients had asked their opinions about indoor UV tanning, 80% believed that UV tanning was unsafe, and 90% agreed they would counsel patients against nonmedical indoor UV tanning. Many supported increased UV tanning legislation, including minimum age restrictions (91%) and parental consent requirements (90%). Dermatologists were significantly more likely than other physicians to respond to the survey (52% vs 31%, P<.001), speak with patients about indoor UV tanning (odds ratio [OR], 26.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-74.1]), believe that indoor UV tanning is unsafe (OR, 14.0; 95% CI, 5.0-39.4), and support increased regulation (OR, 11.7; 95% CI, 1.5-88.5). Women discouraged indoor UV tanning more than men (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.8-15.2). Physicians who had used indoor UV tanning (19%) more often agreed that non-UV tanning lotion (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8) and airbrush tanning (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4) were safe but did not differ in attitudes regarding UV tanning safety. Physicians practicing in the Northeast and Midwest were more likely to support UV tanning to improve mood (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5) and more commonly believed that UV tanning could help treat depression (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.6) or prevent vitamin D deficiency (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8).

Conclusions  Physicians, especially dermatologists, are frequently asked about and generally discourage indoor UV tanning. Dermatologists regard indoor UV tanning more negatively compared with other physicians. Physician sex and geographic location were associated with specific indoor UV tanning attitudes.

×