Knowledge and attitudes about Vitamin D and impact on sun protection practices among urban office workers in Brisbane, Australia

Background: Sun exposure is the main source of vitamin D. Increasing scientific and media attention to the potential health benefits of sun exposure may lead to changes in sun exposure behaviors. Methods: To provide data that might help frame public health messages, we conducted an online survey among office workers in Brisbane, Australia, to determine knowledge and attitudes about vitamin D and associations of these with sun protection practices. Of the 4,709 people invited to participate, 2,867 (61%) completed the questionnaire. This analysis included 1,971 (69%) participants who indicated that they had heard about vitamin D. Results: Lack of knowledge about vitamin D was apparent. Eighteen percent of people were unaware of the bone benefits of vitamin D but 40% listed currently unconfirmed benefits. Over half of the participants indicated that more than 10 minutes in the sun was needed to attain enough vitamin D in summer, and 28% indicated more than 20 minutes in winter. This was significantly associated with increased time outdoors and decreased sunscreen use. People believing sun protection might cause vitamin D deficiency (11%) were less likely to be frequent sunscreen users (summer odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.75). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there is some confusion about sun exposure and vitamin D, and that this may result in reduced sun-protective behavior. Impact: More information is needed about vitamin D production in the skin. In the interim, education campaigns need to specifically address the vitamin D issue to ensure that skin cancer incidence does not increase.

Application of an appearance-based intervention to improve sun protection outcomes of outdoor workers in Queensland, Australia

Outdoor workers are exposed to high levels of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and may thus be at greater risk to experience UVR-related health effects such as skin cancer, sun burn, and cataracts. A number of intervention trials (n=14) have aimed to improve outdoor workers’ work-related sun protection cognitions and behaviours. Only one study however has reported the use of UV-photography as part of a multi-component intervention. This study was performed in the USA and showed long-term (12 months) improvements in work-related sun protection behaviours. Intervention effects of the other studies have varied greatly, depending on the population studied, intervention applied, and measurement of effect. Previous studies have not assessed whether: - Interventions are similarly effective for workers in stringent and less stringent policy organisations; - Policy effect is translated into workers’ leisure time protection; - Implemented interventions are effective in the long-term; - The facial UV-photograph technique is effective in Australian male outdoor workers without a large additional intervention package, and; - Such interventions will also affect workers’ leisure time sun-related cognitions and behaviours. Therefore, the present Protection of Outdoor Workers from Environmental Radiation [POWER]-study aimed to fill these gaps and had the objectives of: a) assessing outdoor workers’ sun-related cognitions and behaviours at work and during leisure time in stringent and less stringent sun protection policy environments; b) assessing the effect of an appearance-based intervention on workers’ risk perceptions, intentions and behaviours over time; c) assessing whether the intervention was equally effective within the two policy settings; and d) assessing the immediate post-intervention effect. Effectiveness was described in terms of changes in sun-related risk perceptions and intentions (as these factors were shown to be main precursors of behaviour change in many health promotion theories) and behaviour. The study purposefully selected and recruited two organisations with a large outdoor worker contingent in Queensland, Australia within a 40 kilometre radius of Brisbane. The two organisations differed in the stringency of implementation and reinforcement of their organisational sun protection policy. Data were collected from 154 male predominantly Australian born outdoor workers with an average age of 37 years and predominantly medium to fair skin (83%). Sun-related cognitions and behaviours of workers were assessed using self-report questionnaires at baseline and six to twelve months later. Variation in follow-up time was due to a time difference in the recruitment of the two organisations. Participants within each organisation were assigned to an intervention or control group. The intervention group participants received a one-off personalised Skin Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [SCRAT]-letter and a facial UV-photograph with detailed verbal information. This was followed by an immediate post-intervention questionnaire within three months of the start of the study. The control group only received the baseline and follow-up questionnaire. Data were analysed using a variety of techniques including: descriptive analyses, parametric and non-parametric tests, and generalised estimating equations. A 15% proportional difference observed was deemed of clinical significance, with the addition of reported statistical significance (p<0.05) where applicable. Objective 1: Assess and compare the current sun-related risk perceptions, intentions, behaviours, and policy awareness of outdoor workers in stringent and less stringent sun protection policy settings. Workers within the two organisations (stringent n=89 and less stringent n=65) were similar in their knowledge about skin cancer, self efficacy, attitudes, and social norms regarding sun protection at work and during leisure time. Participants were predominantly in favour of sun protection. Results highlighted that compared to workers in a less stringent policy organisation working for an organisation with stringent sun protection policies and practices resulted in more desirable sun protection intentions (less willing to tan p=0.03) ; actual behaviours at work (sufficient use of upper and lower body protection, headgear, and sunglasses (p<0.001 for all comparisons), and greater policy awareness (awareness of repercussions if Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was not used, p<0.001)). However the effect of the work-related sun protection policy was found not to extend to leisure time sun protection. Objective 2: Compare changes in sun-related risk perceptions, intentions, and behaviours between the intervention and control group. The effect of the intervention was minimal and mainly resulted in a clinically significant reduction in work-related self-perceived risk of developing skin cancer in the intervention compared to the control group (16% and 32% for intervention and control group, respectively estimated their risk higher compared to other outdoor workers: , p=0.11). No other clinical significant effects were observed at 12 months follow-up. Objective 3: Assess whether the intervention was equally effective in the stringent sun protection policy organisation and the less stringent sun protection policy organisation. The appearance-based intervention resulted in a clinically significant improvement in the stringent policy intervention group participants’ intention to protect from the sun at work (workplace*time interaction, p=0.01). In addition to a reduction in their willingness to tan both at work (will tan at baseline: 17% and 61%, p=0.06, at follow-up: 54% and 33%, p=0.07, stringent and less stringent policy intervention group respectively. The workplace*time interaction was significant p<0.001) and during leisure time (will tan at baseline: 42% and 78%, p=0.01, at follow-up: 50% and 63%, p=0.43, stringent and less stringent policy intervention group respectively. The workplace*time interaction was significant p=0.01) over the course of the study compared to the less stringent policy intervention group. However, no changes in actual sun protection behaviours were found. Objective 4: Examine the effect of the intervention on level of alarm and concern regarding the health of the skin as well as sun protection behaviours in both organisations. The immediate post-intervention results showed that the stringent policy organisation participants indicated to be less alarmed (p=0.04) and concerned (p<0.01) about the health of their skin and less likely to show the facial UV-photograph to others (family p=0.03) compared to the less stringent policy participants. A clinically significantly larger proportion of participants from the stringent policy organisation reported they worried more about skin cancer (65%) and skin freckling (43%) compared to those in the less stringent policy organisation (46%,and 23% respectively , after seeing the UV-photograph). In summary the results of this study suggest that the having a stringent work-related sun protection policy was significantly related to for work-time sun protection practices, but did not extend to leisure time sun protection. This could reflect the insufficient level of sun protection found in the general Australian population during leisure time. Alternatively, reactance caused by being restricted in personal decisions through work-time policy could have contributed to lower leisure time sun protection. Finally, other factors could have also contributed to the less than optimal leisure time sun protection behaviours reported, such as unmeasured personal or cultural barriers. All these factors combined may have lead to reduced willingness to take proper preventive action during leisure time exposure. The intervention did not result in any measurable difference between the intervention and control groups in sun protection behaviours in this population, potentially due to the long lag time between the implementation of the intervention and assessment at 12-months follow-up. In addition, high levels of sun protection behaviours were found at baseline (ceiling effect) which left little room for improvement. Further, this study did not assess sunscreen use, which was the predominant behaviour assessed in previous effective appearance-based interventions trials. Additionally, previous trials were mainly conducted in female populations, whilst the POWER-study’s population was all male. The observed immediate post-intervention result could be due to more emphasis being placed on sun protection and risks related to sun exposure in the stringent policy organisation. Therefore participants from the stringent policy organisation could have been more aware of harmful effects of UVR and hence, by knowing that they usually protect adequately, not be as alarmed or concerned as the participants from the less stringent policy organisation. In conclusion, a facial UV-photograph and SCRAT-letter information alone may not achieve large changes in sun-related cognitions and behaviour, especially of assessed 6-12 months after the intervention was implemented and in workers who are already quite well protected. Differences found between workers in the present study appear to be more attributable to organisational policy. However, against a background of organisational policy, this intervention may be a useful addition to sun-related workplace health and safety programs. The study findings have been interpreted while respecting a number of limitations. These have included non-random allocation of participants due to pre-organised allocation of participants to study group in one organisation and difficulty in separating participants from either study group. Due to the transient nature of the outdoor worker population, only 105 of 154 workers available at baseline could be reached for follow-up. (attrition rate=32%). In addition the discrepancy in the time to follow-up assessment between the two organisations was a limitation of the current study. Given the caveats of this research, the following recommendations were made for future research: - Consensus should be reached to define "outdoor worker" in terms of time spent outside at work as well as in the way sun protection behaviours are measured and reported. - Future studies should implement and assess the value of the facial UV-photographs in a wide range of outdoor worker organisations and countries. - More timely and frequent follow-up assessments should be implemented in intervention studies to determine the intervention effect and to identify the best timing of booster sessions to optimise results. - Future research should continue to aim to target outdoor workers’ leisure time cognitions and behaviours and improve these if possible. Overall, policy appears to be an important factor in workers’ compliance with work-time use of sun protection. Given the evidence generated by this research, organisations employing outdoor workers should consider stringent implementation and reinforcement of a sun protection policy. Finally, more research is needed to improve ways to generate desirable behaviour in this population during leisure time.

Vitamin D status and skin cancer risk independent of time outdoors : 11-year prospective study in and Australian community

Vitamin D may have anti-skin cancer effects, but population-based evidence is lacking. We therefore assessed associations between vitamin D status and skin cancer risk in an Australian subtropical community. We analyzed prospective skin cancer incidence for 11 years following baseline assessment of serum 25(OH)-vitamin D in 1,191 adults (average age 54 years) and used multivariable logistic regression analysis to adjust risk estimates for age, sex, detailed assessments of usual time spent outdoors, phenotypic characteristics, and other possible confounders. Participants with serum 25(OH)-vitamin D concentrations above 75 nmol  l(-1) versus those below 75 nmol  l(-1) more often developed basal cell carcinoma (odds ratio (OR)=1.51 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-2.07, P=0.01) and melanoma (OR=2.71 (95% CI: 0.98-7.48, P=0.05)). Squamous cell carcinoma incidence tended to be lower in persons with serum 25(OH)-vitamin D concentrations above 75 nmol  l(-1) compared with those below 75 nmol  l(-1) (OR=0.67 (95% CI: 0.44-1.03, P=0.07)). Vitamin D status was not associated with skin cancer incidence when participants were classified as above or below 50 nmol  l(-1) 25(OH)-vitamin D. Our findings do not indicate that the carcinogenicity of high sun exposure can be counteracted by high vitamin D status. High sun exposure is to be avoided as a means to achieve high vitamin D status.

A new method to quantify the application thickness of sunscreen on skin

Proper application of sunscreen is essential as an effective public health strategy for skin cancer prevention. Insufficient application is common among sunbathers, results in decreased sun protection and may therefore lead to increased UV damage of the skin. However, no objective measure of sunscreen application thickness (SAT) is currently available for field-based use. We present a method to detect SAT on human skin for determining the amount of sunscreen applied and thus enabling comparisons to manufacturer recommendations. Using a skin swabbing method and subsequent spectrophotometric analysis, we were able to determine SAT on human skin. A swabbing method was used to derive SAT on skin (in mg sunscreen per cm2 of skin area) through the concentration–absorption relationship of sunscreen determined in laboratory experiments. Analysis differentiated SATs between 0.25 and 4 mg cm−2 and showed a small but significant decrease in concentration over time postapplication. A field study was performed, in which the heterogeneity of sunscreen application could be investigated. The proposed method is a low cost, noninvasive method for the determination of SAT on skin and it can be used as a valid tool in field- and population-based studies.

Sunscreen application thickness amongst primary school children : the children and sunscreen study

Childhood sun exposure has been associated with increased risk of developing melanoma later in life. Sunscreen, children.s preferred method of sun protection, has been shown to reduce skin cancer risk. However, the effectiveness of sunscreen is largely dependent on user compliance, such as the thickness of application. To reach the sun protection factor (SPF) sunscreen must be applied at a thickness of 2mg/cm2. It has been demonstrated that adults tend to apply less than half of the recommended 2mg/cm2. This was the first study to measure the thickness at which children apply sunscreen. We recruited 87 primary school aged children (n=87, median age 8.7, 5-12 years) from seven state schools within one Brisbane education district (32% consent rate). The children were supplied with sunscreen in three dispenser types (pump, squeeze and roll-on) and were asked to use these for one week each. We measured the weight of the sunscreen before and after use, and calculated the children.s body surface area (based on height and weight) and area to which sunscreen was applied (based on children.s self-reported body coverage of application). Combined these measurements resulted in an average thickness of sunscreen application, which was our main outcome measure. We asked parents to complete a self-administered questionnaire which captured information about potential explanatory variables. Children applied sunscreen at a median thickness of 0.48mg/cm2, significantly less than the recommended 2mg/cm2 (p<0.001). When using the roll-on dispenser (median 0.22mg/cm2), children applied significantly less sunscreen thickness, compared to the pump (median 0.75mg.cm2, p<0.001), and squeeze (median 0.57mg/cm2, p<0.001) dispensers. School grade (1-7) was significantly associated with thickness of application (p=0.032), with children in the youngest grades applying the most. Other variables that were significantly associated with the outcome variable included: number of siblings (p=0.001), household annual income (p<0.001), and the number of lifetime sunburns the child had experienced (p=0.007). This work is the first to measure children.s sunscreen application thickness and demonstrates that regardless of their age or the type of dispenser that they use, children do not apply enough sunscreen to reach the advertised SPF. It is envisaged that this study will assist in the formulation of recommendations for future research, practice and policy aimed at improving childhood sun protection to reduce skin cancer incidence in the future.

The children and sunscreen study : a crossover trial investigating children's sunscreen application thickness and the influence of age and dispenser type.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the thickness at which primary schoolchildren apply sunscreen on school day mornings and to compare it with the thickness (2.00 mg/cm(2)) at which sunscreen is tested during product development, as well as to investigate how application thickness was influenced by age of the child (school grades 1-7) and by dispenser type (500-mL pump, 125-mL squeeze bottle, or 50-mL roll-on). DESIGN: A crossover quasiexperimental study design comparing 3 sunscreen dispenser types. SETTING: Children aged 5 to 12 years from public primary schools (grades 1-7) in Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Children (n=87) and their parents randomly recruited from the enrollment lists of 7 primary schools. Each child provided up to 3 observations (n=258). INTERVENTION: Children applied sunscreen during 3 consecutive school weeks (Monday through Friday) for the first application of the day using a different dispenser each week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Thickness of sunscreen application (in milligrams per square centimeter). The dispensers were weighed before and after use to calculate the weight of sunscreen applied. This was divided by the coverage area of application (in square centimeters), which was calculated by multiplying the children's body surface area by the percentage of the body covered with sunscreen. RESULTS: Children applied their sunscreen at a median thickness of 0.48 mg/cm(2). Children applied significantly more sunscreen when using the pump (0.75 mg/cm(2)) and the squeeze bottle (0.57 mg/cm(2)) compared with the roll-on (0.22 mg/cm(2)) (P<.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of age, primary schoolchildren apply sunscreen at substantially less than 1.00 mg/cm(2), similar to what has been observed among adults. Some sunscreen dispensers seem to facilitate thicker application than others.