Vitamin D and sun protection : the impact of mixed public health messages in Australia

Exposure of the skin to sunlight can cause skin cancer and is also necessary for cutaneous vitamin D production. Media reports have highlighted the purported health benefits of vitamin D. Our aim was to examine attitudes and behaviours related to sun protection and vitamin D. A cross-sectional study of 2,001 residents in Queensland, Australia aged 20-70 years was undertaken. Information collected included: skin cancer risk factors; perceptions about levels of sun exposure required to maintain vitamin D; belief that sun protection increases risk of vitamin D deficiency; intention, and actual change in sun protection practices for adults and children. Multivariate models examined predictors of attitudinal and behavioural change. One-third (32%) believed a fair-skinned adult, and 31% thought a child required at least 30 minutes per day in summer sun to maintain vitamin D levels. Reductions in sun protection were reported by 21% of adults and 14% of children. Factors associated with belief that sun protection may result in not obtaining enough vitamin D included aged ≥ 60 years (OR=1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.66) and having skin that tanned easily (OR=1.96, 95% CI 1.38-2.78). Participants from low income households, and those who frequently used sun protective clothing were more likely to have reduced sun protection practices (OR=1.33, 95% CI 1.10-1.73 and OR=1.73, 95% CI 1.36-2.20, respectively). This study provides evidence of reductions in sun protection practices in a population living in a high UV environment. There is an urgent need to re-focus messages regarding sun exposure and for continued sun protection practices.

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.

Factors associated with recall of media reports about vitamin D and sun protection

Objective: To assess the recall of media reports about vitamin D and associated factors. Methods: Analysis of cross-sectional telephone interview data (2,001 Queensland adults, 18-70 years) on vitamin D and personal sun protection, recall of media reports and participant characteristics. Results: 83.7% of participants had heard of vitamin D, 47.5% through the media. Only 513 (25.6%) participants recalled the media content within four main themes: vitamin D is beneficial/comes from the sun (47.0%); some people aren’t getting enough vitamin D, need more sun (27.9%); need to balance sun exposure and skin protection (11.5%); or other (13.6%). Only 65 of the 950 participants (6.8%) reported a change to their behaviour(s) due to the media report. Conclusion: Although the media were the main source of information about vitamin D for almost 50% of participants, recall of the content and direct effect on behaviour was low. Only a small minority recalled a balanced media report of beneficial and harmful aspects of sun exposure. Implications Health professionals often supply media with background information. To achieve best public health practice for sun protection and vitamin D, information to foster balanced media reports should be provided.

A burning issue : fashion and sun protection

The 'dick' tog, a briefs-style male swimsuit as it is colloquially referred to, is linked to Australia's national identity with overtly masculine bronzed 'Aussie' bodies clothed in this iconic apparel. However, the reality is, our hunger for worshiping the sun and the addiction to a beach culture is tempered by the pragmatic need to cover up and wear neck-to-knee, or more apt, head-to-toe sun protective clothing. Australia, in particular the state of Queensland, has one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world; nevertheless, even after wide-ranging public programs for sun safety awareness many people still continue to wear designs that provide minimal sun protection. This paper will examine issues surrounding fashion and sun safe clothing. It will be proposed that in order to have effective community adoption of sun safe practices it is critical to understand the important role that fashion plays in determining sun protective behaviour.

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.

Personalised electronic messages to improve sun protection in young adults

The incidence of all skin cancers, including melanoma, continues to rise. It is well known that ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the main environmental risk factor for skin cancer, and excessive exposure at a young age increases the risk of developing skin cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability and feasibility of delivering sun protection messages via electronic media such as short message services (SMS) to people 18-40 years, and explore factors associated with their acceptability. Overall, 80% of participants agreed that they would like to receive some form of sun protection advice; of these, 20% prefer to receive it via SMS and 42% via email. Willingness to receive electronic messages about the UV index was associated with being unsure about whether a suntanned person would look healthy and greater use of sun protection in the past. Careful attention to message framing and timing of message delivery and focus on short-term effects of sun exposure such as sunburn and skin ageing should increase the acceptability of such messages to young people. We conclude that sun protection messages delivered to young adults via electronic media appear feasible and acceptable.

Outdoor worker sun protection project : a comprehensive applied research project to demonstrate the effectiveness of sun protection measures which influence high risk outdoor workers in Queensland to adopt sun safe behaviour practices 2010 – 2013

The QUT Outdoor Worker Sun Protection (OWSP) project undertook a comprehensive applied health promotion project to demonstrate the effectiveness of sun protection measures which influence high risk outdoor workers in Queensland to adopt sun safe behaviours. The three year project (2010-2013) was driven by two key concepts: 1) The hierarchy of control, which is used to address risks in the workplace, advocates for six control measures that need to be considered in order of priority (refer to Section 3.4.2); and 2) the Ottawa Charter which recommends five action means to achieve health promotion (refer to Section 2.1). The project framework was underpinned by a participatory action research approach that valued peoples’ input, took advantage of existing skills and resources, and stimulated innovation (refer to Section 4.2). Fourteen workplaces (small and large) with a majority outdoor workforce were recruited across regional Queensland (Darling Downs, Northwest, Mackay and Cairns) from four industries types: 1) building and construction, 2) rural and farming, 3) local government, and 4) public sector. A workplace champion was identified at each workplace and was supported (through resource provision, regular contact and site visits) over a 14 to 18 month intervention period to make sun safety a priority in their workplace. Employees and employers were independently assessed for pre- and postintervention sun protection behaviours. As part of the intervention, an individualised sun safety action plan was developed in conjunction with each workplace to guide changes across six key strategy areas including: 1) Policy (e.g., adopt sun safety practices during all company events); 2) Structural and environmental (e.g., shade on worksites; eliminate or minimise reflective surfaces); 3) Personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., trial different types of sunscreens, or wide-brimmed hats); 4) Education and awareness (e.g., include sun safety in inductions and toolbox talks; send reminder emails or text messages to workers);5) Role modelling (e.g., by managers, supervisors, workplace champions and mentors); and 6) Skin examinations (e.g., allow time off work for skin checks). The participatory action process revealed that there was no “one size fits all” approach to sun safety in the workplace; a comprehensive, tailored approach was fundamental. This included providing workplaces with information, resources, skills, know how, incentives and practical help. For example, workplaces engaged in farming complete differing seasonal tasks across the year and needed to prepare for optimal sun safety of their workers during less labour intensive times. In some construction workplaces, long pants were considered a trip hazard and could not be used as part of a PPE strategy. Culture change was difficult to achieve and workplace champions needed guidance on the steps to facilitate this (e.g., influencing leaders through peer support, mentoring and role modelling). With the assistance of the project team the majority of workplaces were able to successfully implement the sun safety strategies contained within their action plans, up skilling them in the evidence for sun safety, how to overcome barriers, how to negotiate with all relevant parties and assess success. The most important enablers to the implementation of a successful action plan were a pro-active workplace champion, strong employee engagement, supportive management, the use of highly visual educational resources, and external support (provided by the project team through regular contact either directly through phone calls or indirectly through emails and e-newsletters). Identified barriers included a lack of time, the multiple roles of workplace champions, (especially among smaller workplaces), competing issues leading to a lack of priority for sun safety, the culture of outdoor workers, and costs or budgeting constraints. The level of sun safety awareness, knowledge, and sun protective behaviours reported by the workers increased between pre-and post-intervention. Of the nine sun protective behaviours that were assessed, the largest changes reported included a 26% increase in workers who “usually or always” wore a broad-brimmed hat, a 20% increase in the use of natural shade, a 19% increase in workers wearing long-sleeved collared shirts, and a 16% increase in workers wearing long trousers.

Outdoor Worker Sun Protection Project : a mixed methods intervention to improve sun safety among outdoor workers

Queensland, Australia has one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. Outdoor workers are regularly exposed to high doses of ultraviolet radiation, and are at increased risk to develop non-melanoma and melanoma skin cancers. In 2010, a health promotion intervention to improve sun protection among outdoor workers in Queensland commenced. The intervention employed a mixed methods approach and a participatory action research framework. Fourteen workplaces were recruited from building and construction, rural and farming, local government, and public sector organisations. Management and workers were engaged in cycles of assessment, reflection and discussion, planning, implementation and reassessing, over a 14-month intervention period. Overall, at least one workplace representative from each workplace (range 1-3) and in depth focus groups were held with a subset of workers (range 3-16) to assess sun safe behaviours pre and post intervention. Workers’ attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and willingness to engage in sun protection differed depending on workplace characteristics and support. A familiar theme among workers spoke of sun safety as being “common sense” and the “workers individual responsibility”. Often there was a discrepancy in the perceptions of the workers, compared to the view of workplace representatives and the workplaces position or policy on sun safety. In larger workplaces, especially Government Departments, workers were more aware and followed sun safe practices compared to smaller workplaces where sun safety was not a high priority. These results indicate that a workplace culture which places high values on safety and polices more broadly may also have a positive effect on sun safety among outdoor workers as well. In addition, the specific characteristics of the workplace and the outdoor work tasks influence workers willingness to engage in sun safety measures.

What encourages sun protection among outdoor workers from four industries?

Objectives: We aimed to identify current practice of sun protection and factors associated with effective use in four outdoor worker industries in Queensland, Australia. Methods: Workplaces in four industries with a high proportion of outdoor workers (building/construction, rural/farming, local government, and public sector industries) were identified using an online telephone directory, screened for eligibility, and invited to participant via mail (n=15, recruitment rate 37%). A convenience sample of workers were recruited within each workplace (n=162). Workplaces’ sun protective policies and procedures were identified using interviews and policy analysis with workplace representatives, and discussion groups and computer-assisted telephone interviews with workers. Personal characteristics and sun protection knowledge, attitudes and behaviors were collated and analysed. Results: Just over half the workplaces had an existing policy which referred to sun protection (58%), and most provided at least some personal protective equipment (PPE), but few scheduled work outside peak sun hours (43%) or provided skin checks (21%). Several worker and workplace characteristics were associated with greater sun protection behaviour among workers, including having received education on the use of PPE (p<0.001), being concerned about being in the sun (p=0.002); and working in a smaller workplace (p=0.035). Conclusions: Uptake of sun protection by outdoor workers is affected by a complex interplay of both workplace and personal factors, and there is a need for effective strategies targeting both the workplace environment and workers’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors to decrease harmful sun exposure further.

Varying sun protection of young children by migrant and Australian-born mothers

OBJECTIVE: To compare sun protection by Australian-born and migrant mothers of three-year-old children. METHODS: Australian-born and migrant mothers taking part in the Environments for Healthy Living prospective birth-cohort study were asked standard questions about their child's sun protection. Children were given a skin cancer susceptibility score based on grandparents' ethnic origin. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) to measure the association of sun protection of children according to mothers' migrant status adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 613 Australian-born and 224 migrant mothers of three-year-old children were studied. Mothers who had migrated less than four years ago were more likely to allow their three-year-old to spend more than two hours outdoors between 10 am and 3 pm compared to Australian-born mothers (OR=2.80, 95%CI 1.20-6.57). Mothers from high latitude countries (>45 degrees) were more likely to apply sunscreen to their child than those from lower latitude countries (OR=3.15, 95%CI 1.03-9.61). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Strategies should aim to increase general awareness about the need for sun protection of young children, and recent migrants should be alerted to the harms of excessive sun exposure.

Trends in skin cancer knowledge, sun protection practices and behaviours in the Northern Ireland population

Background: Sun exposure increases risk of skin cancer, especially melanoma, incidence of which continues to rise. Reported skin cancer knowledge and trends in sun care behaviours are documented in a UK region where there has been 20 years of sun-related health promotion campaigns. Methods: In 2000, 2004 and 2008, a 'care in the sun' module was included in the Northern Ireland (NI) Omnibus survey. Randomly selected subjects were asked to complete a sun-related questionnaire and proportions of respondents analysed by demographic and socio-economic factors, with differences tested using z-tests and the chi-squared test. Results: Around 3623 persons responded. Skin cancer knowledge was high (97). Sun avoidance decreased with time and was lowest among younger age groups and males. Sunscreen use was high (70), unchanged over 8 years, and more likely among younger age groups, females, those in paid employment, and those with tertiary level education. Use of sunscreen with minimum Sun Protection Factor (SPF) 15 (a campaign message) increased from 45 to 70 (P

Evaluation of sun protection factor of cosmetic formulations by a simple visual in vitro method mimicking the in vivo method

A new concept for in vitro visual evaluation of sun protection factor (SPF) of cosmetic formulations based on a supramolecular ultraviolet (UV) dosimeter was clearly demonstrated. The method closely parallels the method validated for in vivo evaluation and relies on the determination of the slightest perceptible bleaching of an iron-complex dye/nanocrystallinetitanium dioxide interface (UV dosimeter) in combination with an artificial skin substrate simulating the actual human skin in the presence and absence of a cosmetic formulation. The successful evaluation of SPF was ensured by the similarity of the erythema response of our dosimeter and human skin to UV light irradiation. A good linear correlation of in vitro and in vivo data up to SPF 40 confirmed the effectiveness of such a simple, cheap, and fast method. In short, here we unravel a convenient and accessible visual FPS evaluation method that can help improving the control on cosmetic products contributing to the reduction of skin cancer, one of the critical public health issues nowadays. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 101:726732, 2012