The Quantitative Assessment of Solar UV [ultraviolet] Exposure for Vitamin D Synthesis in Australian Adults (AusD) Study aimed to better define the relationship between sun exposure and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration. Cross-sectional data were collected between May 2009 and December 2010 from 1,002 participants aged 18-75 years in 4 Australian sites spanning 24° of latitude. Participants completed the following: 1) questionnaires on sun exposure, dietary vitamin D intake, and vitamin D supplementation; 2) 10 days of personal ultraviolet radiation dosimetry; 3) a sun exposure and physical activity diary; and 4) clinical measurements and blood collection for 25(OH)D determination. Our multiple regression model described 40% of the variance in 25(OH)D concentration; modifiable behavioral factors contributed 52% of the explained variance, and environmental and demographic or constitutional variables contributed 38% and 10%, respectively. The amount of skin exposed was the single strongest contributor to the explained variance (27%), followed by location (20%), season (17%), personal ultraviolet radiation exposure (8%), vitamin D supplementation (7%), body mass index (weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) (4%), and physical activity (4%). Modifiable behavioral factors strongly influence serum 25(OH)D concentrations in Australian adults. In addition, latitude was a strong determinant of the relative contribution of different behavioral factors.

No abstract

Observational studies suggest that people with a high serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration may have reduced risk of chronic diseases such as osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some cancers. The AusD Study (A Quantitative Assessment of Solar UV Exposure for Vitamin D Synthesis in Australian Adults) was conducted to clarify the relationships between ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure, dietary intake of vitamin D, and serum 25(OH)D concentration among Australian adults residing in Townsville (19.3°S), Brisbane (27.5°S), Canberra (35.3°S), and Hobart (42.8°S). Participants aged 18-75 years were recruited from the Australian Electoral Roll between 2009 and 2010. Measurements were made of height, weight, waist:hip ratio, skin, hair, and eye color, blood pressure, and grip strength. Participants completed a questionnaire on sun exposure and vitamin D intake, together with 10 days of personal UV dosimetry and an associated sun-exposure and physical-activity diary that was temporally linked to a blood test for measurement of 25(OH)D concentration. Ambient solar UV radiation was also monitored at all study sites. We collected comprehensive, high-quality data from 1,002 participants (459 males, 543 females) assessed simultaneously across a range of latitudes and through all seasons. Here we describe the scientific and methodological issues considered in designing the AusD Study.

Despite the widespread use of ambient ultraviolet radiation (UVR) as a proxy measure of personal exposure to UVR, the relationship between the two is not well-defined. This paper examines the effects of season and latitude on the relationship between ambient UVR and personal UVR exposure. We used data from the AusD Study, a multi-centre cross-sectional study among Australian adults (18-75 years), where personal UVR exposure was objectively measured using polysulphone dosimeters. Data were analysed for 991 participants from 4 Australian cities of different latitude: Townsville (19.3°S), Brisbane (27.5°S), Canberra (35.3°S) and Hobart (42.8°S). Daily personal UVR exposure varied from 0.01 to 21 Standard Erythemal Doses (median = 1.1, IQR: 0.5-2.1), on average accounting for 5% of the total available ambient dose. There was an overall positive correlation between ambient UVR and personal UVR exposure (r = 0.23, p < 0.001). However, the correlations varied according to season and study location: from strong correlations in winter (r = 0.50) and at high latitudes (Hobart, r = 0.50; Canberra, r = 0.39), to null or even slightly negative correlations, in summer (r = 0.01) and at low latitudes (Townsville, r = -0.06; Brisbane, r = -0.16). Multiple regression models showed significant effect modification by season and location. Personal exposure fraction of total available ambient dose was highest in winter (7%) and amongst Hobart participants (7%) and lowest in summer (1%) and in Townsville (4%). These results suggest season and latitude modify the relationship between ambient UVR and personal UVR exposure. Ambient UVR may not be a good indicator for personal exposure dose under some circumstances.

BackgroundWorkplace health interventions incorporating qualitative and quantitative components (mixed methods) within a Participatory Action Research approach can increase understanding of contextual issues ensuring realistic interventions which influence health behaviour. Mixed methods research teams, however, face a variety of challenges at the methodological and expertise levels when designing actions and interventions. Addressing these challenges can improve the team’s functionality and lead to higher quality health outcomes. In this paper we reflect on the data collection, implementation and data analysis phases of a mixed methods workplace health promotion project and discuss the challenges which arose within our multidisciplinary team.MethodsThis project used mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach to address workers’ sun safety behaviours in 14 outdoor workplaces in Queensland, Australia, and elucidate why certain measures succeeded (or failed) at the worker and management level. The project integrated qualitative methods such as policy analysis and interviews, with a range of quantitative methods – including worker surveys, ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure measurement, and implementation cost analyses.ResultsThe research team found the integration of qualitative and quantitative analyses within the Participatory Action Research process to be challenging and a cause of tensions. This had a negative impact on the data analysis process and reporting of results, and the complexity of qualitative analysis was not truly understood by the quantitative team. Once all researchers recognised qualitative and quantitative data would be equally beneficial to the Participatory Action Research process, methodological bias was overcome to a degree to which the team could work cooperatively.ConclusionsMixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach may allow a research team to discuss, reflect and learn from each other, resulting in broadened perspectives beyond the scope of any single research methodology. However, cohesive and supportive teams take constant work and adjustment under this approach, as knowledge and understanding is gained and shared. It is important researchers are cognisant of, and learn from, potential tensions within research teams due to juxtaposed philosophies, methodologies and experiences, if the team is to function efficiently and positive outcomes are to be achieved.