Abstract:The incidence of melanoma has been increasing dramatically among teenage and young adult women over the past several decades. Despite a causal link between ultraviolet light exposure and melanoma, a significant proportion of young women intentionally tan. Furthermore, we know very little about the family’s role in melanoma-related risk practices. Consequently, this study examined twenty-two interviews of adolescent girls and their mothers discussing topics related to sun protection and tanning behavior. Qualit… Show more
“…A total of 17 articles reporting 16 studies were included in the meta‐synthesis (see Table 3 ). One study's findings were reported in two articles (Gordon et al, 2016 ; Hay et al, 2016 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some users downplayed the risk by considering that the risk was acceptable, for example, tanning was just one of many risky behaviours (Gordon et al, 2016; Lyons et al, 2021; Taylor et al, 2017, 2018); that the media overstated the risks (Lake et al, 2014); or in a minority of cases that the potential effects of skin cancer were insignificant (Lake et al, 2014). If you've got skin cancer you can get over it quick.(Participant quote) Lake et al (2014) p. 60.But just about everyone seemed to downplay this risk.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Seventy‐six per cent of articles ( n = 13) were published within the last five years with the earliest paper dating from 2004. Eight studies involved individual interviews (Banerjee et al, 2014 ; Glanz et al, 2018 ; Gordon et al, 2016 ; Hay et al, 2016 ; Kirk & Greenfield, 2017 ; Murray & Turner, 2004 ; Taylor et al, 2017 ; Vannini & McCright, 2004 ), and five used focus groups (Boynton & Oxlad, 2011 ; Buchanan Lunsford et al, 2018 ; Lake et al, 2014 ; Lazovich et al, 2013 ; Rodgers et al, 2016 ). One study involved both focus groups and interviews (Lyons et al, 2021 ).…”
Despite the established causal links to skin cancer, skin ageing and eye inflammation, people continue to use indoor tanning devices (hereafter 'sunbeds'). Understanding the reasons underlying the use of sunbeds is essential for developing effective interventions. The purpose of this study was to collate all existing evidence from qualitative papers published to date that had assessed motivations for using sunbeds. Methods: Six databases were searched from inception to February 2020 for qualitative studies that explored adults' experiences of using sunbeds. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and a narrative evidence synthesis was used to collate findings from each primary study. Results: Users of sunbeds were motivated primarily by aesthetic concerns but also by perceived psychological benefits (well-being, confidence and 'fitting in') and physical benefits (improvement in skin conditions such as acne, acquiring vitamin D and preventing sunburn). People also chose indoor tanning over alternatives such as fake tans because they considered the alternatives unacceptable and did not consider indoor tanning a serious health risk. To date, no studies have explored alternatives to meeting non-aesthetic needs related to the use of sunbeds.
“…A total of 17 articles reporting 16 studies were included in the meta‐synthesis (see Table 3 ). One study's findings were reported in two articles (Gordon et al, 2016 ; Hay et al, 2016 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some users downplayed the risk by considering that the risk was acceptable, for example, tanning was just one of many risky behaviours (Gordon et al, 2016; Lyons et al, 2021; Taylor et al, 2017, 2018); that the media overstated the risks (Lake et al, 2014); or in a minority of cases that the potential effects of skin cancer were insignificant (Lake et al, 2014). If you've got skin cancer you can get over it quick.(Participant quote) Lake et al (2014) p. 60.But just about everyone seemed to downplay this risk.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Seventy‐six per cent of articles ( n = 13) were published within the last five years with the earliest paper dating from 2004. Eight studies involved individual interviews (Banerjee et al, 2014 ; Glanz et al, 2018 ; Gordon et al, 2016 ; Hay et al, 2016 ; Kirk & Greenfield, 2017 ; Murray & Turner, 2004 ; Taylor et al, 2017 ; Vannini & McCright, 2004 ), and five used focus groups (Boynton & Oxlad, 2011 ; Buchanan Lunsford et al, 2018 ; Lake et al, 2014 ; Lazovich et al, 2013 ; Rodgers et al, 2016 ). One study involved both focus groups and interviews (Lyons et al, 2021 ).…”
Despite the established causal links to skin cancer, skin ageing and eye inflammation, people continue to use indoor tanning devices (hereafter 'sunbeds'). Understanding the reasons underlying the use of sunbeds is essential for developing effective interventions. The purpose of this study was to collate all existing evidence from qualitative papers published to date that had assessed motivations for using sunbeds. Methods: Six databases were searched from inception to February 2020 for qualitative studies that explored adults' experiences of using sunbeds. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and a narrative evidence synthesis was used to collate findings from each primary study. Results: Users of sunbeds were motivated primarily by aesthetic concerns but also by perceived psychological benefits (well-being, confidence and 'fitting in') and physical benefits (improvement in skin conditions such as acne, acquiring vitamin D and preventing sunburn). People also chose indoor tanning over alternatives such as fake tans because they considered the alternatives unacceptable and did not consider indoor tanning a serious health risk. To date, no studies have explored alternatives to meeting non-aesthetic needs related to the use of sunbeds.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
