OBJECTIVES: To describe youth access to indoor UV tanning and youth discount pricing incentives in 4 states with different age restrictions: Colorado (no age restrictions), Texas (age 13 years), Illinois (age 14 years), and Wisconsin (age 16 years). DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey conducted in October 2003 using a standardized script to assess the practices of randomly selected UV tanning operators. PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected licensed indoor UV tanning facility operators in Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Wisconsin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of facilities (1) complying with indoor UV tanning minimum age regulations for a 12-year-old potential patron and a 15-year-old potential patron and (2) offering youth discounts. RESULTS: For a 12-year-old potential patron, 62% of facilities in states with minimum age restrictions prohibiting 12-year-olds had an operator report that they would not permit indoor tanning (Texas, 23%; Illinois, 74%; and Wisconsin, 89%) compared with 18% in Colorado, a state without youth access regulations. For a 15-year-old patron, most facilities in Wisconsin, the only state with a minimum age restriction for 15-year-olds, prohibited access (77%). Overall, 15% of operators offered youth discounts: Texas, 23%; Illinois, 14%; Wisconsin, 11%; and Colorado, 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Tanning facilities in 4 states offered price incentives directed at youths. State youth access regulations were associated with decreased youth access to indoor tanning. High compliance levels in states with long-standing youth access regulations (Illinois and Wisconsin) demonstrate the potential for successful tanning industry youth access regulation.
OBJECTIVES: To describe youth access to indoor UV tanning and youth discount pricing incentives in 4 states with different age restrictions: Colorado (no age restrictions), Texas (age 13 years), Illinois (age 14 years), and Wisconsin (age 16 years). DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey conducted in October 2003 using a standardized script to assess the practices of randomly selected UV tanning operators. PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected licensed indoor UV tanning facility operators in Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Wisconsin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of facilities (1) complying with indoor UV tanning minimum age regulations for a 12-year-old potential patron and a 15-year-old potential patron and (2) offering youth discounts. RESULTS: For a 12-year-old potential patron, 62% of facilities in states with minimum age restrictions prohibiting 12-year-olds had an operator report that they would not permit indoor tanning (Texas, 23%; Illinois, 74%; and Wisconsin, 89%) compared with 18% in Colorado, a state without youth access regulations. For a 15-year-old patron, most facilities in Wisconsin, the only state with a minimum age restriction for 15-year-olds, prohibited access (77%). Overall, 15% of operators offered youth discounts: Texas, 23%; Illinois, 14%; Wisconsin, 11%; and Colorado, 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Tanning facilities in 4 states offered price incentives directed at youths. State youth access regulations were associated with decreased youth access to indoor tanning. High compliance levels in states with long-standing youth access regulations (Illinois and Wisconsin) demonstrate the potential for successful tanning industry youth access regulation.
Authors: Susan I Woodruff; Latrice C Pichon; Katherine D Hoerster; Jean L Forster; Todd Gilmer; Joni A Mayer Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2007-02-05 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Jessica Reimann; Jennifer E McWhirter; Andrew Papadopoulos; Kim Bergeron; Susan Flynn; Loraine Marrett; Thomas Tenkate; Cheryl F Rosen; Cate Dewey Journal: J Community Health Date: 2019-08
Authors: Brundha Balaraman; Lauren K Biesbroeck; Stephanie H Lickerman; Lynn A Cornelius; Donna B Jeffe Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Gery P Guy; Zahava Berkowitz; Sherry Everett Jones; Emily O'Malley Olsen; Justin N Miyamoto; Shannon L Michael; Mona Saraiya Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Latrice C Pichon; Joni A Mayer; Katherine D Hoerster; Susan I Woodruff; Donald J Slymen; George E Belch; Elizabeth J Clapp; Ami L Hurd; Jean L Forster; Martin A Weinstock Journal: Arch Dermatol Date: 2009-09
Authors: Sherry Pagoto; Joel Hillhouse; Carolyn J Heckman; Elliot J Coups; Jerod Stapleton; David Buller; Rob Turrisi; June Robinson; Alan C Geller Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Gery P Guy; Zahava Berkowitz; Eric Tai; Dawn M Holman; Sherry Everett Jones; Lisa C Richardson Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Meg Watson; Dawn M Holman; Kathleen A Fox; Gery P Guy; Andrew B Seidenberg; Blake P Sampson; Craig Sinclair; DeAnn Lazovich Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 5.043