| Literature DB >> 21884577 |
Carolyn J Heckman1, Elliot J Coups.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents put themselves at risk of later skin cancer development and accelerated photo-aging due to their high rates of ultraviolet radiation exposure and low rates of skin protection. The purpose of the current study was to determine which of the Integrative Model constructs are most closely associated with sunscreen use among high school students.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21884577 PMCID: PMC3179453 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-679
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Characteristics of Study Sample (N = 242)
| Variable | Sample % |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 40.9 |
| Female | 59.1 |
| High school grade | |
| 9th | 38.8 |
| 10th | 5.0 |
| 11th | 26.0 |
| 12th | 30.2 |
| Race/ethnicity | |
| Hispanic | 5.4 |
| Non-Hispanic white | 86.4 |
| Non-Hispanic Asian | 3.7 |
| Non-Hispanic black | 1.2 |
| Non-Hispanic other | 3.3 |
| Fitzpatrick skin type | |
| I | 11.6 |
| II | 12.5 |
| III | 18.3 |
| IV | 34.9 |
| V | 17.8 |
| VI | 5.0 |
| Number of people know with skin cancer | |
| 0 | 52.5 |
| 1 | 43.8 |
| 2 | 3.3 |
| 3 | 0.4 |
| Knowledge of skin cancer and its prevention ( | |
| 0 | 2.9 |
| 1 | 2.1 |
| 2 | 5.8 |
| 3 | 13.6 |
| 4 | 21.5 |
| 5 | 29.8 |
| 6 | 24.4 |
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Multiple Linear Regression Analyses and Bootstrapping Tests of Indirect Effects of Correlates of Sunscreen Use
| Variables | Model | Point Estimate (95% CI) for Indirect Effect Mediated by Sunscreen Intentions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics and Individual Differences | .17 | |||
| Sexa | -0.38 (-0.64, -0.12) | .004 | -0.14 (-0.28, -0.02) | |
| High school grade | -0.05 (-0.15, 0.04) | .291 | ||
| Raceb | 0.03 (-0.36, 0.42) | .891 | ||
| Fitzpatrick skin type | -0.25 (-0.35, -0.16) | < .001 | -0.08 (-0.14, -0.03) | |
| Know someone diagnosed with skin cancer | -0.10 (-0.36, 0.16) | .429 | ||
| Knowledge of skin cancer and its prevention | 0.06 (-0.03, 0.14) | .187 | ||
| Behavioral Beliefs and Outcome Evaluations | .34 | |||
| Sunscreen benefits | 0.58 (0.41, 0.74) | < .001 | 0.13 (0.06, 0.23) | |
| Importance of protecting skin | 0.28 (0.18, 0.39) | < .001 | 0.07 (0.03, 0.14) | |
| Perceived risk of skin cancer/premature aging | 0.11 (-0.01, 0.23) | .069 | ||
| Perceived severity of skin cancer/premature aging | 0.05 (-0.10, 0.20) | .523 | ||
| Appearance orientation | 0.10 (-0.07, 0.26) | .264 | ||
| Health consciousness | -0.03 (-0.16, 0.10) | .640 | ||
| Normative Beliefs | .12 | |||
| Sunscreen user prototype | 0.15 (0.04, 0.27) | .008 | 0.04 (-0.01, 0.10) | |
| Tanning norms | -0.01 (-0.19, 0.18) | .954 | ||
| Skin protection norms | 0.01 (0.01, 0.02) | < .001 | 0.005 (0.002, 0.009) | |
| Self-Efficacy | .30 | |||
| Perceived behavioral control | 0.09 (0.02, 0.17) | .019 | 0.00 (-0.02, 0.02) | |
| Sunscreen self-efficacy | 0.50 (0.37, 0.62) | < .001 | 0.17 (0.08, 0.29) | |
| Body image self-efficacy | -0.15 (-0.29, 0.00) | .044 | -0.01 (-0.06, 0.03) | |
| Emotional coping self-efficacy | 0.02 (-0.02, 0.05) | .247 | ||
| Sunscreen Cues and Availabilityc | .28 | |||
| Expected to wear it by parents/guardians | 0.41 (0.07, 0.75) | .018 | 0.15 (0.02, 0.33) | |
| Always bring some | 0.73 (0.44, 1.01) | < .001 | 0.19 (0.07, 0.35) | |
| Purposely brought some | 0.20 (-0.08, 0.47) | .161 | ||
| Happened to have some | -0.18 (-0.42, 0.07) | .165 | ||
| Borrowed some from someone else | 0.08 (-0.17, 0.32) | .535 | ||
| Bought some because it was convenient to buy | 0.33 (-0.02, 0.69) | .068 | ||
| Bought some because it was inexpensive | 0.06 (-0.28, 0.40) | .737 |
Note. b = unstandardized regression coefficient; CI = confidence interval. a Sex was coded as female = 1, male = 2. b Race was coded as minority = 1, non-minority = 2. c Each variable was coded as no = 0, yes = 1.