OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency and correlates of skin examination behaviors in an international sample of individuals at varying risk of developing melanoma. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, web-based survey. SETTING: Data were collected from the general population over a 20-month period on behalf of the Melanoma Genetics Consortium (GenoMEL). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 8178 adults from Northern (32%), Central (33%), and Southern (14%) Europe, Australia (13%), and the United States (8%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported frequency of skin self-examination (SSE) and clinical skin examination (CSE). RESULTS: After adjustment for age and sex, frequency of skin examination was higher in both Australia (odds ratio [OR]SSE=1.80 [99% CI, 1.49-2.18]; ORCSE=2.68 [99% CI, 2.23-3.23]) and the United States (ORSSE=2.28 [99% CI, 1.76-2.94]; ORCSE=3.39 [99% CI, 2.60-4.18]) than in the 3 European regions combined. Within Europe, participants from Southern Europe reported higher rates of SSE than those in Northern Europe (ORSSE=1.61 [99% CI, 1.31-1.97]), and frequency of CSE was higher in both Central (ORCSE=1.47 [99% CI, 1.22-1.78]) and Southern Europe (ORCSE=3.46 [99% CI, 2.78, 4.31]) than in Northern Europe. Skin examination behavior also varied according to melanoma history: participants with no history of melanoma reported the lowest levels of skin examination, while participants with a previous melanoma diagnosis reported the highest levels. After adjustment for region, and taking into account the role of age, sex, skin type, and mole count, engagement in SSE and CSE was associated with a range of psychosocial factors, including perceived risk of developing melanoma; perceived benefits of, and barriers to, skin examination; perceived confidence in one's ability to engage in screening; and social norms. In addition, among those with no history of melanoma, higher cancer-related worry was associated with greater frequency of SSE. CONCLUSIONS: Given the strong association between psychosocial factors and skin examination behaviors, particularly among people with no history of melanoma, we recommend that greater attempts be made to integrate psycho-education into the fabric of public health initiatives and clinical care, with clinicians, researchers, and advocacy groups playing a key role in guiding individuals to appropriate tools and resources.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency and correlates of skin examination behaviors in an international sample of individuals at varying risk of developing melanoma. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, web-based survey. SETTING: Data were collected from the general population over a 20-month period on behalf of the Melanoma Genetics Consortium (GenoMEL). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 8178 adults from Northern (32%), Central (33%), and Southern (14%) Europe, Australia (13%), and the United States (8%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported frequency of skin self-examination (SSE) and clinical skin examination (CSE). RESULTS: After adjustment for age and sex, frequency of skin examination was higher in both Australia (odds ratio [OR]SSE=1.80 [99% CI, 1.49-2.18]; ORCSE=2.68 [99% CI, 2.23-3.23]) and the United States (ORSSE=2.28 [99% CI, 1.76-2.94]; ORCSE=3.39 [99% CI, 2.60-4.18]) than in the 3 European regions combined. Within Europe, participants from Southern Europe reported higher rates of SSE than those in Northern Europe (ORSSE=1.61 [99% CI, 1.31-1.97]), and frequency of CSE was higher in both Central (ORCSE=1.47 [99% CI, 1.22-1.78]) and Southern Europe (ORCSE=3.46 [99% CI, 2.78, 4.31]) than in Northern Europe. Skin examination behavior also varied according to melanoma history: participants with no history of melanoma reported the lowest levels of skin examination, while participants with a previous melanoma diagnosis reported the highest levels. After adjustment for region, and taking into account the role of age, sex, skin type, and mole count, engagement in SSE and CSE was associated with a range of psychosocial factors, including perceived risk of developing melanoma; perceived benefits of, and barriers to, skin examination; perceived confidence in one's ability to engage in screening; and social norms. In addition, among those with no history of melanoma, higher cancer-related worry was associated with greater frequency of SSE. CONCLUSIONS: Given the strong association between psychosocial factors and skin examination behaviors, particularly among people with no history of melanoma, we recommend that greater attempts be made to integrate psycho-education into the fabric of public health initiatives and clinical care, with clinicians, researchers, and advocacy groups playing a key role in guiding individuals to appropriate tools and resources.
Authors: Michelle McPherson; Mark Elwood; Dallas R English; Peter D Baade; Philippa H Youl; Joanne F Aitken Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Richard Bränström; Nadine A Kasparian; Yu-mei Chang; Paul Affleck; Aad Tibben; Lisa G Aspinwall; Esther Azizi; Orna Baron-Epel; Linda Battistuzzi; Wilma Bergman; William Bruno; May Chan; Francisco Cuellar; Tadeusz Debniak; Dace Pjanova; Slawomir Ertmanski; Adina Figl; Melinda Gonzalez; Nicholas K Hayward; Marko Hocevar; Peter A Kanetsky; Sancy A Leachman; Olita Heisele; Jane Palmer; Barbara Peric; Susana Puig; Dirk Schadendorf; Nelleke A Gruis; Julia Newton-Bishop; Yvonne Brandberg Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Richard Bränström; Yu-Mei Chang; Nadine Kasparian; Paul Affleck; Aad Tibben; Lisa G Aspinwall; Esther Azizi; Orna Baron-Epel; Linda Battistuzzi; William Bruno; May Chan; Francisco Cuellar; Tadeusz Debniak; Dace Pjanova; Sławomir Ertmański; Adina Figl; Melinda Gonzalez; Nicholas K Hayward; Marko Hocevar; Peter A Kanetsky; Samantha L Leaf; Frans A van Nieuwpoort; Olita Heisele; Jane Palmer; Barbara Peric; Susana Puig; Althea D Ruffin; Dirk Schadendorf; Nelleke A Gruis; Yvonne Brandberg; Julia Newton-Bishop Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Lisa G Aspinwall; Samantha L Leaf; Erin R Dola; Wendy Kohlmann; Sancy A Leachman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Bridget G Parsons; Jennifer L Hay; Lisa G Aspinwall; Kelsey Zaugg; Angela Zhu; Ryan H Mooney; Stephanie Z Klein; Douglas Grossman; Sancy A Leachman; Yelena P Wu Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Gill Hubbard; Richard G Kyle; Richard D Neal; Vincent Marmara; Ziyan Wang; Stephan U Dombrowski Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Amelia K Smit; Martin Allen; Brooke Beswick; Phyllis Butow; Hugh Dawkins; Suzanne J Dobbinson; Kate L Dunlop; David Espinoza; Georgina Fenton; Peter A Kanetsky; Louise Keogh; Michael G Kimlin; Judy Kirk; Matthew H Law; Serigne Lo; Cynthia Low; Graham J Mann; Gillian Reyes-Marcelino; Rachael L Morton; Ainsley J Newson; Jacqueline Savard; Lyndal Trevena; Sarah Wordsworth; Anne E Cust Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 8.822