H Detert1, S Hedlund2, C D Anderson3, Y Rodvall4, K Festin5, D C Whiteman6, M Falk7. 1. Division of Community Medicine, Primary Care, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, S-581 83 Linköping, Sweden. Electronic address: hedde211@student.liu.se. 2. Division of Community Medicine, Primary Care, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, S-581 83 Linköping, Sweden. Electronic address: sarhe388@student.liu.se. 3. Division of Dermatology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, S-581 83 Linköping, Sweden. Electronic address: chris.anderson@regionostergotland.se. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, S-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: ylva.rodvall@ki.se. 5. Division of Community Medicine, Primary Care, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, S-581 83 Linköping, Sweden. Electronic address: karin.festin@liu.se. 6. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Locked Bag 2000, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Qld 4029 Herston, Australia. Electronic address: David.Whiteman@qimrberghofer.edu.au. 7. Division of Community Medicine, Primary Care, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, S-581 83 Linköping, Sweden. Electronic address: magnus.falk@regionostergotland.se.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In both Sweden and Australia high incidence rates of skin cancer have become a major health problem. In prevention and risk communication, it is important to have reliable ways for identifying people with risky sun habits. In this study the validity and reliability of the questionnaire Sun Exposure Protection Index (SEPI), developed to assess individual's sun habits and their propensity to increase sun protection during routine, often brief, clinical encounters, has been evaluated. The aim of our study was to evaluate validity and reliability of the proposed SEPI scoring instrument, in two countries with markedly different ultraviolet radiation environments (Sweden and Australia). METHOD: Two subpopulations in Sweden and Australia respectively were asked to fill out the SEPI together with the previously evaluated Readiness to Alter Sun Protective Behaviour questionnaire (RASP-B) and the associated Sun-protective Behaviours Questionnaire. To test reliability, the SEPI was again filled out by the subjects one month later. RESULTS: Comparison between SEPI and the questions in the Sun-protective Behaviours Questionnaire, analyzed with Spearman's Rho, showed good correlations regarding sun habits. Comparison between SEPI and RASP-B regarding propensity to increase sun protection showed concurrently lower SEPI mean scores for action stage, but no difference between precontemplation and contemplation stages. The SEPI test-retest analysis indicated stability over time. Internal consistency of the SEPI, assessed with Cronbach's alpha estimation showed values marginally lower than the desired >0.70 coefficient value generally recommended, and was somewhat negatively affected by the question on sunscreen use, likely related to the classic "sunscreen paradox". There were some differences in the performance of the SEPI between the Swedish and Australian samples, possibly due to the influence of "available" sunlight and differing attitudes to behaviour and protection "at home" and on vacation. CONCLUSIONS: SEPI appears to be a stable instrument with an overall acceptable validity and reliability, applicable for use in populations exposed to different UVR environments, in order to evaluate individual sun exposure and protection.
BACKGROUND: In both Sweden and Australia high incidence rates of skin cancer have become a major health problem. In prevention and risk communication, it is important to have reliable ways for identifying people with risky sun habits. In this study the validity and reliability of the questionnaire Sun Exposure Protection Index (SEPI), developed to assess individual's sun habits and their propensity to increase sun protection during routine, often brief, clinical encounters, has been evaluated. The aim of our study was to evaluate validity and reliability of the proposed SEPI scoring instrument, in two countries with markedly different ultraviolet radiation environments (Sweden and Australia). METHOD: Two subpopulations in Sweden and Australia respectively were asked to fill out the SEPI together with the previously evaluated Readiness to Alter Sun Protective Behaviour questionnaire (RASP-B) and the associated Sun-protective Behaviours Questionnaire. To test reliability, the SEPI was again filled out by the subjects one month later. RESULTS: Comparison between SEPI and the questions in the Sun-protective Behaviours Questionnaire, analyzed with Spearman's Rho, showed good correlations regarding sun habits. Comparison between SEPI and RASP-B regarding propensity to increase sun protection showed concurrently lower SEPI mean scores for action stage, but no difference between precontemplation and contemplation stages. The SEPI test-retest analysis indicated stability over time. Internal consistency of the SEPI, assessed with Cronbach's alpha estimation showed values marginally lower than the desired >0.70 coefficient value generally recommended, and was somewhat negatively affected by the question on sunscreen use, likely related to the classic "sunscreen paradox". There were some differences in the performance of the SEPI between the Swedish and Australian samples, possibly due to the influence of "available" sunlight and differing attitudes to behaviour and protection "at home" and on vacation. CONCLUSIONS: SEPI appears to be a stable instrument with an overall acceptable validity and reliability, applicable for use in populations exposed to different UVR environments, in order to evaluate individual sun exposure and protection.
Authors: Alexander J Stratigos; Maria Concetta Fargnoli; Arcangela De Nicolo; Ketty Peris; Susana Puig; Efthymia Soura; Chiara Menin; Donato Calista; Paola Ghiorzo; Mario Mandala; Daniela Massi; Monica Rodolfo; Laura Del Regno; Irene Stefanaki; Helen Gogas; Veronique Bataille; Margaret A Tucker; David Whiteman; Eduardo Nagore; Maria Teresa Landi Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Lia Natália Diehl Dallazem; Ana Maria Benvegnú; Juliana Mazzoleni Stramari; André Avelino Costa Beber; Raissa Massaia Londero Chemello; Maristela de Oliveira Beck Journal: An Bras Dermatol Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 1.896
Authors: Stella P Hartono; Victoria M Bedell; Sk Kayum Alam; Madelyn O'Gorman; MaKayla Serres; Stephanie R Hall; Krishnendu Pal; Rachel A Kudgus; Priyabrata Mukherjee; Davis M Seelig; Alexander Meves; Debabrata Mukhopadhyay; Stephen C Ekker; Luke H Hoeppner Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2021-11-23 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Titus Josef Brinker; Marlene Heckl; Martina Gatzka; Markus V Heppt; Henrique Resende Rodrigues; Sven Schneider; Wiebke Sondermann; Carolina de Almeida E Silva; Michael C Kirchberger; Joachim Klode; Alexander H Enk; Sarah Knispel; Christof von Kalle; Ingo Stoffels; Dirk Schadendorf; Yasuhiro Nakamura; Stefan Esser; Aisllan Assis; Breno Bernardes-Souza Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Titus Josef Brinker; Bianca Lisa Faria; Martina Gatzka; Olber Moreira de Faria; Markus V Heppt; Michael C Kirchberger; Dirk Schadendorf; Yasuhiro Nakamura; Fabian Buslaff; Oscar Campos Lisboa; Ana Carla Cruz Oliveira; Henrique Augusto Lino; Breno Bernardes-Souza Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Titus Josef Brinker; Christian Martin Brieske; Christoph Matthias Schaefer; Fabian Buslaff; Martina Gatzka; Maximilian Philip Petri; Wiebke Sondermann; Dirk Schadendorf; Ingo Stoffels; Joachim Klode Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Titus J Brinker; Bianca Lisa Faria; Olber Moreira de Faria; Joachim Klode; Dirk Schadendorf; Jochen S Utikal; Ute Mons; Eva Krieghoff-Henning; Oscar Campos Lisboa; Ana Carla Cruz Oliveira; Henrique Augusto Lino; Breno Bernardes-Souza Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 10.282