Melissa B Gilkey1, Darren Mays2, Maryam M Asgari3, Melanie L Kornides4, Annie-Laurie McRee5. 1. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: melissa_gilkey@hphc.org. 2. Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, District of Columbia. 3. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are considering policies to ban indoor tanning for youth aged <18 years. Using data from a nationally representative sample, this study assessed parental support for age-based bans as well as less restrictive parental permission requirements. METHODS: Data came from an online survey completed by 1,244 parents of adolescents aged 11-17 years. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models assessed correlates of supporting an indoor tanning ban for youth aged <18 years. Data collection and analysis occurred in 2016. RESULTS: Almost two thirds (65%) of parents agreed with indoor tanning bans for youth, with smaller proportions having no opinion (23%) or disagreeing (12%). Support for bans increased with greater perceived harm of indoor tanning for adolescents (OR=2.66, 95% CI=1.97, 3.59) and decreased with greater perceived benefits (OR=0.49, 95% CI=0.36, 0.67). Compared with support for bans, support for parental permission requirements was somewhat higher, with 79% of parents agreeing with the policy. Most parents (60%) agreed with both policies; only 4% disagreed with both. CONCLUSIONS: Age-based indoor tanning restrictions, including bans, engender broad-based support among parents. Communicating the harm of indoor tanning may facilitate the implementation of these policies.
INTRODUCTION: Regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are considering policies to ban indoor tanning for youth aged <18 years. Using data from a nationally representative sample, this study assessed parental support for age-based bans as well as less restrictive parental permission requirements. METHODS: Data came from an online survey completed by 1,244 parents of adolescents aged 11-17 years. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models assessed correlates of supporting an indoor tanning ban for youth aged <18 years. Data collection and analysis occurred in 2016. RESULTS: Almost two thirds (65%) of parents agreed with indoor tanning bans for youth, with smaller proportions having no opinion (23%) or disagreeing (12%). Support for bans increased with greater perceived harm of indoor tanning for adolescents (OR=2.66, 95% CI=1.97, 3.59) and decreased with greater perceived benefits (OR=0.49, 95% CI=0.36, 0.67). Compared with support for bans, support for parental permission requirements was somewhat higher, with 79% of parents agreeing with the policy. Most parents (60%) agreed with both policies; only 4% disagreed with both. CONCLUSIONS: Age-based indoor tanning restrictions, including bans, engender broad-based support among parents. Communicating the harm of indoor tanning may facilitate the implementation of these policies.
Authors: Mary K Tripp; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Michael A Davies; Joxel Garcia; Ellen R Gritz; Ernest T Hawk; Susan K Peterson Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Joni A Mayer; Susan I Woodruff; Donald J Slymen; James F Sallis; Jean L Forster; Elizabeth J Clapp; Katherine D Hoerster; Latrice C Pichon; John R Weeks; George E Belch; Martin A Weinstock; Todd Gilmer Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-03-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Alan C Geller; Graham Colditz; Susan Oliveria; Karen Emmons; Cynthia Jorgensen; Gideon N Aweh; A Lindsay Frazier Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Melissa B Gilkey; Divya Mohan; Ellen M Janssen; Annie-Laurie McRee; Melanie L Kornides; John F P Bridges Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 3.452