Yelena P Wu1,2, Kenneth Boucher2,3, Nan Hu2,3, Jennifer Hay4, Wendy Kohlmann2, Lisa G Aspinwall5, Deborah J Bowen6, Bridget G Parsons2, Elizabeth S Nagelhout7, Douglas Grossman1,2, Kathi Mooney2,8, Sancy A Leachman9, Kenneth P Tercyak10. 1. Department of Dermatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 6. Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 7. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 8. College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 9. Department of Dermatology & Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 10. Cancer Control Program, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Melanoma preventive interventions for children with familial risk are critically needed because ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure and sunburn occurrence early in life are the primary modifiable risk factors for melanoma. The current study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a new, family-focused telehealth intervention for children with familial risk for melanoma and their parents. The study also explored changes in child sun protection and risk behaviors, sunburn occurrence, and objectively measured UVR exposure. METHODS: This was a prospective study with a single-group design (n = 21 parent-child dyads, children ages 8-17). Dyads were asked to participate in three in-person assessments and three live video teleconference intervention sessions. RESULTS: The intervention was feasibly delivered, and the intervention content was acceptable to parents and children. The intervention was associated with improvements in child use of certain sun protection strategies over time and declines in child UVR exposure. CONCLUSIONS: A telehealth-delivered,family-focused melanoma preventive intervention was feasibly delivered and was acceptable to parent-child dyads. Future melanoma preventive interventions for this at-risk population could incorporate eHealth technologies to facilitate improvements in use of sun protection and monitoring of UVR exposure. This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT02846714.
OBJECTIVE:Melanoma preventive interventions for children with familial risk are critically needed because ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure and sunburn occurrence early in life are the primary modifiable risk factors for melanoma. The current study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a new, family-focused telehealth intervention for children with familial risk for melanoma and their parents. The study also explored changes in child sun protection and risk behaviors, sunburn occurrence, and objectively measured UVR exposure. METHODS: This was a prospective study with a single-group design (n = 21 parent-child dyads, children ages 8-17). Dyads were asked to participate in three in-person assessments and three live video teleconference intervention sessions. RESULTS: The intervention was feasibly delivered, and the intervention content was acceptable to parents and children. The intervention was associated with improvements in child use of certain sun protection strategies over time and declines in child UVR exposure. CONCLUSIONS: A telehealth-delivered,family-focused melanoma preventive intervention was feasibly delivered and was acceptable to parent-child dyads. Future melanoma preventive interventions for this at-risk population could incorporate eHealth technologies to facilitate improvements in use of sun protection and monitoring of UVR exposure. This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT02846714.
Authors: Rod K Dishman; Robert W Motl; Ruth Saunders; Gwen Felton; Dianne S Ward; Marsha Dowda; Russell R Pate Journal: Prev Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Yelena P Wu; Bridget G Parsons; Ryan Mooney; Lisa G Aspinwall; Kristin Cloyes; Jennifer L Hay; Wendy Kohlmann; Douglas Grossman; Sancy A Leachman Journal: J Community Health Date: 2018-10
Authors: Pamela B Cassidy; Tong Liu; Scott R Florell; Matthew Honeggar; Sancy A Leachman; Kenneth M Boucher; Douglas Grossman Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2016-12-05
Authors: Yelena P Wu; Bridget G Parsons; Lisa G Aspinwall; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth M Boucher; Heloisa Caputo; Ryan Mooney; Douglas Grossman; Sancy A Leachman Journal: Pediatr Dermatol Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 1.588
Authors: David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Douglas K Owens; Michael J Barry; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Martha Kubik; Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ellen R Gritz; Mary K Tripp; Susan K Peterson; Alexander V Prokhorov; Sanjay S Shete; Diana L Urbauer; Bryan M Fellman; Jeffrey E Lee; Jeffrey E Gershenwald Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Yelena P Wu; Lisa G Aspinwall; Bridget Parsons; Tammy K Stump; Katy Nottingham; Wendy Kohlmann; Marjan Champine; Pamela Cassidy; Sancy A Leachman Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2020-01-18