| Literature DB >> 33955844 |
June K Robinson1, Shiv Patel1, Seung Yun Heo2, Elizabeth Gray3, Jaeman Lim4, Kyeongha Kwon2,5, Zach Christiansen4, Jeffrey Model4, Jacob Trueb2, Anthony Banks2, Mary Kwasny3, John A Rogers2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Melanoma is attributable to predisposing phenotypical factors, such as skin that easily sunburns and unprotected exposure to carcinogenic UV radiation. Reducing the proportion of young adults who get sunburned may reduce the incidence of melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. Advances in technology have enabled the delivery of real-time UV light exposure and content-relevant health interventions.Entities:
Keywords: UV dosimeter; health promotion technology; melanoma; mobile phone; preventive medicine; sun protection; sunburn
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33955844 PMCID: PMC8138709 DOI: 10.2196/25895
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1Wireless UV-B dosimeter worn on the wrist (arrow indicates a UV-B photodiode).
Figure 2Smartphone screen showing the real-time UV-B dose in relation to the threshold dose at which the participant would get a sunburn; the predicted weather, including cloud cover; UV index; and temperature.
Schedule of measures.
| Measure | Day 0: baseline | Days 0-7: observe | Days 8-17: daily text messages | Day 18: structured goal setting | Days 18-28: daily text messages | |
|
| ||||||
|
| Demographics | ✓ |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sunburn in last 28 days | ✓ |
|
|
|
|
|
| Confidence and anxiety | ✓ | Da7 | D16 |
| D28 |
|
| Daily sunburn or sun protection |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
|
| Structured goal |
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
| System Usability Scale |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
| Willingness to continue use |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
| ||||||
|
| Daily UV | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
|
| ||||||
|
| Daily text messages |
|
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
|
| UV exposure visualization | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
aD: day.
Figure 3Example of a self-reported measure for clothing covering the head and the neck. N/A: not applicable.
Daily sunburns and UV-B dose experienced by participants and mean proportion of each day spent outside by all participants during the 3 periods (days 0-7, days 8-17, and days 18-28).
| Variables | Days 0-7 | Days 8-17 | Days 18-28 | ||||
| Population, n | 42 | 42 | 42 | N/Ab | |||
|
| |||||||
|
|
| .55 | |||||
|
|
| 0 | 24 (57) | 27 (64) | 25 (59) |
| |
|
|
| 1 | 12 (29) | 8 (19) | 8 (19) |
| |
|
|
| 2 | 4 (10) | 5 (12) | 6 (14) |
| |
|
|
| More than 2 | 2 (5) | 2 (5) | 3 (7) |
| |
|
| UV-B daily dose (J/m2), mean (SD)c | 91.96 (115.34) | 74.97 (82.32) | 62.73 (71.44) | .08 | ||
|
| |||||||
|
|
| 0.87 (0.19) | 0.84 (0.21) | 0.81 (0.24) | .05 | ||
|
|
| 6-7:59 AM | 0.15 (0.25) | 0.14 (0.20) | 0.14 (0.21) | .93 | |
|
|
| 8-9:59 AM | 0.19 (0.21) | 0.18 (0.20) | 0.18 (0.22) | .93 | |
|
|
| 10-11:59 AM | 0.33 (0.28) | 0.31 (0.23) | 0.31 (0.22) | .74 | |
|
|
| Noon-1:59 PM | 0.43 (0.29) | 0.41 (0.22) | 0.36 (0.24) | .20 | |
|
|
| 2-3:59 PM | 0.44 (0.26) | 0.37 (0.19) | 0.39 (0.25) | .24 | |
|
|
| 4-5:59 PM | 0.47 (0.27) | 0.45 (0.30) | 0.48 (0.28) | .67 | |
aP values are from the main effects of time from repeated measures general linear models (log or identity link).
bN/A: not applicable.
cThe UV device malfunctioned for 1 person; thus, the participant’s data were removed.
Participant characteristics.
| Characteristics | Values | |
| Population, n | 42 | |
| Age (years), median (first quartile, third quartile) | 22 (20, 29) | |
|
| ||
|
| Female | 28 (67) |
|
| Male | 14 (33) |
|
| ||
|
| White | 36 (86) |
|
| Asian | 3 (7) |
|
| Other | 2 (5) |
|
| Prefer not to answer | 1 (2) |
|
| ||
|
| Non-Hispanic | 39 (93) |
|
| Hispanic | 3 (7) |
|
| ||
|
| I. Very sun sensitive | 25 (60) |
|
| II. Average sun sensitive | 17 (40) |
|
| III. Low sun sensitive | 0 (0) |
|
| ||
|
| No | 21 (50) |
|
| Yes | 21 (50) |
|
| ||
|
| No | 42 (100) |
|
| Yes | 0 (0) |
Body region sunburned before and during the study for a sample of 42 participants.
| Body regions | Participants sunburned before the study, n (%) | Participants sunburned during the study, n (%) | |
| Face | 22 (52) | 19 (45) | .65 |
| Neck | 11 (26) | 9 (21) | .68 |
| Ears | 4 (10) | 3 (7) | .99 |
| Scalp | 5 (12) | 1 (2) | .13 |
| Shoulders | 20 (48) | 9 (21) | .01b |
| Back | 9 (21) | 4 (10) | .23 |
| Chest | 14 (33) | 6 (14) | .02b |
| Stomach | 4 (10) | 0 (0) | —c |
| Arms | 13 (31) | 17 (41) | .45 |
| Hands | 3 (7) | 5 (12) | .68 |
| Buttocks | 1 (2) | 1 (2) | .99 |
| Legs | 8 (19) | 8 (19) | .99 |
| Feet | 7 (17) | 5 (12) | .77 |
aP values are from the McNemar test of paired proportions. As this was an exploratory analysis, no correction for multiple comparisons was made for the type I error rate.
bShoulders and chest had significant decrease in sunburn.
cNot available. Owing to a limited sample size, the test could not be performed.
Figure 4Mean proportions of each of the days spent outside by the sample for any activity during the 3 periods stratified by 2-hour periods.
Figure 7Mean proportions of each of the days spent outside by the sample walking during the 3 periods stratified by 2-hour periods.
Figure 8Mean proportions of each of the days spent outside by the sample with an unprotected face during the 3 periods stratified by 2-hour periods.
Body regions protected during the study with sunscreen and clothing.
| Body regions | Sunscreen applied (n=265), n (%) | Clothing worn (n=124), n (%) |
| Face | 242 (91) | 14 (11) |
| Neck | 99 (37) | 2 (2) |
| Ears | 63 (24) | 7 (6) |
| Scalp | 6 (2) | 24 (19) |
| Shoulders | 41 (16) | 102 (82) |
| Back | 22 (8) | 106 (86) |
| Chest | 14 (44) | 88 (71) |
| Stomach | 31 (12) | 106 (86) |
| Arms | 80 (30) | 21 (17) |
| Hands | 51 (19) | 7 (6) |
| Buttocks | 5 (2) | 85 (69) |
| Legs | 48 (18) | 42 (34) |
| Feet | 21 (8) | 62 (50) |