ArticleHealth psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association2017
Real-time sun protection decisions in first-degree relatives of melanoma patients.
Article in Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unpacking Habit With Bayesian Mixed Models: Dynamic Approach to Health Behaviors With Interchangeable Elements, Illustrated Through Multiple Sun Protection Behaviors.The quantitative methods for psychology · 2023Article
- Behavioral and Psychological Outcomes Associated with Skin Cancer Genetic Testing in Albuquerque Primary Care.Cancers · 2021Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of using an IVRS to assess decision making about sun protection.Psycho-oncology · 2020Article
- Daily Minutes of Unprotected Sun Exposure (MUSE) Inventory: Measure description and comparisons to UVR sensor and sun protection survey data.Preventive medicine reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMelanoma is the most serious skin cancer, and consistent use of sun protection is recommended to reduce risk. Yet sun protection use is generally inconsistent. Understanding the decisional factors driving sun protection choices could aid in intervention development to promote sun protection maintenance.
methodIn 59 first-degree relatives of melanoma patients, an interactive voice response system (IVRS) on participants' cell phones was used to assess twice daily (morning, afternoon) real-time sun protection usage (sunscreen, shade, hats, protective clothing) and decision factors (weather, type of activity, convenience, social support) over a 14-day summer interval where morning and afternoon outdoor exposures were anticipated. Generalized estimating equations and hierarchical linear models were used to examine the effect of demographics and decisional factors on sun protection choices over time.
resultsSun protection use was inconsistent (e.g., 61% used sunscreen inconsistently). Most strategies were used independently, with the exception of moderate overlap of sunscreen and hat usage. Decision factors were highly relevant for sun protection. For instance, sunscreen use was related to the perception of having adequate time to apply it, whereas shade and hat usage were each related to convenience. Few findings emerged by gender, age, time of day, or year. Significant within-subject variation remained, however.
conclusionsThe findings support continued examination of decision factors in understanding sun protection consistency in real time. Interventions where cues to action and environmental supports work together in varied settings can be developed to improve sun protection maintenance in populations at risk for this common disease. (PsycINFO Database Record
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.