Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37632845›Full record

ArticleJMIR dermatology2021

Association Between State Indoor Tanning Legislation and Google Search Trends Data in the United States From 2006 to 2019: Time-Series Analysis.

Carolyn Heckman, Yong Lin, Mary Riley, Yaqun Wang, Trishnee Bhurosy, Anna Mitarotondo, Baichen Xu, Jerod Stapleton

Erratum issuedOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR dermatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Carolyn HeckmanRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1016-3965
Yong LinRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5710-5036
Mary RileyMedtronic, Denver, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2811-2605
Yaqun WangRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6682-2408
Trishnee BhurosyRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2603-2839
Anna MitarotondoRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4080-0307
Baichen XuRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5676-1851
Jerod StapletonUniversity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8501-1483
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USMedtronic (United States) · USUniversity of Kentucky · US

Funding

TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROFILINGP30CA072720 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI Tracie Saunders · 1997 to 2026
$94.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA072720
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun or indoor tanning is the cause of most skin cancers. Although indoor tanning has decreased in recent years, it remains most common among adolescents and young adults, whose skin is particularly vulnerable to long-term damage. US states have adopted several types of legislation to attempt to minimize indoor tanning among minors: a ban on indoor tanning among all minors, a partial minor ban by age (eg, <14 years), or the requirement of parental consent or accompaniment for tanning. Currently, only 6 US states have no indoor tanning legislation for minors.

objectiveThis study investigated whether internet searches (as an indicator of interest) related to indoor tanning varied across US states by the type of indoor tanning legislation, using data from Google Trends from 2006 to 2019.

methodsWe conducted a time-series analysis of Google Trends data on indoor tanning from 2006 to 2019 by US state. Time-series linear regression models were generated to assess the Google Trends data over time by the type of indoor tanning legislation.

resultsWe found that indoor tanning search rates decreased significantly for all 50 states and the District of Columbia over time (P<.01). The searches peaked in 2012 when indoor tanning received marked attention (eg, indoor tanning was banned for all minors by the first state-California). The reduction in search rates was more marked for states with a complete ban among minors compared to those with less restrictive types of legislation.

conclusionsOur findings are consistent with those of other studies on the association between indoor tanning regulations and attitudinal and behavioral trends related to indoor tanning. The main limitation of the study is that raw search data were not available for more precise analysis. With changes in interest and norms, indoor tanning and skin cancer risk among young people may change. Future studies should continue to determine the impact of such public health policies in order to inform policy efforts and minimize risks to public health.

Indexed as

SunbathingUltraviolet RaysAdolescentHumansInternetMinorsSearch EngineSkin NeoplasmsUnited StatesYoung AdultadolescentsdermatologyGoogle Trendsindoor tanninginternetpolicypreventionskin cancerskin cancer preventiontanningtime seriestrendweb-based health informationyoung adultyouth

Identifiers

PMID37632845
PMCPMC10501525
OpenAlexW3138632221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.