Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38437006›Full record

ArticleJMIR dermatology2024

A Content Analysis of Indoor Tanning Twitter Chatter During COVID-19 Shutdowns: Cross-Sectional Qualitative Study.

Laurie Groshon, Molly E Waring, Aaron J Blashill, Kristen Dean, Sanaya Bankwalla, Lindsay Palmer, Sherry Pagoto

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effects of a Tailored Mobile Messaging Intervention for Indoor Tanning Cessation in Young Females: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. A Content Analysis of #Childhoodcancer Chatter on X.Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Laurie GroshonUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8896-7678
Molly E WaringUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9884-9824
Aaron J BlashillSan Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4727-3888
Kristen DeanUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8441-8460
Sanaya BankwallaUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6957-5116
Lindsay PalmerUMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5415-9186
Sherry PagotoUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2462-8797
University of Connecticut · USSan Diego State University · USUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · US

Funding

Mentoring in mHealth and Social Networking Interventions for CVD Risk ReductionK24HL124366 · NHLBI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI PAGOTO, SHERRY L. · 2015 to 2024
$1.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL124366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndoor tanning is a preventable risk factor for skin cancer. Statewide shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in temporary closures of tanning businesses. Little is known about how tanners reacted to losing access to tanning businesses.

objectiveThis study aimed to analyze Twitter (subsequently rebranded as X) chatter about indoor tanning during the statewide pandemic shutdowns.

methodsWe collected tweets from March 15 to April 30, 2020, and performed a directed content analysis of a random sample of 20% (1165/5811) of tweets from each week. The 2 coders independently rated themes (κ=0.67-1.0; 94%-100% agreement).

resultsAbout half (589/1165, 50.6%) of tweets were by people unlikely to indoor tan, and most of these mocked tanners or the act of tanning (562/589, 94.9%). A total of 34% (402/1165) of tweets were posted by users likely to indoor tan, and most of these (260/402, 64.7%) mentioned missing tanning beds, often citing appearance- or mood-related reasons or withdrawal. Some tweets by tanners expressed a desire to purchase or use home tanning beds (90/402, 22%), while only 3.9% (16/402) mentioned tanning alternatives (eg, self-tanner). Very few tweets (29/1165, 2.5%) were public health messages about the dangers of indoor tanning.

conclusionsFindings revealed that during statewide shutdowns, half of the tweets about indoor tanning were mocking tanning bed users and the tanned look, while about one-third were indoor tanners reacting to their inability to access tanning beds. Future work is needed to understand emerging trends in tanning post pandemic.

Indexed as

attitudeattitudescontent analysisdermatologyopinionperceptionperceptionsperspectiveperspectivessentimentskinsocial mediasuntantannertannerstanningtweettweetsTwitter

Identifiers

PMID38437006
PMCPMC10949128
OpenAlexW4392369086

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.