Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41163140›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2025

Clear front-of-pack labelling information can improve sunscreen reapplication knowledge and intentions: findings from an online experiment.

Anna Nicholson, A Haynes, E Brennan, C Maitland, H Dixon

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Anna NicholsonCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, Australia. anna.nicholson@cancervic.org.au.
A HaynesCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, Australia.
E BrennanCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, Australia.
C MaitlandCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, Australia.
H DixonCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost people do not apply sunscreen effectively. The Australian and New Zealand standard for sunscreen specifies labels must provide clear and adequate directions for use but does not prescribe specific wording or positioning. Additionally, water-resistant sunscreens must declare the duration of laboratory-tested water resistance, up to 4 h maximum. Formative research found consumers are confused by reapplication directions and water resistance claims. This study aimed to explore whether enhanced sunscreen labelling information can improve sunscreen reapplication.

methodsAdult sunscreen users (n = 3,363) were randomised to view one of ten mock sunscreen labels in a 2 × 5 online experiment. Labels differed according to front-of-pack (FOP) water resistance claim (standard: tested for 4 h water resistance vs. alternative: water resistant) and reapplication information (none vs. any; with four message variations: simple text, simple icon, extended text, extended icon). We used multivariate logistic regression to examine the effect of FOP labelling on knowledge and intention to reapply sunscreen every 2 h and after swimming, sweating and towel drying (henceforth: activity), considering: (i) water resistance and reapplication information and (ii) reapplication message type.

resultsCompared to no information, FOP reapplication information increased knowledge (48% vs. 70%) and intention to reapply within 2 h (41% vs. 54%), but not after activity. Compared to the standard claim, the alternative water resistant claim increased knowledge (60% vs. 72%) and intention to reapply within 2 h (47% vs. 56%), but not after activity. Although there was no clear pattern of effects for reapplication message type, only the extended icon (with directions to reapply every 2 h or after activity) increased knowledge to reapply after activity, irrespective of the water resistance claim (52% standard and 57% alternative).

conclusionsUnder the current standard, sunscreen labels do not provide clear directions for use, which leaves consumers vulnerable to UV damage. Mandating FOP reapplication directions and adopting an alternative 'water resistant' claim could improve consumer understanding of how often to reapply sunscreen. Due to common misperceptions about the limits of water resistance, further user-centred label design and public education is needed to improve reapplication after swimming, sweating and towel drying.

Indexed as

Drug LabelingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeIntentionProduct LabelingSunscreening AgentsAdolescentAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedNew ZealandYoung AdultSunscreening AgentsExperimentHealth communicationLabellingLabelling regulationProduct claimsSkin cancer preventionSun protectionSunscreenVisual design

Identifiers

PMID41163140
PMCPMC12573816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.