26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation of the SunSmart program and population sun protection behaviour in Melbourne, Australia: Results from cross-sectional summer surveys from 1987 to 2017

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Australia has one of the highest skin cancer rates in the world. ‘SunSmart’ is a multi-component, internationally recognised community-wide skin cancer prevention program implemented in Melbourne, Australia, since summer 1988–1989. Following recent reductions in melanoma rates among younger Australian cohorts, the extent of behaviour change and the potential contribution of prevention programs to this decline in melanoma rates are of interest. Sun protection is a multifaceted behaviour. Measures previously applied to monitor change over time in preventive behaviour for this population focused on individual behaviours. The omission of multiple behaviours that reduce exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UV) may have led to underestimates of behaviour change, meriting further analysis of long-term trends to contribute to this debate.

          Methods and findings

          A population-based survey was conducted in Melbourne in the summer before SunSmart commenced (1987–1988) and across summers in 3 subsequent decades (1988–2017). During summer months, residents (14–69 years) were recruited to cross-sectional weekly telephone interviews assessing their tanning attitudes, sun protection behaviour, and sunburn incidence on the weekend prior to interview. Quotas were used to ensure the sample was proportional to the population by age and sex, while younger respondents were oversampled in some years. The majority of the respondents reported their skin was susceptible to sunburn. Changes in sun protection behaviour were analysed for N = 13,285 respondents in multivariable models, cumulating surveys within decades (1987–1988: N = 1,655; 1990s: N = 5,258; 2000s: N = 3,385; 2010s: N = 2,987) and adjusting for relevant ambient weather conditions and UV levels on weekend dates. We analysed specific and composite behaviours including a novel analysis of the use of maximal sun protection, which considered those people who stayed indoors during peak UV hours together with those people well-protected when outdoors. From a low base, use of sun protection increased rapidly in the decade after SunSmart commenced. The odds of use of at least 1 sun protection behaviours on summer weekends was 3 times higher in the 1990s than pre-SunSmart (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.04, 95% CI 2.52–3.68, p < 0.001). There was a smaller increase in use of maximal sun protection including shade (AOR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.44–1.97, p < 0.001). These improvements were sustained into the 2000s and continued to increase in the 2010s. Inferences about program effects are limited by the self-reported data, the absence of a control population, the cross-sectional study design, and the fact that the survey was not conducted in all years. Other potential confounders may include increasing educational attainment among respondents over time and exposure to other campaigns such as tobacco and obesity prevention.

          Conclusions

          With an estimated 20-year lag between sun exposure and melanoma incidence, our findings are consistent with SunSmart having contributed to the reduction in melanoma among younger cohorts.

          Abstract

          Suzanne Dobbinson and colleagues reveal the benefits of the SunSmart program that has reduced rates of melanoma incidence in Melbourne, Australia.

          Author summary

          Why was this study done?
          • In Australia, prevention programs have been implemented over 30 years encouraging the population to reduce their exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UV), the main cause of skin cancer.

          • Prior research assessing the impact of these programs has focused on monitoring change in the prevalence of individual sun protection behaviours, and has largely overlooked sun avoidance and composite sun protection behaviours.

          • This may have led to an underestimation of the behaviour change associated with these programs, given that effective sun protection involves multiple strategies.

          What did the researchers do and find?
          • The prevalence of sun protection behaviour and sunburn incidence of residents of Melbourne, Australia, were analysed across 3 decades.

          • Data were from a series of population-based cross-sectional surveys conducted in summers between 1987 and 2017.

          • A considerably higher increase in sun protection behaviour than previously reported was revealed, with a rapid increase evident soon after the SunSmart program was established.

          What do these findings mean?
          • The findings are consistent with the possibility that changes over the decades in sun protection behaviour have contributed to the decline in melanoma rates, and have substantial implications for the future delivery of skin cancer prevention programs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Limitations of the randomized controlled trial in evaluating population-based health interventions.

            Population- and systems-based interventions need evaluation, but the randomized controlled trial (RCT) research design has significant limitations when applied to their complexity. After some years of being largely dismissed in the ranking of evidence in medicine, alternatives to the RCT have been debated recently in public health and related population and social service fields to identify the trade-offs in their use when randomization is impractical or unethical. This review summarizes recent debates and considers the pragmatic and economic issues associated with evaluating whole-population interventions while maintaining scientific validity and credibility.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Logistic regression in the medical literature: standards for use and reporting, with particular attention to one medical domain.

              Logistic regression (LR) is a widely used multivariable method for modeling dichotomous outcomes. This article examines use and reporting of LR in the medical literature by comprehensively assessing its use in a selected area of medical study. Medline, followed by bibliography searches, identified 15 peer-reviewed English-language articles with original data, employing LR, published between 1985 and 1999, pertaining to patient interest in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Articles were examined for each of 10 criteria for proper use and reporting of LR models. Substantial shortcomings were found in both use of LR and reporting of results. For many studies, the ratio of the number of outcome events to predictor variables (events per variable) was sufficiently small to call into question the accuracy of the regression model. Additionally, no studies reported validation analysis, regression diagnostics, or goodness-of-fit measures. It is recommended that authors, reviewers, and editors pay greater attention to guidelines concerning the use and reporting of LR models.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Formal analysisRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Med
                PLoS Med
                plos
                plosmed
                PLoS Medicine
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1549-1277
                1549-1676
                8 October 2019
                October 2019
                : 16
                : 10
                : e1002932
                Affiliations
                [001]Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
                Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, AUSTRALIA
                Author notes

                I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following potential competing interests: The authors work at the Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer at Cancer Council Victoria. The SunSmart skin cancer prevention program is also administered by Cancer Council Victoria from the Prevention Division. Cancer Council Australia sells sun protection products in their retail stores. However, profits did not fund this study or the authors’ salaries.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7343-4887
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7427-4379
                Article
                PMEDICINE-D-19-02122
                10.1371/journal.pmed.1002932
                6782093
                31593565
                091515f5-84f0-4abc-8861-1d40067ec26f
                © 2019 Tabbakh et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 12 June 2019
                : 2 September 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 17
                Funding
                The study was funded by Cancer Council Victoria during 1987 to 2002. Since 2003 the study has been conducted as a component of the National Sun Protection Survey which is funded by Cancer Council Australia and the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. All authors were supported by Cancer Council Victoria. MW is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research Fellowship (Wakefield: ID 1109720). No funding bodies had any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Physical Sciences
                Physics
                Electromagnetic Radiation
                Light
                Ultraviolet Radiation
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Cancer Risk Factors
                Environmental Causes of Cancer
                Overexposure to Sun
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancer Risk Factors
                Environmental Causes of Cancer
                Overexposure to Sun
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancer Prevention
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancers and Neoplasms
                Melanomas
                Earth Sciences
                Seasons
                Summer
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Oceania
                Australia
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Custom metadata
                The data used to support the findings of this study are available at https://doi.org/10.3886/E111567V2.

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article