Melanoma Incidence Rates Among Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native Individuals, 1999-2019.

Importance: Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native people have the second highest incidence rate of invasive cutaneous melanoma in the US after non-Hispanic White people. Objective: To examine invasive cutaneous melanoma incidence rates and trends over time among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native people. Design, Setting, and Participants: This descriptive, observational cross-sectional study used population-based cancer registry data (US Cancer Statistics AI/AN Incidence Analytic Database) linked to the Indian Health Service administrative database to examine incidence rates by age, sex, region, histology, tumor site, stage, and other demographic and clinical characteristics. The study examined trends from 1999 to 2019 time period by age, sex, stage at diagnosis, and region. Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native people 15 years and older who received a diagnosis of invasive cutaneous melanoma from 1999 to 2019 who were members of federally recognized tribes and resided in Indian Health Service purchased/referred care delivery areas were included in this study to reduce racial misclassification and provide more accurate rates. The data were analyzed in 2022. Exposures: Demographic and clinical characteristics, such as age, sex, geographic region, histology, stage, and tumor site. Main Outcomes and Measures: Invasive cutaneous melanoma incidence rates by age group, sex, region, resident county characteristics (poverty level, rurality, education level, and socioeconomic status), stage at diagnosis, tumor site, and histology. Trends over time by age, sex, region, and stage. Results: From 1999 to 2019, 2151 non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native people (1021 female individuals [47.5%]) received a diagnosis of incident cutaneous melanoma (rate, 10.7 per 100 000; 95% CI, 10.3-11.2). Rates were higher among male than female individuals (13.0 [95% CI, 12.2-13.8] vs 9.2 [95% CI, 8.6-9.8]) and for people 55 years and older (24.2; 95% CI, 22.8-25.7) compared with those aged 15 to 39 years (3.5; 95% CI, 3.2-3.9). Rates were highest for male individuals 55 years and older (34.5; 95% CI, 31.8-37.3) and people living in the Southern Plains (male individuals: 23.8; 95% CI, 21.5-26.2; female individuals: 15.5; 95% CI, 14.0-17.2) and Pacific Coast region (male individuals: 16.5; 95% CI, 14.5-18.7; female individuals: 12.3; 95% CI, 10.9-13.9). Rates increased among female individuals from 1999 to 2019 (average annual percent change [AAPC], 2.5; P < .001); among regional/distant stage tumors (AAPC, 2.5; P = .01) and people 55 years and older (AAPC, 2.8; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that additional studies could potentially identify risk factors among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native people.

Consumers pay attention to ingredients on the front of a label: an eye tracking study.

Sunscreen is an important part of skin cancer prevention. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed numerous changes to sunscreen labeling including adding active ingredients to the front of a label. The purpose of the study was to identify and describe differences in attention between current label formatting and the proposed label formatting. Forty-seven participants were interviewed. Participants were presented with mock sunscreen labels that resembled current labeling or labeling based on the proposed FDA rule. While reading the labels, eye movements were recorded. Participants spent 12.3 s longer looking at the front of the proposed rule-compliant label than they did on the front of the current label. They spent the longest time reading the directions (13-14 seconds) compared with other areas. Placing active ingredients on the front of a label in relatively large font makes it more likely consumers will look at the information.

Sunscreen offers important protection against sunburn and skin cancer. In many instances, it is not as effective as it could be. Possible reasons include not applying it frequently enough or failing to understand instructions on the label. The FDA has proposed making changes to sunscreen labeling to increase its effectiveness. This includes adding active ingredients on the front of a label. Previous research has shown that adding active ingredients to the front of a label does not help consumers remember the ingredients. It is possible that consumers are not paying attention to/reading the ingredients when placed on the front label. Using eye tracking hardware, we tracked where 47 participants were looking as they read labels that either had active ingredients or did not have them. We found that the participants looked longer at the front label when the ingredients were on the front. This shows that consumers do pay attention to important information (e.g., active ingredients) on the front of a label. Given these results, and based on previous research that shows consumers have trouble remembering active ingredients, we recommend using the front label space for other types of important information, such as instructions for use.

Sun protection behavior: health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions.

Sun protection behavior can reduce skin cancer risk. This paper provides an overview of skin cancer risk and the complex behavioral options for sun protection, along with a narrative review of research on determinants of, and interventions to promote, sun protection. Gaps and opportunities for future research are also outlined. Evidence supports the effectiveness of sunscreen use, ultraviolet (UV) protection clothing, and shade seeking. However, these behaviors are complex and are often performed in ways that are inadequate for sun protection. Most research examining and targeting determinants of sun protection behavior has focused on sunscreen use, to the exclusion of other strategies, and has largely ignored the complexity of even sunscreen use. Most research and interventions are theory- driven, drawing on social cognitive constructs, but also considering self and social identity and emotion. Multilevel perspectives considering context, environment, policies, and other structural contexts have also been applied to sun protection behavior, but there is a need to combine psychological constructs with factors at other levels to optimize predictive models and intervention effectiveness. Effective sun protection effectively involves complex behaviors and perceived and actual tradeoffs that should be considered, in combination with multilevel determinants, in research predicting and promoting sun safety.

Visual Aids for Sunscreen Application: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Consumers routinely underapply sunscreen, and this may be because they misinterpret application quantity directions on sunscreen labels. U.S. labels use ambiguous terms such as "apply generously" to communicate application quantity. Visual aids may be helpful to consumers to determine proper application quantity. PURPOSE: To examine sunscreen application practices and sunscreen quantity visual aid preferences. METHODS: Sets of five GIFs and five static images were created corresponding to five quantities of sunscreen. Participants extracted their typical-use sunscreen quantity from a pre-measured tube and answered questions about their estimation process and use of labeled instructions. Participants then identified their typical-use sunscreen quantity in response to three stimuli: teaspoons, images, and GIFs and reported their preferred format. RESULTS: No participants reported using the label directions for application quantity to inform their sunscreen use. The GIF-based visual aid for sunscreen application quantity (44%) was preferred over image-based (40%) or teaspoon-based (16%) versions (p = .0249). Addition of a GIF demonstration to clarify application quantity was reported as highly helpful. CONCLUSION: Consumers have difficulty determining the appropriate quantity of sunscreen to use and labeling does not influence their application quantity. A QR code incorporating an image or GIF demonstration of proper sunscreen quantity could be useful to sunscreen consumers.

Sunless and Indoor Tanning Among U.S. Non-Hispanic White Women Ages 18-49 Years.

The use of indoor UV tanning devices (also known as "indoor tanning") has declined in recent years. Less is known about use of dihydroxyacetone-containing products used for tanning (also known as "sunless tanning"). We analyzed data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Analysis was limited to non-Hispanic White women ages 18-49 years. We estimated the proportion of women reporting spray tanning, self-applied lotion tanning, and indoor tanning and used weighted multivariable logistic regression models to examine the relationships between socio-demographic characteristics, skin cancer risk factors, and other cancer risk factors with sunless and indoor tanning. Overall, 17.7% of women reported sunless tanning. Lotion tanning was more common (15.3%) than spray tanning (6.8%), while 12.0% of women engaged in indoor tanning. Among sunless tanners, 23.7% also engaged in indoor tanning. Younger age, ever having a skin exam, skin reactions to the sun, binge drinking, and being at a healthy weight were associated with sunless tanning. While sunless tanning may be less harmful for skin cancer risk than indoor tanning, the frequency with which the two behaviors co-occur suggests that efforts to address societal pressures for women to alter their skin color may have important public health benefits.

Perceived Usefulness and Recall of Sunscreen Label Information by Consumers.

Importance: In February 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a proposed rule (84 FR 6204), an amendment to the Sunscreen Innovation Act of 2014, that would require listing active ingredients on the principal display panel of sunscreens to allow consumers to "more readily compare products and either select or avoid a given product accordingly." Objective: To understand consumers' perceived importance of active ingredients in sunscreen and their ability to recall these ingredients when comparing, avoiding, or selecting sunscreen products. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, participants were recruited from Fors Marsh Group and User Works, Inc consumer panels and interviewed in person in November and December 2019. Eligible participants were 18 years or older, reported sunscreen use in the past 12 months, and were residents of the Washington, DC, area. After viewing 2 mock sunscreen labels (1 that meets current US Food and Drug Administration requirements and 1 designed to meet proposed requirements), participants were asked questions to assess their perceived importance of active ingredients in sunscreen products, whether they could recall any of the active ingredients on the labels, and whether they typically looked for active ingredients on a sunscreen label. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the sunscreen label information used by participants to select a sunscreen and their ability to recall the active ingredients after viewing 2 mock sunscreen labels. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 47 participants was 42.8 (13.6) years, 32 (68%) were women, and 40 (85%) had a bachelor's or graduate degree. Of the total, 13 (28%) participants stated that sunscreen ingredients influenced their sunscreen selection, but only 5 (11%) said it was the most important information. Instead, 34 (72%) participants stated that the sun protection factor rating was the most important information. After viewing the mock sunscreen labels, only 5 (11%) participants recalled any of the active ingredients, although 10 (21%) reported typically looking at active ingredients when choosing a sunscreen. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study investigated the US Food and Drug Administration's proposed new rule requiring that active ingredients be listed on the front of sunscreen labels to facilitate product comparison for consumers. However, active ingredients were not reported to be a primary reason for consumers' sunscreen selection. Recall of active ingredients was low, and few consumers reported typically looking at the active ingredients, which were more commonly used to avoid ingredients rather than to select a sunscreen. Therefore, listing active ingredients on the front label alone may not have the intended usefulness for consumers.

The Context of Sunburn Among U.S. Adults: Common Activities and Sun Protection Behaviors.

INTRODUCTION: Sunburn increases skin cancer risk and is common among U.S. adults. However, little is known about the contexts in which sunburns often occur. The purpose of this study is to examine the contextual factors surrounding sunburns among U.S. adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from a 2018 online panel survey were analyzed. A total of 4,088 panel members were recruited by mail using probability-based, random sampling by address. Respondents were asked about their most recent sunburn, and analyses were limited to those who remembered their most recent sunburn (N=3,106). Data were weighted to match the U.S. Current Population Survey proportions; analyses were conducted in 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: Participants' age ranged from 18 to 93 years. About half (50.8%) were women, and most (82.3%) were non-Hispanic White adults. Swimming or spending time in water (32.5%), working outside at home (26.2%), traveling/vacationing (20.7%), and engaging in nonswimming physical activity (14.2%) were the most frequently reported activities. Using sunscreen on the face, neck, and chest (38.8%) and on the body (19.9%) and wearing sunglasses (34.2%) were the most frequently reported sun safety behaviors. Wearing clothes to the ankles (6.6%) and a long-sleeved shirt (4.5%) were least frequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new information about the contexts in which adult sunburns often occur, especially about contexts unrelated to intentional tanning, which was relatively infrequent. The results suggest the need to promote multiple forms of sun protection tailored to specific outdoor activities and develop innovative solutions for outdoor physical and aquatic activities, which present unique sun safety challenges.

Associations between ultraviolet radiation, tree cover and adolescent sunburns.

BACKGROUND: Sunburn is the strongest risk factor for melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers. Adolescent sunburns are related to higher risk of developing melanoma later in life. Little is known about the association of sunburns and shade, particularly tree cover, around adolescent homes and schools. This linkage study assessed associations of adolescent self-reported sunburns with ambient ultraviolet radiation (UV) and tree cover. METHODS: We analyzed a U.S. national sample of parent-child dyads (n = 1333) from the 2014 Family Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating (FLASHE) study conducted by the National Cancer Institute. The outcome was adolescent sunburns reported for the previous 12 months. GIS buffers around geocoded home and school addresses were used to summarize UV and tree cover. A sensitivity analysis assessed different UV measures and tree cover buffer distances. Logistic regression models estimated the adjusted odds of any sunburns for five models: (1) no environmental variables; (2) spatial variables of latitude and longitude; (3) UV; (4) tree cover; and, (5) a combined model with UV and tree cover. Covariates included common sunburn-related items such as sun protective behaviors, socio-demographics, and latitude. Model residuals were assessed for spatial dependency and clustering. RESULTS: Overall, 44% of adolescents reported any sunburns in the previous 12 months. For the bivariate associations, lower categories of UV were associated with any reported sunburns (p-trend = 0.002). Home tree cover was not associated with any reported sunburns (p-trend = 0.08), whereas schools with lower categories of tree cover were associated with sunburns (p-trend = 0.008). The adjusted odds of any sunburns by UV tertiles, as a linear tread, was 0.89 (0.76-1.05) (p = 0.17); school tree cover was: 0.91 (0.78-1.07) (p = 0.25). Neither UV nor tree cover, in a combined model, were significant. Sensitivity analyses resulted in the optimal buffer size of 200 m for summarizing tree cover. Spatial dependence of residuals was not significant and clustering was significant for about 6% or less of the sample in each model. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find significant relationships between UV or tree cover and adolescent sunburns, when adjusted by sunburn-related covariates. Better contextual data about where sunburns occurred is needed to identify environmental correlates of sunburn.

Tanning benefits, seasonal effects, and concerns about sunscreen: Measuring health beliefs about UV among college students.

Objective: To develop and validate a scale measuring health beliefs about UV in cloudy climates that may impact UV exposure behaviors. Participants: Students at a large university in Oregon completed pilot (N = 115) and final (N = 335) scales online March-July, 2016. Five participants underwent cognitive interviews. Methods: Expert feedback, cognitive interviews, and pilot data guided item development and refinement. We conducted factor analysis and invariance testing. Results: The final four-factor model fit well (χ2 = 37.97, df = 37, RMSEA = 0.000, CFI = 1.000). HBAU subscales are Sunscreen Toxicity, Seasonal Effects, Health Benefits of Tanning, and Tanning Through the Winter. Invariance testing supported strong invariance across sex and tanning status. Conclusion: The HBAU measures beliefs that encourage UV exposure and discourage protection (eg, the belief that sunscreen ingredients are toxic). This scale will enable more comprehensive measurement of cognitive predictors of UV exposure for student health, clinical, and research purposes.

Geographic disparities in cancer screening and fatalism among a nationally representative sample of US adults.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening in the USA is suboptimal, particularly for individuals living in vulnerable communities. This study aimed to understand how rurality and racial segregation are independently and interactively associated with cancer screening and cancer fatalism. METHODS: We used data from a nationally representative sample of adults (n=17 736) from National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey, 2011-2017, including cancer screening (colorectal, breast, cervical, prostate) among eligible participants and cancer fatalism. These data were linked to county-level metropolitan status/rurality (US Department of Agriculture) and racial segregation (US Census). We conducted multivariable analyses of associations of geographic variables with screening and fatalism. RESULTS: Breast cancer screening was lower in rural (92%, SE=1.5%) than urban counties (96%, SE=0.5%) (adjusted OR (aOR)=0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87). Colorectal cancer screening was higher in highly segregated (70%, SE=1.0%) than less segregated counties (65%, SE=1.7%) (aOR=1.28, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.58). Remaining outcomes did not vary by rurality or segregation, and these variables did not interact in their associations with screening or fatalism. CONCLUSION: Similar to previous studies, breast cancer screening was less common in rural areas. Contrary to expectations, colorectal cancer screening was higher in highly segregated counties. More research is needed on the influence of geography on cancer screening and beliefs, and how access to facilities or information may mediate these relationships.

Developing a post-treatment survivorship care plan to help breast cancer survivors understand their fertility.

PURPOSE: Reproductive-aged breast cancer survivors (BCS) who have completed initial cancer treatment frequently want to know about their future fertility potential. The purpose of this qualitative study was to assess if the fertility-related content presented in the survivorship care plan prototype met the informational needs of post-treatment BCS and to provide an opportunity for the target audience to review and react to the proposed content and design. METHODS: We conducted and analyzed transcripts from seven focus groups with BCS to evaluate their reactions to the survivorship care plan prototype. We independently coded transcripts for consistent themes and sub-themes and used a consensus-building approach to agree on interpretation of results. RESULTS: We identified five themes that describe the post-treatment BCS' responses to the prototype survivorship care plan in the context of their informational needs and experiences: (1) the prototype's fertility-related information is relevant; (2) desire for clinical parameters to help survivors understand their infertility risk; (3) fertility-related information is important throughout survivorship; (4) evidence-based content from a neutral source is trustworthy; and (5) the recommendation to see a fertility specialist is helpful, but cost is a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: BCS have concerns and needs related to their fertility potential after initial breast cancer treatment. The evidence-based information offered in our prototype survivorship care plan was acceptable to BCS and has significant potential to address these needs. Additional primary data that identify post-cancer treatment indicators of fertility would advance this effort.

Patient-centered communication between adolescent and young adult cancer survivors and their healthcare providers: Identifying research gaps with a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping literature review to identify practices or programs that promote AYA patient-centered communication. METHODS: Between January and May of 2016, we applied standard scoping review methodology to systematically review articles. We considered peer-reviewed, English language articles written at any phase of intervention research. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were eligible, and no additional search restrictions were applied. We retained articles that included explicit or implicit outcomes for one of the six functions of patient-centered communication in cancer care. At least two independent reviewers assessed the articles. RESULTS: We screened a total of 4072 titles and abstracts, retaining 27 for full-text review. Ultimately, eight titles met the review's inclusion criteria. We categorized each publication by the action or setting used to improve patient-centered communication, resulting in five categories. Most studies were not included because they did not include a patient-centered communication outcome. CONCLUSION: This area of research is still emerging, as indicated by the small number of eligible studies and predominance of qualitative, descriptive, pilot, and feasibility studies with small sample sizes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our results suggest a clear need to develop and evaluate interventions focused on improving patient-centered communication between AYA survivors and their healthcare providers.

Sex differences and risk behaviors among indoor tanners.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to examine (1) sex differences in factors associated with indoor tanning, and (2) the relationship between cancer risk perception and skin cancer screening among indoor tanners. METHODS: Data are from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. The sample was limited to U.S. adults (≥ 18 years) using an indoor tanning device in the last year (N = 1177). We conducted bivariate and multivariate weighted analyses. RESULTS: Among indoor tanners, less than 30% of men and women reported having ever had a skin exam. Male sex was significantly associated with rarely/never using sunscreen (51.4% of men vs. 36.4% of women) and with binge drinking of alcohol (47.6% of men vs. 37.4% of women). No sex differences in smoking were present. Indoor tanners who perceived themselves "about equally likely" to develop cancer (any type) as similar others were less likely to have received a skin cancer examination than those with high perceived risk. CONCLUSION: The relationship of cancer risk perception to skin cancer screening is complex. Rates of risk and protective behaviors observed among men and women who indoor tan suggest mixed-sex tanning prevention efforts should target multiple risk behaviors.

Measurement of disordered eating in Latina college women.

The Eating Disorder Risk Composite (EDRC) comprises the Drive for Thinness, Bulimia, and Body Dissatisfaction subscales of the Eating Disorder Inventory, Third Edition (EDI-3, Garner, 2004). Past research conducted with Latina college women (LCW) has found older versions of the EDRC subscales to be reliable, but the EDI-3's EDRC factor structure has yet to be studied among LCW. The present study investigated the pattern of responses to and the factor structure of the EDRC in LCW. It was hypothesized that eating pathology would be present and that a factor analysis would find some discrepancies between the original factor structure of the EDRC and the factor structure from LCW. Analyses of data on a 6-point Likert scale indicate that drive for thinness and body dissatisfaction are far more prevalent than is bulimic symptomology in LCW. Principal Axis Factoring with promax rotation was used to extract three factors very similar to the original EDRC. Some discrepancies in the item loadings were observed, most notably that half of the items from the original Body Dissatisfaction subscale did not load together on one factor. Overall, the EDRC appears to be a good measurement of eating- and body-related phenomena among LCW. Implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.