Digital interventions for promoting sun protection and skin self-examination behaviors: A systematic review

Sun exposure and protection habits: Self-reported attitudes, knowledge and behaviours

BACKGROUND

As exposure to UV radiation is the primary modifiable environmental risk factor associated with skin cancer, it remains the principal focus of most prevention strategies. Numerous sun protection campaigns have been implemented worldwide; however, their impact on the actual incidence and mortality rates of skin cancer seems to be limited. To create successful skin cancer prevention campaigns, it is important to have a comprehensive understanding of individuals' attitudes and behaviours regarding sun protection. The aim of the current study was to determine and report on the prevalence of self-reported attitudes, knowledge and behaviours regarding two of the major sun protection recommendations-avoidance of sun exposure and use of sunscreens-in an international representative sample across five continents.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in 20 countries using a web-based online survey.

FINDINGS

A total of 50,552 individuals, comprising 25,388 men (50.22%) and 25,164 women (49.78%), participated in the survey. Among them, 83.2% reported having been voluntarily exposed to the sun (for sun-basking reasons) at least once in the last 12 months, and 47.96% acknowledged being exposed to the sun between the hours of 10 AM and 4 PM. The primary reason for non-adherence was that these hours were the most convenient times (32.28%). Only 24.05% reported applying sunscreen every 2 h when outdoors. Forgetfulness was the primary reason as provided by 27.79% of participants. Males and older age groups were less likely to adopt sun-protective behaviours around the world. Forgetfulness and the challenges posed by time constraints seem to be the biggest barriers to proper adherence.

INTERPRETATION

These findings should prompt the collaboration with health authorities and the manufacturers to enhance adherence by setting reasonable sunscreen prices and creating formulations that make their application less burdensome.

#4Corners4Health Social Media Cancer Prevention Campaign for Emerging Adults: Protocol for a Randomized Stepped-Wedge Trial

BACKGROUND

Many emerging adults (EAs) are prone to making unhealthy choices, which increase their risk of premature cancer morbidity and mortality. In the era of social media, rigorous research on interventions to promote health behaviors for cancer risk reduction among EAs delivered over social media is limited. Cancer prevention information and recommendations may reach EAs more effectively over social media than in settings such as health care, schools, and workplaces, particularly for EAs residing in rural areas.

OBJECTIVE

This pragmatic randomized trial aims to evaluate a multirisk factor intervention using a social media campaign designed with community advisers aimed at decreasing cancer risk factors among EAs. The trial will target EAs from diverse backgrounds living in rural counties in the Four Corners states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.

METHODS

We will recruit a sample of EAs (n=1000) aged 18 to 26 years residing in rural counties (Rural-Urban Continuum Codes 4 to 9) in the Four Corners states from the Qualtrics' research panel and enroll them in a randomized stepped-wedge, quasi-experimental design. The inclusion criteria include English proficiency and regular social media engagement. A social media intervention will promote guideline-related goals for increased physical activity, healthy eating, and human papillomavirus vaccination and reduced nicotine product use, alcohol intake, and solar UV radiation exposure. Campaign posts will cover digital and media literacy skills, responses to misinformation, communication with family and friends, and referral to community resources. The intervention will be delivered over 12 months in Facebook private groups and will be guided by advisory groups of community stakeholders and EAs and focus groups with EAs. The EAs will complete assessments at baseline and at 12, 26, 39, 52, and 104 weeks after randomization. Assessments will measure 6 cancer risk behaviors, theoretical mediators, and participants' engagement with the social media campaign.

RESULTS

The trial is in its start-up phase. It is being led by a steering committee. Team members are working in 3 subcommittees to optimize community engagement, the social media intervention, and the measures to be used. The Stakeholder Organization Advisory Board and Emerging Adult Advisory Board were formed and provided initial input on the priority of cancer risk factors to target, social media use by EAs, and community resources available. A framework for the social media campaign with topics, format, and theoretical mediators has been created, along with protocols for campaign management.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media can be used as a platform to counter misinformation and improve reliable health information to promote health behaviors that reduce cancer risks among EAs. Because of the popularity of web-based information sources among EAs, an innovative, multirisk factor intervention using a social media campaign has the potential to reduce their cancer risk behaviors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05618158; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05618158.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/50392.

Workplace exposure to UV radiation and strategies to minimize cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Workplace exposure to solar ultraviolet (UV) causes malignant melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. The evidence for beneficial effects of solar UV exposure in reducing the risks for other cancers is increasing. The intensity of UV radiation at the Earth's surface is dependent on latitude, but even in northern European countries exposure can be high enough for outdoor work to cause skin cancer.

GROWING POINTS

Awareness of the health risks and benefits of occupational solar UV exposure is poor. Actions to reduce the risk of skin cancer have been identified and employers should recognize their responsibility to actively manage these risks. There is evidence for reduced risks for breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer and possibly other cancers linked to solar UV exposure.

SOURCES OF DATA

This narrative review draws on published scientific articles and material designed to assist identifying strategies to protect workers from solar UV exposure.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Solar UV exposure can be harmful. Wavelengths in the UVB range are more effective in causing erythema and DNA damage. Solar UV is the main source of vitamin D for most people. Primary and secondary prevention for skin cancer can potentially eliminate these risks but the evidence for effectiveness is limited.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Potential health benefits of UV exposure, particularly for reduced cancer risk. Determining and communicating optimal exposure to maximize health benefits. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancers may be more than doubled for some workers in temperate latitudes.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Exposure-response epidemiological studies; studies of the health benefits of occupational UV exposure; studies of the effectiveness of intervention strategies to prevent skin cancer. Use of low-cost UV sensors in workplaces.

Dropout Rate in Digital Health Interventions for the Prevention of Skin Cancer: Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Metaregression

BACKGROUND

Digital strategies are innovative approaches to the prevention of skin cancer, but the attrition following this kind of intervention needs to be analyzed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to assess the dropouts from studies focused on digital strategies for the prevention of skin cancer.

METHODS

We conducted this systematic review with meta-analyses and metaregression according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statements. Search terms for skin cancer, digital strategies, and prevention were combined to search PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception until July 2022. Randomized clinical trials that reported dropouts of participants and compared digital strategies with other interventions to prevent skin cancer in healthy or disease-free participants were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data for analysis. The Revised Cochrane Collaboration Bias tool was employed. We calculated the pooled dropout rate of participants through a meta-analysis of proportions and examined whether dropout was more or less frequent in digital interventions against comparators via an odds ratio (OR) meta-analysis. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted in a meta-analysis of proportions and OR meta-analysis to assess the dropout events when data were sorted by digital interventions or control comparator. A univariate metaregression based on a random-effects model assessed possible moderators of dropout. Participants' dropout rates as pooled proportions were calculated for all groups combined, and the digital and comparator groups separately. OR>1 indicated higher dropouts for digital-based interventions. Metaregressions were performed for age, sex, length of intervention, and sample size.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies were included. The overall pooled dropout rate was 9.5% (95% CI 5.0-17.5). The subgroup meta-analysis of proportions revealed a dropout rate of 11.6% for digital strategies (95% CI 6.8-19.0) and 10.0% for comparators (95% CI 5.5-17.7). A trend of higher dropout rates for digital strategies was observed in the overall (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.36) and subgroup OR meta-analysis, but no significant differences were found between the groups. None of the covariates moderated the effect size in the univariate metaregression.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital strategies had a higher dropout rate compared to other prevention interventions, but the difference was not significant. Standardization is needed regarding reporting the number of and reasons for dropouts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42022329669; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=329669.