This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (22)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Health Policy  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David B. Buller, PhD; Alan C. Geller, RN, MPH; Maura Cantor, MA; Mary Klein Buller, MA; Kevin Rosseel, MS; Drusilla Hufford, MBA; Lori Benjes, MD; Robert A. Lew, PhD

Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:771-774.

Objective  To assess current sun protection policies and the receptiveness to new policies at elementary schools in the United States.

Design  A cross-sectional telephone survey.

Setting  General educational community.

Patients or Other Participants  In 1998, a random sample of 1000 public elementary schools in the United States was selected (proportional to population size) from 27 metropolitan areas chosen from the 58 US cities regularly reporting the UV index in 1997. A final sample of principals from 412 elementary schools completed the survey.

Intervention  None.

Main Outcome Measures  Only 3.4% of schools had a sun protection policy. The most common reasons for not having a policy included the principal's lack of awareness (n = 113) or organizational barriers in the school districts (n = 77). Most principals (84.2%) said that students were outdoors during midday hours. Many principals (48.3%) were willing to adopt a sun protection policy. Most schools (72.8%) had shade structures but the majority (67.3%) reportedly covered less than one fifth of the grounds. Most principals (76.4%) were willing to increase the amount of shade structures.

Conclusions  The low frequency of sun protection policies and shade structures calls for national efforts to change policies and environments to increase sun protection at US schools. Research is needed to demonstrate the efficacy of these changes.

From the AMC Cancer Research Center, Denver, Colo (Dr Buller); Boston University School of Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Boston, Mass (Mr Geller); Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (Mss Cantor and Hufford and Mr Rosseel); Partners for Health Systems Inc, Denver (Ms Buller); and Argose, Inc, Waltham, Mass (Dr Lew). Dr Benjes is in private practice in Wellesley, Mass.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Archives of Dermatology Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Dermatol. 2002;138(6):851-852.
FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Baseline survey of sun protection policies and practices in primary school settings in New Zealand
Reeder et al.
Health Educ Res 2009;24:778-787.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The SunWise Policy Intervention for School-Based Sun Protection: A Pilot Study
Emmons et al.
The Journal of School Nursing 2008;24:215-221.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Multiple Levels of Influence in the Adoption of Sun Protection Policies in Elementary Schools in Massachusetts
Geller et al.
Arch Dermatol 2008;144:491-496.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Motives of belgian adolescents for using sunscreen: the role of action plans.
de Vries et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:1360-1366.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Sun exposure and risk of melanoma
Oliveria et al.
Arch. Dis. Child. 2006;91:131-138.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Getting Sunburned, or How to Harm My Younger Siblings?
Blum
Arch Dermatol 2004;140:623-623.
FULL TEXT  

Evaluation of the SunWise School Program
Geller et al.
The Journal of School Nursing 2003;19:93-99.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Kemp
AAP News 2002;21:102-102.
FULL TEXT