You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 141 No. 8, August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Study
 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 ISI (6)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Health Policy
 •Law and Medicine
 •Neoplasms
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Compliance With Youth Access Regulations for Indoor UV Tanning

Eric J. Hester, MD; Lauren F. Heilig, BA; Renee D’Ambrosia, MD; Amanda L. Drake, BS; Lisa M. Schilling, MD; Robert P. Dellavalle, MD, PhD, MSPH

Arch Dermatol. 2005;141:959-962.

Objectives  To describe youth access to indoor UV tanning and youth discount pricing incentives in 4 states with different age restrictions: Colorado (no age restrictions), Texas (age 13 years), Illinois (age 14 years), and Wisconsin (age 16 years).

Design  Cross-sectional telephone survey conducted in October 2003 using a standardized script to assess the practices of randomly selected UV tanning operators.

Participants  Randomly selected licensed indoor UV tanning facility operators in Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

Main Outcome Measures  Number of facilities (1) complying with indoor UV tanning minimum age regulations for a 12-year-old potential patron and a 15-year-old potential patron and (2) offering youth discounts.

Results  For a 12-year-old potential patron, 62% of facilities in states with minimum age restrictions prohibiting 12-year-olds had an operator report that they would not permit indoor tanning (Texas, 23%; Illinois, 74%; and Wisconsin, 89%) compared with 18% in Colorado, a state without youth access regulations. For a 15-year-old patron, most facilities in Wisconsin, the only state with a minimum age restriction for 15-year-olds, prohibited access (77%). Overall, 15% of operators offered youth discounts: Texas, 23%; Illinois, 14%; Wisconsin, 11%; and Colorado, 11%.

Conclusions  Tanning facilities in 4 states offered price incentives directed at youths. State youth access regulations were associated with decreased youth access to indoor tanning. High compliance levels in states with long-standing youth access regulations (Illinois and Wisconsin) demonstrate the potential for successful tanning industry youth access regulation.


Author Affiliations: Departments of Dermatology (Drs Hester and Dellavalle and Mss Heilig and Drake), Medicine (Dr Schilling), and Preventive Medicine and Biometrics (Ms Heilig and Dr Schilling), University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center; Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans (Dr D’Ambrosia); and Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver (Dr Dellavalle). Dr Hester is now with the Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.


RELATED ARTICLES

Skin Cancer Risk Behaviors: A Conceptual Framework for Complex Behavioral Change
Joel Hillhouse and Rob Turrisi
Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(8):1028-1031.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

UV Light Tanning as a Type of Substance-Related Disorder
Molly M. Warthan, Tatsuo Uchida, and Richard F. Wagner, Jr
Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(8):963-966.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Sun Exposure, Sun Protection, and Vitamin D
Robinson
JAMA 2005;294:1541-1543.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.