This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Physician Survey  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Dermatologic Disorders  • Neoplasms  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kathryn R. Johnson, MD; Lauren F. Heilig, BA; Eric J. Hester, MD; Shayla O. Francis, MD; Sara Jane Deakyne, BS; Robert P. Dellavalle, MD, PhD, MSPH

Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:465-470.

Objective  To compare the indoor tanning attitudes and practices of dermatologists with physicians in other medical specialties (internal medicine, pediatrics, and family medicine) commonly providing sun safety counseling to patients.

Design  Cross-sectional study.

Setting  Questionnaire mailed to randomly selected US dermatologists, internists, family practitioners, and pediatricians.

Results  The overall response rate was 38% (364/949): 71% indicated that patients had asked their opinions about indoor UV tanning, 80% believed that UV tanning was unsafe, and 90% agreed they would counsel patients against nonmedical indoor UV tanning. Many supported increased UV tanning legislation, including minimum age restrictions (91%) and parental consent requirements (90%). Dermatologists were significantly more likely than other physicians to respond to the survey (52% vs 31%, P<.001), speak with patients about indoor UV tanning (odds ratio [OR], 26.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-74.1]), believe that indoor UV tanning is unsafe (OR, 14.0; 95% CI, 5.0-39.4), and support increased regulation (OR, 11.7; 95% CI, 1.5-88.5). Women discouraged indoor UV tanning more than men (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.8-15.2). Physicians who had used indoor UV tanning (19%) more often agreed that non-UV tanning lotion (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8) and airbrush tanning (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4) were safe but did not differ in attitudes regarding UV tanning safety. Physicians practicing in the Northeast and Midwest were more likely to support UV tanning to improve mood (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5) and more commonly believed that UV tanning could help treat depression (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.6) or prevent vitamin D deficiency (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8).

Conclusions  Physicians, especially dermatologists, are frequently asked about and generally discourage indoor UV tanning. Dermatologists regard indoor UV tanning more negatively compared with other physicians. Physician sex and geographic location were associated with specific indoor UV tanning attitudes.

Author Affiliations: Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver (Drs Johnson, Hester, Francis, and Dellavalle and Mss Heilig and Deakyne). Dr Hester is currently with the Department of Dermatology, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland.

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