Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/16912571
Switch to
Predicate | Object |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
lifeskim:mentions |
umls-concept:C0001675,
umls-concept:C0004340,
umls-concept:C0009563,
umls-concept:C0022885,
umls-concept:C0039295,
umls-concept:C0087178,
umls-concept:C0205099,
umls-concept:C0205250,
umls-concept:C0332324,
umls-concept:C0392366,
umls-concept:C0444454,
umls-concept:C0680536,
umls-concept:C1016001,
umls-concept:C1123023,
umls-concept:C1547538,
umls-concept:C2785014
|
pubmed:issue |
5
|
pubmed:dateCreated |
2006-8-16
|
pubmed:abstractText |
The study aimed to establish solarium operators' compliance with a newly revised voluntary code for the industry in 2002. The revisions incorporate guidelines to ensure customers are adequately informed of the risks associated with solarium use and that access by high-risk groups, such as customers with fair skin that does not tan (skin type 1) or those less than 18 years of age, is limited or barred. Compliance tests with the industry standard were conducted at 30 solarium centres in Melbourne, Australia. Compliance was tested by surveys and in-person visits from three research assistants, each presenting as potential customers but with different eligibility to attend a sunbed session: young adults eligible to attend a solarium, young adults with skin type 1 and under-age (16 year old) customers. This is the first study to assess solarium compliance using confederates with customer profiles that correspond to the required restrictions on sunbed access. Results showed poor compliance with specific aspects of the voluntary code. Fifty-two per cent of centres gave the underage teenagers access to sunbeds without written parental consent. Ninety per cent of centres provided sunbed access to clients with poor tanning ability and 75% of centres tried to reassure them about using the sunbeds. Seven per cent of centres did not provide any form of eye protection for customers and 7% provided sub-standard stickers for eye protection. The study suggests that there is much room for improvement in solarium centres' current practices and further regulation may well be warranted.
|
pubmed:language |
eng
|
pubmed:journal | |
pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
pubmed:month |
Oct
|
pubmed:issn |
0959-8278
|
pubmed:author | |
pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
pubmed:volume |
15
|
pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
pubmed:pagination |
424-30
|
pubmed:dateRevised |
2008-11-21
|
pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:16912571-Adolescent,
pubmed-meshheading:16912571-Adult,
pubmed-meshheading:16912571-Australia,
pubmed-meshheading:16912571-Guideline Adherence,
pubmed-meshheading:16912571-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:16912571-Parental Consent,
pubmed-meshheading:16912571-Risk Factors,
pubmed-meshheading:16912571-Skin Neoplasms,
pubmed-meshheading:16912571-Skin Physiological Phenomena,
pubmed-meshheading:16912571-Skin Pigmentation
|
pubmed:year |
2006
|
pubmed:articleTitle |
Access to commercial indoor tanning facilities by adults with highly sensitive skin and by under-age youth: compliance tests at solarium centres in Melbourne, Australia.
|
pubmed:affiliation |
Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria, Carlton, Victoria, Australia. Suzanne.Dobbinson@cancervic.org.au
|
pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
|