or search on
|Title:||A narrative review of the potential for self-tanning products to substitute for solaria use among people seeking a tanned appearance|
|Authors:||Paul CL; Bryant J; Turon H; Brozek I; Noble N; Zucca A|
|Categories:||Cancer Type - Skin Cancer|
Etiology - Resources and Infrastructure
|Keywords:||adverse effects; Australia; Cosmetics; Humans; Sunbathing; therapeutic use; Ultraviolet Rays|
|Journal Title:||Photodermatology, Photoimmunology and Photomedicine|
|Page number start:||160|
|Page number end:||166|
|Abstract:||Skin cancers including melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers are a high-cost and largely preventable form of cancer. While limiting exposure to solar ultraviolet (UV) light via outdoor activities is a focus of public health efforts, indoor UV exposure via solaria or 'tanning booths' has also become a cause for concern. In recent decades the availability of less harmful non-UV self-tanning products such as sprays and lotions has increased. This review explores (i) the available data regarding the prevalence and behavioural factors associated with use of solaria and self-tanning products and (ii) data that may shed light on the likelihood of solaria users substituting self-tanning products as a less harmful alternative to solaria exposure. While there are insufficient data on which to draw a firm conclusion about the potential for substitution, it appears unlikely that most solaria users would readily substitute self-tanning products in place of solaria exposure. Public health advocates may need to consider whether a robust research study of the cost-effectiveness of encouraging substitutional use of self-tanners is desirable, or whether efforts to severely restrict access to solaria may be a better approach|
|Division:||Cancer Research Division|
|Appears in Collections:||Research Articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.