Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 557–560

A case for informed consent? Indoor UV tanning facility operator’s provision of health risks information (United States)

  • Lauren F. Heilig
  • Renee D’Ambrosia
  • Amanda L. Drake
  • Robert P. Dellavalle
  • Eric J. Hester
Article

Abstract

Objective

Indoor UV tanning is associated with skin cancer. This study describes consumer health risks information provided by indoor UV tanning facility operators in four states (Colorado, Illinois, Texas, and Wisconsin) with varying operator training, regulations, enforcement and penalties.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional survey study design, 100 randomly selected licensed indoor UV tanning facilities from each state were surveyed anonymously by telephone. Facility operators were questioned regarding the provision of information on potential adverse effects of indoor UV exposure.

Results

Of 628 licensed indoor UV tanning facilities contacted, 400 facilities were surveyed. Most (87%) advised patrons of the potential risk of sunburn from indoor tanning. Less than half of facility operators in Colorado, Texas and Wisconsin informed patrons about the risk of skin cancer (42, 43 and 48%, respectively) compared with 81% of Illinois operators. Likewise, more operators in Illinois reported the risk of premature aging (79%) compared with other states (41% Colorado, 43% Texas and 51% Wisconsin).

Conclusions

Tanning facility operators frequently misinformed patrons of indoor UV exposure risks. The provision of informed consent by indoor tanning facility operators needs improved adaptation by the tanning industry as a standard for customer service.

Keywords

informed consent risk tanning ultraviolet rays. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Robinson, JK, Rigel, DS, Amonette, RA 1997Trends in sun exposure knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors: 1986–1996J Am Acad Dermatol37179186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karagas, RK, Stannard, VA, Mott, LA,  et al. 2002Use of tanning devices and risk of basal cell and squamous cell skin cancersJ Natl Cancer Inst94224226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    English, DR, Armstrong, BK, Kricker, A, Fleming, C 1997Sunlight and cancerCancer Causes Control8271283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whiteman, DC, Whiteman, CA, Green, AC 2001Childhood sun exposure as a risk factor for melanoma: a systematic review of epidemiologic studiesCancer Causes Control126982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Veierod, MB, Weiderpass, E, Thorn, M,  et al. 2003A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in womenJ Natl Cancer Inst9515301538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, SQ, Setlow, R, Berwick, M,  et al. 2001Ultraviolet A and melanoma: a reviewJ Am Acad Dermatol44837846PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Swerdlow, AJ, English, JS, MacKie, RM,  et al. 1988Fluorescent lights, ultraviolet lamps, and risk of cutaneous melanomaBMJ297647650PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diffey, BL 2003A quantitative estimate of melanoma mortality from ultraviolet A sunbed use in the U.KBr J Dermatol149578581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lavker, RM, Gerberick, GF, Veres, D, Irwin, CJ, Kaidbey, KH 1995Cumulative effects from repeated exposures to suberythemal doses of UVB and UVA in human skinJ Am Acad Dermatol325362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowe, NJ, Meyers, DP, Wieder, JM,  et al. 1995Low doses of repetitive ultraviolet A induce morphologic changes in human skinJ Invest Dermatol105739743PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Department of Health and Human Services (US), Food and Drug Administration (2003) Performance standards for light-emitting products (21 CFR 1040). Fed Reg: Title 21, Volume 8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Illinois Department of Public Health (1992) Tanning facilities code (77 Ill. Adm. Code 795). Rules of the Illinois Department of Public Health.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    2001–2002 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations (2001) Chapter 255: Chronic disease and injuries (s. 255.08).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Texas Department of Health (2002) Rules for licensure of tanning facilities (25 Texas Administrative Code, §§ 229.341–229.357).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (1989) Artificial tanning device regulations (Section 25-5-106(1), (2)(a),(2)(b)).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fleisher, AB, Lee, WJ, Adams, DP,  et al. 1993Tanning facility compliance with state and federal regulations in North Carolina: a poor performanceJ Am Acad Dermatol28212217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Culley, CA, Mayer, JA, Eckhardt, L,  et al. 2001Compliance with federal and state legislation by indoor tanning facilities in San DiegoJ Am Acad Dermatol445360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Centers for Disease Control1989Injuries associated with ultraviolet tanning devices – WisconsinJAMA26135193520Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Food and Drug Administration (1998) The consent process. In: Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators. http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/informedconsent.html#process, accessed on June 4, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren F. Heilig
    • 1
    • 2
  • Renee D’Ambrosia
    • 4
  • Amanda L. Drake
    • 1
  • Robert P. Dellavalle
    • 1
    • 3
  • Eric J. Hester
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of DermatologyVA Medical CenterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Preventive Medicine and BiometricsUniversity of Colorado Denver and Health Sciences CenterDenverUSA
  3. 3.Department of Veterans Affairs Medical CenterDenverUSA
  4. 4.Louisiana State University School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations