Advertisement

Central European Journal of Medicine

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 169–176 | Cite as

Public (Skin) Health and the publishing source bias of Austrian information material

  • Daniela Haluza
  • Renate Cervinka
Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

Lifestyle-associated exposure to natural and artificial Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is a causative factor for acute and chronic skin damage. Therefore, the availability of target group-specific information material on skin health promotion and disease prevention is a relevant Public (Skin) Health issue.

Methods

Information material (n=21) on sun-related health aspects freely available in Austria and provided by health care providers, sunscreen producers, and indoor tanning parlors was compared using an iterative, 16-point screening tool.

Results

We report on heterogeneous strategies in health (risk) communication regarding amount of communicated information regarding (1) educative content (p=0.045), (2) sun protection (p=0.002), and (3) skin health (p=0.004). Material from health care providers and sunscreen producers focused on the disadvantages of sun light and suggested preventive measures (p=0.001). In contrast, indoor tanning parlors predominantly used stimulating pictures (p=0.004) and positive arguments to solicit sun bathing (p=0.001).

Conclusions

Public (Skin) Health campaigns and information materials could serve as a useful tool to increase public awareness regarding the hazards of exposure to sunlight. New strategies for skin health promotion could involve presenting standardized illustration and highlighting the benefits of UV light avoidance on appearance rather than provoking anxiety or psychological reactance.

Keywords

Public (Skin) Health Information material Positive health communication Skin cancer Preventive medicine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Cui R, Widlund HR, Feige E, Lin JY, Wilensky DL, Igras VE, D’Orazio J, Fung CY, Schanbacher CF, Granter SR et al: Central role of p53 in the suntan response and pathologic hyperpigmentation. Cell 2007, 128(5):853–864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Green A, Autier P, Boniol M, Boyle P, Dore JF, Gandini S, Newton-Bishop J, Secretan B, Walter SJ, Weinstock MA et al: The association of use of sunbeds with cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers: A systematic review (vol 120, pg 1116, 2007). International Journal of Cancer 2007, 120(11):2526–2526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Leiter U, Garbe C: Epidemiology of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer-the role of sunlight. Adv Exp Med Biol 2008, 624:89–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Lesiak A, Slowik-Rylska M, Rogowski-Tylman M, Sysa-Jedrzejowska A, Norval M, Narbutt J: Risk factors in Central Poland for the development of superficial and nodular basal cell carcinomas. Arch Med Sci 2010, 6(2):270–275PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Cafri G, Thompson JK, Roehrig M, Rojas A, Sperry S, Jacobsen PB, Hillhouse J: Appearance motives to tan and not tan: evidence for validity and reliability of a new scale. Ann Behav Med 2008, 35(2):209–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Goulart JM, Wang SQ: Knowledge, motivation, and behavior patterns of the general public towards sun protection. Photoch Photobio Sci 2010, 9(4):432–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Joosten EAG, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CPF, de Jong CAJ: Systematic Review of the Effects of Shared Decision-Making on Patient Satisfaction, Treatment Adherence and Health Status. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 2008, 77(4):219–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Barnett J, Ogden J, Daniells E: The value of choice: a qualitative study. The British journal of general practice 2008, 58(554):609–613PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD: Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2006Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Haluza D, Kundi M, Vogl S: Sociodemographic Aspects are Associated with Breast Cancer Screening Behaviour of Female Patients: Results of a Cross-Sectional Survey. Gesundheitswesen 2013Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Kortum P, Edwards C, Richards-Kortum R: The impact of inaccurate Internet health information in a secondary school learning environment. J Med Internet Res 2008, 10(2):e17PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Alpay L, Verhoef J, Toussaint P, Zwetsloot-Schonk B: What makes an “informed patient”? The impact of contextualization on the search for health information on the Internet. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006, 124:913–919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Magdum A, Leonforte F, McNaughton E, Kim J, Patel T, Haywood R: Sun protection — Do we know enough?. Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery 2012Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Haluza D, Cervinka R: Perceived Relevance of Educative Information on Public (Skin) Health: A Cross-sectional Questionnaire Survey. J Prev Med Public Health 2013, 46(2):82–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Eysenbach G, Kohler C: How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. Bmj 2002, 324(7337):573–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Magunacelaya MB, Glendor U: Surfing for mouth guards: assessing quality of online information. Dent Traumatol 2011, 27(5):334–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Wolff AM, Taylor SA, McCabe JF: Using checklists and reminders in clinical pathways to improve hospital inpatient care. Med J Australia 2004, 181(8):428–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Fausett MB, Propst A, Van Doren K, Clark BT: How to develop an effective obstetric checklist. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011, 205(3):165–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Cafri G, Thompson JK, Jacobsen PB: Appearance reasons for tanning mediate the relationship between media influence and UV exposure and sun protection. Archives of dermatology 2006a, 142(8):1067–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Cafri G, Thompson JK, Roehrig M, van den Berg P, Jacobsen PB, Stark S: An investigation of appearance motives for tanning: The development and evaluation of the Physical Appearance Reasons For Tanning Scale (PARTS) and its relation to sunbathing and indoor tanning intentions. Body image 2006b, 3(3):199–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Ferketich S: Internal consistency estimates of reliability. Research in Nursing & Health 1990, 13(6):437–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Ekwueme DU, Guy GP, Jr., Li C, Rim SH, Parelkar P, Chen SC: The health burden and economic costs of cutaneous melanoma mortality by race/ethnicity-United States, 2000 to 2006. J Am Acad Dermatol 2011, 65:S133–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Housman TS, Feldman SR, Williford PM, Fleischer AB, Jr., Goldman ND, Acostamadiedo JM, Chen GJ: Skin cancer is among the most costly of all cancers to treat for the Medicare population. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003, 48(3):425–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Fu JM, Dusza SW, Halpern AC: Sunless tanning. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004, 50(5):706–713PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Faurschou A, Wulf HC: Durability of the sun protection factor provided by dihydroxyacetone. Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine 2004, 20(5):239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
  27. [27]
    Risoldi Cochrane Z, Gregory P, Wilson A: Readability of consumer health information on the internet: a comparison of u.s. Government-funded and commercially funded websites. J Health Commun 2012, 17(9):1003–1010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Walsh TM, Volsko TA: Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care 2008, 53(10):1310–1315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Mahler HI, Kulik JA, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Harrell J: Effects of appearance-based interventions on sun protection intentions and self-reported behaviors. Health Psychol 2003, 22(2):199–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Fitzpatrick TB: The validity and practicality of sunreactive skin types I through VI. Archives of dermatology 1988, 124(6):869–871PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
  32. [32]
    Carter OB, Donovan RJ: Public (Mis)understanding of the UV Index. J Health Commun 2007, 12(1):41–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Clipp SL, Burke A, Hoffman-Bolton J, Alani R, Liegeois NJ, Alberg AJ: Sun-seeking behavior to increase cutaneous vitamin D synthesis: when prevention messages conflict. Public health reports 2011, 126(4):533–539PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Donkena KV, Young CY: Vitamin d, sunlight and prostate cancer risk. Advances in preventive medicine 2011, 2011:281863PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Meyer G, Steckelberg A, Muhlhauser I: Analysis of consumer information brochures on osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Ger Med Sci 2007, 5:Doc01PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Bunge M, Muhlhauser I, Steckelberg A: What constitutes evidence-based patient information?. Overview of discussed criteria. Patient Educ Couns 2010, 78(3):316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Strobelberger M, Kaminski A, Gartlehner G: Austrian patient information materials on PSAscreening do not meet international evidencebased standards. Wien Med Wochenschr 2011, 161(3–4):89–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Rasky E, Groth S: Information materials on mammography screening in Austria—do they help women with informed decision?. Soz Praventivmed 2004, 49(6):391–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Health, Center for Public HealthMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations