Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. JK Robinson DS Rigel RA Amonette (1997) ArticleTitleTrends in sun exposure knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors: 1986–1996 J Am Acad Dermatol 37 IssueID2 Pt 1 179–186 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiH3MnlsFU%3D Occurrence Handle9270501

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. RK Karagas VA Stannard LA Mott et al. (2002) ArticleTitleUse of tanning devices and risk of basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers J Natl Cancer Inst 94 224–226 Occurrence Handle11830612

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. DR English BK Armstrong A Kricker C Fleming (1997) ArticleTitleSunlight and cancer Cancer Causes Control 8 271–283 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c7ktFWnsg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9498892

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. DC Whiteman CA Whiteman AC Green (2001) ArticleTitleChildhood sun exposure as a risk factor for melanoma: a systematic review of epidemiologic studies Cancer Causes Control 12 69–82 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3ksVyktw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11227927

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. MB Veierod E Weiderpass M Thorn et al. (2003) ArticleTitleA prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women J Natl Cancer Inst 95 1530–1538 Occurrence Handle14559875

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. SQ Wang R Setlow M Berwick et al. (2001) ArticleTitleUltraviolet A and melanoma: a review J Am Acad Dermatol 44 837–846 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3it1aiug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11312434

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. AJ Swerdlow JS English RM MacKie et al. (1988) ArticleTitleFluorescent lights, ultraviolet lamps, and risk of cutaneous melanoma BMJ 297 647–650 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiaD38jivFY%3D Occurrence Handle3140927

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. BL Diffey (2003) ArticleTitleA quantitative estimate of melanoma mortality from ultraviolet A sunbed use in the U.K Br J Dermatol 149 578–581 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3svkvFKhuw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle14510992

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. RM Lavker GF Gerberick D Veres CJ Irwin KH Kaidbey (1995) ArticleTitleCumulative effects from repeated exposures to suberythemal doses of UVB and UVA in human skin J Am Acad Dermatol 32 53–62 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqC383nslU%3D Occurrence Handle7822517

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. NJ Lowe DP Meyers JM Wieder et al. (1995) ArticleTitleLow doses of repetitive ultraviolet A induce morphologic changes in human skin J Invest Dermatol 105 739–743 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymD1cnotlw%3D Occurrence Handle7490465

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  12. Illinois Department of Public Health (1992) Tanning facilities code (77 Ill. Adm. Code 795). Rules of the Illinois Department of Public Health.

  13. 2001–2002 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations (2001) Chapter 255: Chronic disease and injuries (s. 255.08).

  14. Texas Department of Health (2002) Rules for licensure of tanning facilities (25 Texas Administrative Code, §§ 229.341–229.357).

  15. Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (1989) Artificial tanning device regulations (Section 25-5-106(1), (2)(a),(2)(b)).

  16. AB Fleisher WJ Lee DP Adams et al. (1993) ArticleTitleTanning facility compliance with state and federal regulations in North Carolina: a poor performance J Am Acad Dermatol 28 IssueID2 212–217 Occurrence Handle8432917

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. CA Culley JA Mayer L Eckhardt et al. (2001) ArticleTitleCompliance with federal and state legislation by indoor tanning facilities in San Diego J Am Acad Dermatol 44 53–60 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7itVemsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11148477

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. InstitutionalAuthorNameCenters for Disease Control (1989) ArticleTitleInjuries associated with ultraviolet tanning devices – Wisconsin JAMA 261 3519–3520

    Google Scholar 

  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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, VA Medical Center, USA

    Lauren F. Heilig, Amanda L. Drake, Robert P. Dellavalle & Eric J. Hester

  2. Department of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, University of Colorado Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO, 80262, USA

    Lauren F. Heilig

  3. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, CO, 80220, USA

    Robert P. Dellavalle

  4. Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA

    Renee D’Ambrosia

Authors
  1. Lauren F. Heilig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renee D’Ambrosia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amanda L. Drake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert P. Dellavalle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eric J. Hester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert P. Dellavalle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heilig, L.F., D’Ambrosia, R., Drake, A.L. et al. A case for informed consent? Indoor UV tanning facility operator’s provision of health risks information (United States). Cancer Causes Control 16, 557–560 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-004-6572-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-004-6572-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation