Youth access to artificial UV radiation exposure: Practices of 3647 US indoor tanning facilities

Latrice C. Pichon, Joni A. Mayer, Katherine D. Hoerster, Susan I. Woodruff, Donald J. Slymen, George E. Belch, Elizabeth J. Clapp, Ami L. Hurd, Jean L. Forster, Martin A. Weinstock

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

51 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To assess indoor tanning facility practices in a sample of facilities in 116 cities representing all 50 states. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: United States. Participants: Employees of 3647 indoor tanning facilities were contacted by telephone. Data collectors (ie, confederates) posed as prospective, fair-skinned, 15-year-old female customers who had never tanned before. Main Outcome Measures: Confederates asked respondents about their facility's practices related to parental consent, parental accompaniment, and allowable tanning session frequency. Results: Approximately 87% of the facilities required parental consent, 14% required parental accompaniment, 5% said they would not allow the confederate to tan owing to her age, and 71% would allow tanning every day the first week of indoor tanning. In Wisconsin, which bans indoor tanning among those younger than 16 years, 70% of facilities would not allow the confederate to tan. Multivariate analyses indicated that facilities in states with a youth access law were significantly more likely to require parental consent (P<.001) and parental accompaniment (P<.001) than those in states without a youth access law. Law was not significantly related to allowable tanning frequency (P=.81). Conclusion: We recommend that additional states pass youth access legislation, preferably in the form of bans.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)997-1002
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of Dermatology
Volume145
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2009

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Youth access to artificial UV radiation exposure: Practices of 3647 US indoor tanning facilities'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this