Barriers to Sun Safety in a Canadian Outpatient Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has long been recognized that compliance with recommended sun safety practices is suboptimal, yet few investigations have explored the barriers that people face in practicing good sun safety. In this context, barriers can exist at the following three levels: knowledge of sun safety, acquisition of sun safety information, and implementation of specific sun protective measures. OBJECTIVE: The investigation reported herein sought to elucidate barriers to sun safety that individuals face. Ultimately, this study aimed to qualify the possible barriers that lead to a misalignment of current recommendations and sun safety practices. METHODS: The study design was observational, and the instrument used for data collection was a self-administered questionnaire. Thirty-four outpatients of the RK Schachter Dermatology Centre of Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre (SWCHSC), Toronto, Ontario, as well as 27 outpatients of the Sport Care facility of SWCHSC were enrolled in the study. They represent the target population of those who are at greater risk of developing sun-related skin lesions. Data were analyzed using standard parametric and nonparametric techniques. Comparisons were made between the two outpatient groups and between other groups within the sample. RESULTS: In general, level of sun safety knowledge was fairly high, though compliance to sun safety measures was suboptimal in both populations. There were no significant differences regarding level of knowledge between the 2 outpatient groups. Deficiencies in knowledge centered around risk factors for skin cancer. Frequently cited barriers to sun safety include inconvenience (34% of respondents), forgetting to use sun safety measures (49%), a desire to be tanned (33%), and protective clothing being too hot to wear (56%). High compliers were notable for their great likelihood of being counseled by a physician about sun safety ( P < 0.025) and their slightly higher mean knowledge scores. CONCLUSIONS: These data support that knowledge alone does not predict compliance and that sun awareness campaigns should be evaluated based on their ability to affect behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".