What influences the uptake of information to prevent skin cancer? A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skin cancer is an increasing problem in Europe, America and Australasia, although largely preventable by avoiding excessive ultraviolet (UV) exposure. This paper presents the findings of a systematic review of qualitative research about the prevention of skin cancer attributable to UV exposure. The aim is to understand elements that may contribute to the successful or unsuccessful conveyance of skin cancer prevention messages and their uptake by the public. A systematic review was undertaken using evidence identified through searching electronic bibliographic databases and Web sites and reference list checks. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used. Sixteen study reports (relating to 15 separate studies) were included from the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Each included study was quality appraised, and the findings were extracted into an evidence table. A coding scheme, framed by the Health Belief Model, was developed by the reviewers and informed analysis and synthesis. This showed that most people perceived their susceptibility to skin cancer, and its severity, as low. While benefits of adopting changed behaviour were acknowledged, there were substantial barriers to this, including positive perceptions of a tan as healthy and attractive and the hassle of covering up or using sunscreen. Peers, parents and media may offer 'cues to action' that encourage adoption of preventative behaviour and finally self-efficacy or the perceived ability to make such changes. Effective health education messages will need to address the barriers to adopting protective behaviours identified through this review.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it