The Feasibility and Acceptability of Using a Wearable UV Radiation Exposure Monitoring Device in Adults and Children: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: most common cancer. Reducing ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure is essential for the prevention of melanoma. Objectively assessing individual-level UVR exposure with the use of wearable technology offers a promising tool for reducing UVR exposure. However, the feasibility and acceptability of using UVR monitoring wearable devices have not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a commercially available UVR monitoring wearable device among adults and children. METHODS: The study recruited families (one parent and one child) to test a new, commercially-available UVR monitoring device (Shade). Participants wore the Shade device for two weeks and completed questionnaires assessing the feasibility and acceptability of wearing the device. Qualitative analyses were conducted to summarize participants' open-ended responses regarding device feasibility. RESULTS: A total of 194 individuals (97 adults and 97 children) participated. Participating children were on average 12.7 years old. Overall, adults and children reported moderate satisfaction with wearing the Shade device. Feasibility of use of the Shade device was adequate with 73% of adults and 61% of children reporting that they wore the device "all of the time they were outside." Through open-ended responses, participants reported appreciating the device's ease of use, compact size, and that it increased their awareness about their UVR exposure. CONCLUSIONS: A new, wearable UVR monitoring device can be feasibly used by adults and children and use of the device was acceptable to participants. The device could be integrated into melanoma preventive interventions to increase individual's and families' awareness of their UVR exposure and to facilitate the use of recommended melanoma preventive strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".