Examination of use and barriers for five sun protection strategies in parents and their children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Sun protection starting in childhood is an important means of skin cancer prevention. Factors associated with sunscreen use have been previously described. However, less is known about factors associated with children's utilization of non-sunscreen sun protection strategies. We sought to examine parent and child characteristics, parental use of sun protection, and barriers associated with children's use of five sun protection strategies: sunscreen, shirts with sleeves, wide-brimmed hats, sunglasses, and shade. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of parents of children entering kindergarten through grade 8. Survey participants were recruited at the 2016 Minnesota State Fair. RESULTS: A total of 409 parents were surveyed. The most common sun protection strategies parents reported for their child were wearing a shirt with sleeves (69.9%) and using sunscreen (61.9%), while protection via shade, wide-brimmed hats, and sunglasses were reported by less than one-quarter of parents. For each individual strategy, parents' own use of that strategy was strongly associated with that strategy in their children. Lack of child cooperation was associated with decreased use of sunscreen, shirts with sleeves, and wide-brimmed hats. CONCLUSION: Significant room for improvement exists in childhood sun protection. Parents should especially be encouraged to use shade, wide-brimmed hats, and sunglasses as methods of protection for their children. Advising parents to model seeking shade, applying sunscreen, and choosing appropriate clothing and hats may improve sun safety practices.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".