Impact of Melanoma Diagnosis on Sun-Awareness and Protection: Efficacy of Education Campaigns in a High-Risk Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Malignant melanoma is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Sun-awareness campaigns increase public knowledge but may not translate into behavioral changes in practice, which is particularly alarming when reported for individuals in high-risk groups. In particular, patients diagnosed with melanoma are at increased risk of developing subsequent primary melanomas compared with the general population. Objectives: The study was undertaken (1) to assess whether patients with known risk factors for developing melanoma had been exposed to preventative campaign messages prior to their diagnosis, (2) to quantify whether the diagnosis of melanoma changed sun-related attitudes and behavior, and (3) to assess the adequacy of sun-related advice given to patients with melanoma, as well as their compliance with the advice. Methods: Using an anonymous questionnaire, 217 patients previously diagnosed with melanoma were interviewed on the source and frequency of received sun-related advice, as well as on their knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward sun protection before and after the diagnosis. Results: The number of patients who reported receiving sun-related advice after being diagnosed with melanoma increased by 36% (52% pre-vs. 88% postDiagnosis), with advice being given more frequently and more often by a physician (19% pre- vs. 49% postdiagnosis). Furthermore, sun-related attitudes and behavioral practices were positively altered. Yet, patients with known risk factors were not preferentially targeted for advice before their diagnosis. Conclusions: The diagnosis of melanoma leads to increased sunwareness and protection. While dermatologists should continue their efforts to promote and reinforce sun-awareness in patients with melanoma, additional emphasis on preventative targeting of high-risk individuals would be of marked benefit in decreasing the overall incidence of melanoma. Non-dermatologists, such as family physicians, can be key players in this preventative campign, and can be educated to recognize and educate patients at risk, as well as direct them to be followed under dermatology care.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".