Beliefs, Behaviours, and Attitudes Towards Tanning and Melanoma in the Irish Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The incidence of melanoma continues to rise in Ireland. Skin cancer prevention campaigns rely on promoting knowledge to improve sun-related behaviour. Objectives: To explore beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes towards tanning, and confidence in identifying signs of melanoma in the Irish population. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed via an online questionnaire, with questions related to tanning, sun exposure, and skin cancer behaviours. Respondents were recruited according to gender, age and geographic region. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 1043 respondents (response rate 85%). Mean age was 41 years (range 20-72 years). Participants had mixed awareness of risk reduction strategies for melanoma but had high perceived concerns about developing melanoma. However, 48.9% regularly sunbathed when sunny in Ireland and 41.5% had used tanning beds. The most common reason for not photoprotecting while sunbathing was because it prevented tanning. Nearly half (45.9%) of those who sunbathed agreed that it was worth getting sunburned to get a tan, and 69.4% reported feeling and looking better with a tan. Less than half (42.4%) felt confident about what to look for when checking their skin for melanoma. Conclusions: This study underscores the importance of addressing the cultural and aesthetic aspects of sun-tanning behaviour in skin cancer prevention efforts, as well as increasing awareness of skin cancer signs and self-examination. Further research into the potential addictive nature of UV-seeking behaviour may offer new avenues for intervention and support for individuals who are addicted to tanning.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".