Investigating Skin Cancer Risk and Sun Safety Practices Among LGBTQ+ Communities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin cancer prevention relies on effective sun safety practices. Previous studies have shown that LGBTQ+ individuals exhibit lower sunscreen use and higher tanning bed usage compared to their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts. This study is the first to assess skin cancer risk factors, sun-protective behaviors, and skin cancer concerns among LGBTQ+ individuals across Canada. METHODS: A national survey study was conducted between July 2020 and March 2024 and included LGBTQ+ respondents aged ≥ 16 years who had completed the survey. Responses were summarized using frequency counts/percentages for categorical variables and means/standard deviations for continuous variables. Logistic regression models were used to calculate age- and gender-adjusted odds ratios for subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Of the 700 LGBTQ+ participants included (59.3% women; median age 38 years), the majority had a Fitzpatrick skin phototype (FSP) I-III (76.4%). Concerningly, 60% reported >10 lifetime sunburns, 58% reported ≥1 blistering sunburn, 34% had used a tanning bed ≥1 time in their lifetime, and 69% reported having a tan in the last 12 months. Sunscreen was worn regularly by only half of the respondents, and half of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with "I look better and/or healthier with a tan". Additional comparisons are presented based on gender, FSP, education, and income. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study highlight the need for public health campaigns tailored to the LGBTQ+ community, emphasizing culturally sensitive sun safety education, particularly for LGBTQ+ men, individuals with FSP IV-VI, and those with lower education levels, to help reduce future skin cancer risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".