Skin Cancer: High School- and College-Based Interventions

The CPSTF finding is based on evidence from a Community Guide systematic review published in 2004 (Saraiya et al., 4 studies with behavioral outcomes; search period January 1966 June 2000) combined with more recent evidence (17 studies with 27 arms, search period June 2000 May 2011). The systematic review was conducted on behalf of the CPSTF by a team of specialists in systematic review methods, and in research, practice, and policy related to preventing skin cancer. This finding updates and replaces the 2002 CPSTF finding on Education and Policy Approaches in Secondary Schools and Colleges.

Updated Evidence (search period June 2000 May 2011)

Included studies found generally mixed intervention effects across the entire body of evidence including:

• Sun protective behaviors
  • Use of sunscreen (9 studies, 17 study arms), hats (1 study), or sunglasses (1 study)
  • Combined sun-protective behaviors (5 studies, 9 study arms)
  • Avoidance of excessive sun exposure (7 studies, 11 study arms) and tanning bed use (8 studies, 10 study arms)
• Physiological outcomes
  • Direct measures of UV exposure or changes in skin pigmentation (2 studies, 4 arms)
  • Incidence of sunburn (3 studies)

A subset of the included studies were identified as message testing studies because they assessed efficacy of different ways of delivering UV protection messages to small, selected samples of students (12 studies, 21 study arms). Results from these studies showed generally favorable short-term effects on the following:

• Sunscreen use (6 studies, 13 study arms)
• Avoidance of tanning bed use (6 studies, 8 study arms; each with different outcome measures)

Previous Review (search period January 1966- June 2000)

Results from 4 studies of behavioral outcomes found no significant change in sunscreen use or incidence of sun exposure.

An economic review of this intervention was not conducted because CPSTF did not have enough information to determine if the intervention works.

Applicability of this intervention across different settings and populations was not assessed because CPSTF did not have enough information to determine if the intervention works.

The CPSTF identified several areas that have limited information. Additional research and evaluation could help fill remaining gaps in the evidence base. (What are evidence gaps?)

• More, higher quality evidence is needed on the effectiveness of interventions implemented to improve the health of large groups of students.
• Limited evidence is available on the following:
  • Interventions with environmental and policy components
  • High school based interventions
  • Interventions delivering health-based educational messages
• Studies with longer follow-up times would provide useful information about the sustainability of intervention effects and also account for seasonal variations.

• Some of the included studies assessed the effectiveness of programs delivered to broad groups of students in natural settings (5 studies). Other studies tested specific skin cancer prevention messages, or ways of delivering them, often using participants who volunteered in exchange for required course credits (12 studies).
• The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (13 studies), with the remainder coming from Australia (2 studies), Canada (1 study), and Italy (1 study).
• Most of the evidence was derived from university or college settings (14 studies); 5 of these studies targeted young women.
• All but one of the interventions involved educational and behavioral approaches, with the majority delivering primarily appearance-based messages (12 studies). The remaining study assessed the effects of installing shade structures outside of high schools and found they increased use of shade during lunch breaks.
• Most outcome measures were based on self-report.

Effectiveness Review

Analytic Framework

When starting an effectiveness review, the systematic review team develops an analytic framework. The analytic framework illustrates how the intervention approach is thought to affect public health. It guides the search for evidence and may be used to summarize the evidence collected. The analytic framework often includes intermediate outcomes, potential effect modifiers, potential harms, and potential additional benefits.

Effectiveness Review

Summary Evidence Table – Effectiveness Review

The number of studies and publications do not always correspond (e.g., a publication may include several studies or one study may be explained n several publications).

Effectiveness Review

Carli P, Crocetti E, Chiarugi A, Salvini C, Nardini P, et al. The use of commercially available personal UV-meters does cause less safe tanning habits: a randomized-controlled trial. Photochemistry and Photobiology 2008;84(3):758-63.

Dobbinson SJ, White V, Wakefield MA, Jamsen KM, White V, et al. Adolescents’ use of purpose built shade in secondary schools: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009;338:b95.

Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Lane DJ, et al. Using UV photography to reduce use of tanning booths: a test of cognitive mediation. Health Psychology 2005;24(4):358-63.

Greene K, Brinn LS. Messages influencing college women’s tanning bed use: statistical versus narrative evidence format and a self-assessment to increase perceived susceptibility.Journal of Health Communication 2003;8(5):443-61.

Hillhouse J, Turrisi R, Stapleton J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of an appearance-focused intervention to prevent skin cancer. Cancer 2008;113(11):3257-66.

Hillhouse JJ, Turrisi R. Examination of the efficacy of an appearance-focused intervention to reduce UV exposure. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2002;25(4):395-409.

Jackson KM, Aiken LS. Evaluation of a multicomponent appearance-based sun-protective intervention for young women: uncovering the mechanisms of program efficacy. Health Psychology 2006;25(1):34-46.

Liu KE, Barankin B, Howard J, et al. One-year follow up on the impact of a sun awareness curriculum on medical students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 2001;5(3):193-200.

Mahler HI, Kulik JA, Gerrard M, et al. Effects of upward and downward social comparison information on the efficacy of an appearance-based sun protection intervention: a randomized, controlled experiment. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2010;33(6):496-507.

Mahler HI, Kulik JA, Harrell J, et al. Effects of UV photographs, photoaging information, and use of sunless tanning lotion on sun protection behaviors. Archives of Dermatology 2005;141(3):373-80.

Mahler HI, Kulik JA, Gerrard M, et al. Long-term effects of appearance-based interventions on sun protection behaviors. Health Psychology 2007;26(3):350-60.

Mahler HI, Kulik JA, Butler HA, et al. Social norms information enhances the efficacy of an appearance-based sun protection intervention. Social Science & Medicine 2008;67(2):321-9.

Roberts DC, Black D. Comparison of interventions to reduce sun exposure. Behavioral Medicine 2009;35(2):67-76.

Swindler JE, Lloyd JR, Gil KM. Can sun protection knowledge change behavior in a resistant population? Cutis 2007;79(6):463-70.

Turrisi R, Mastroleo NR, Stapleton J, et al. A comparison of 2 brief intervention approaches to reduce indoor tanning behavior in young women who indoor tan very frequently. Archives of Dermatology 2008;144(11):1521-4.

White KM, Hyde MK, O’Connor EL, et al. Testing a belief-based intervention encouraging sun-safety among adolescents in a high risk area. Preventive Medicine 2010;51(3-4):325-8.

This literature search was performed to provide a systematic review of the evidence to the Guide to Community Preventive Services and update previous reviews of the literature on skin cancer prevention methods (Saraiya et al., 2004).

Effectiveness Review

The updated search applied a slightly broader search strategy than was used in the Saraiya et al. reviews. Three bibliographic databases were searched: MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. The databases searched covered publications in biomedical and behavioral sciences. The types of documents searched in the databases included journal articles, books, book chapters, reports, conference papers, and dissertations.

Search strategies were adjusted to each database, based on controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies and search software. In addition, the bibliographies of all reviewed articles were used to identify any further literature.

The search period was from June, 2000 – May, 2011 for the following updated reviews, though the search was extended to include items published earlier if they had been added to the databases since the last search was performed.

• Mass media
• Multicomponent community-wide interventions
• Childcare center-based interventions
• High school- and college-based interventions
• Primary and middle school interventions

The search period was from 2011 – 2013 for the following updated reviews, though the search was extended to include items published earlier if they had been added to the databases since the last search was performed.

• Outdoor occupational settings
• Outdoor recreational and tourism settings

Once the literature search was completed, Community Guide staff reviewed the citations using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria to narrow down the publications to be reviewed.

Inclusion Criteria

General Criteria for Community Guide Systematic Reviews

• Written in English
• Journal article, government or NGO report
• Conducted in a high-income country
• Primary intervention study with one or more outcomes of interest

Intervention-Specific Criteria

Mass Media

• Interventions provided information through mass media channels
  • Print media (e.g., newspapers, magazines, and billboards)
  • Broadcast media (e.g., television, radio, and billboards)
• Interventions delivered via Internet or social media are eligible if the messages are intended for distribution to a large audience

Exclusion criteria: Mass media was part of a multicomponent intervention* (e.g., mass media plus environmental/policy interventions)

* Interventions were not considered multicomponent if mass media interventions were accompanied by:

• Delivery of complementary messages through small media
• Distribution of promotional materials to increase awareness of campaign messages

Multicomponent Community-Wide Interventions

• Delivered in a defined geographic area
• Included multiple distinct components
• Delivered in more than one type of setting (e.g., school, health care center), or using methods that reach the entire community (e.g., mass media, policy changes)

Childcare Center-Based Interventions

• Included educational and behavioral activities, environmental and policy changes, or a combination
• Delivered in child care centers (e.g., daycare, nursery schools, play schools. and pre-schools) with enrolled children of mean age of <5 years

High School- and College-Based Interventions

• Included educational and behavioral activities, environmental and policy changes, or a combination
• Delivered in high school, college, or university setting

Primary and Middle School Interventions

• Included educational and behavioral activities, environmental and policy changes, or a combination
• Delivered in primary or middle school setting. Studies were eligible if:
  • Median grade level: 8 or lower
  • Median age: 14 years or younger

Outdoor Recreational and Tourism Settings

• Interventions included educational and behavioral activities, environmental and policy changes, or a combination
• Delivered in outdoor recreation and tourism setting (e.g., beach resort, swimming pool, zoo park )
• Interventions must evaluate recommendation outcomes among visitors, including adults and children

Search Terms [ * = truncation ]

actinic keratosis

attitude*

awareness

behavior

carcinoma, basal cell

carcinoma, squamous cell

cognition

health education

health knowledge

health promotion

health screening

keratosis

knowledge

knowledge, attitudes, and practice

melanoma

nevi

nevus

photodamage

policy

prevention

prevention health care

preventive health services

primary prevention

protective clothing

public policy

screen*

skin aging

skin cancer

skin neoplasms

solar exposure*

solar keratoses

solar protect*

sun damage

sun exposure*

sun protect*

sun safety

sunburn*

sunlight

sunscreening agents

suntan

tanning

therapy

ultraviolet radiation

ultraviolet rays

Search Results

Search Strategies

Database: MEDLINE (OVID)
1. exp Skin Neoplasms/

2. skin-cancer.mp.

3. exp melanoma/

4. carcinoma, basal cell/ or carcinoma, squamous cell/

5. nevus/

6. nevi.mp.

7. exp keratosis/

8. actinic-keratoses.mp.

9. skin aging/

10. (sun-damage or photodamage).mp.

11. solar-keratoses.mp.

12. or/1-11

13. primary-prevention.mp.

14. prevention-health-care.mp. or exp preventive health services/

15. therapy.mp.

16. Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice/ or knowledge/ or health-knowledge.mp.

17. (knowledge and attitudes and practice).ti,sh.

18. awareness.mp. or exp cognition/

19. (attitude or attitudes).mp.

20. exp public policy/ or policy.mp. or policies.mp.

21. exp health promotion/

22. exp health education/

23. behavior.mp. or exp behavior/

24. or/13-23

25. 12 and 24

26. mass screening/ or health-screening.mp. or screen*.mp.

27. 25 not 26

28. 25 and 26 and prevention.mp.

29. 27 or 28

30. (sunburn* or suntan* or tanning).mp.

31. ultraviolet rays/ or ultraviolet-radiation.mp.

32. ((sun-exposure* or sunprotect*) and sun-safety).mp.

33. (solar-exposure* or solar-protect*).mp.

34. exp sunlight/

35. exp protective clothing/ or protective-clothing.mp.

36. exp sunscreening agents/

37. or/30-36

38. 24 and 37

39. 38 not 26

40. 38 and 26 and prevention.mp.

41. 39 or 40

42. 29 or 41

[For the April 2009 May 2011 search, performed in May 2011]

43. limit 42 to (English language and yr=”2009 Current”)

44. (200904* or 200905* or 200906* or 200907* or 200908* or 200909* or 200910* or 200911* or 200912* or 2010* or 2011*).ed.

45. 42 and 44

46. limit 45 to (English language)

47. 43 or 46

[For the May 2011 April 2013 search, performed in April 2013]

43. limit 42 to (english language and yr=”2011 -Current”)

44. (201105* or 201106* or 201107* or 201108* or 201109* or 201110* or 201111* or 201112* or 2012* or 2013*).ed.

45. 42 and 44

46. limit 45 to (English language)

47. 43 or 46

Database: CINAHL (EbscoHost)
Limiters – Published Date from: 20090101-20111231; English Language [For the April 2009 to May 2011 search, performed in May 2011]

Limiters – Published Date from: 20110101-20131231; English Language [For the May 2011 to April 2013 search, performed in April 2013]

S57 s56 or s35

S56 s52 or s55

S55 s53 or s54

S54 s51 and s30 and TX primary prevention

S53 s51 and s30 and TX prevention

S52 s51 NOT s30

S51 s50 and s28

S50 s36 or s37 or s38 or s39 or s40 or s41 or s42 or s43 or s44 or s45 or s46 or s47 or s48 or s49

S49 (MH “Sunscreening Agents+”)

S48 TX sunscreen

S47 TX protective clothing

S46 (MH “Protective Clothing+”)

S45 (MH “Sunlight+”)

S44 TX solar exposure* or TX solar protect*

S43 TX sun safety

S42 TX sun protect*

S41 TX sun exposure*

S40 TX ultraviolet radiation

S39 (MH “Ultraviolet Rays”)

S38 TX tanning

S37 TX suntan*

S36 TX sunburn*

S35 s31 or s34

S34 s32 or s33

S33 s29 and s30 and TX “prevention”

S32 s29 and s30 and TX “primary prevention”

S31 s29 NOT s30

S30 (MH “Health Screening+”) or (MH “Mass Screening+”) or TX screen*

S29 s13 and s28

S28 s14 or s15 or s16 or s17 or s18 or s19 or s20 or s21 or s22 or s23 or s24 or s24 or s26 or s27

S27 (MH “Behavior+”)

S26 TX behavior

S25 (MH “Health Education+”)

S24 (MH “Health Promotion+”)

S23 TX policy

S22 (MH “Public Policy+”)

S21 (MH “Cognition+”)

S20 TX “knowledge, attitudes, and practice”

S19 (MH “Knowledge+”) OR (MH “Health Knowledge”)

S18 TX “prevention health care”

S17 MH “Preventive Health Care+”

S16 TX attitudes or TX attitude

S15 TX “awareness”

S14 TX “therapy”

S13 s1 or s2 or s3 or s4 or s5 or s6 or s7 or s8 or s9 or s10 or s11 or s12

S12 TX solar keratoses

S11 TX sun damage or TX photodamage

S10 TX actinic keratoses

S9 TX nevi

S8 TX skin cancer*

S7 (MH “Skin Aging”)

S6 (MH “Keratosis+”)

S5 (MH “Nevi and Melanomas+”)

S4 (MH “Nevus”)

S3 (MH “Carcinoma, Basal Cell”) OR (MH “Carcinoma, Squamous Cell”)

S2 (MH “Melanoma+”)

S1 (MH “Skin Neoplasms+”)

Database: PsycINFO (OVID)
1 exp Skin Neoplasms/ or skin-neoplasm*.mp.

2 skin-cancer*.mp.

3 exp melanoma/ or melanoma*.mp.

4 carcinoma, basal cell/ or carcinoma, squamous cell/ or squamous-cell-carcinoma.mp. or basal-cell-carcinoma.mp.

5 nevus/ or nevus.mp.

6 nevi.mp.

7 exp keratosis/ or keratosis.mp. or keratoses.mp.

8 actinic-keratoses.mp.

9 skin aging/ or skin-aging.mp.

10 (sun-damage or photodamage).mp.

11 solar-keratoses.mp.

12 or/1-11

13 primary-prevention.mp.

14 prevention-health-care.mp. or exp preventive health services/

15 therapy.mp.

16 Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice/ or knowledge/ or health-knowledge.mp.

17 (knowledge and attitudes and practice).ti,sh.

18 awareness.mp. or exp cognition/

19 (attitude or attitudes).mp.

20 exp public policy/ or public policy/ or policy.mp. or policies.mp.

21 exp health promotion/ or exp health education/

22 behavior*.mp. or exp behavior/

23(prevention-health-care or preventive-health-services).mp.

24 cognition/ or cognition.mp.

25 or/13-24

26 12 and 25

27 mass screening.mp. or exp health screening/ or screen*.mp.

28 26 not 27

29 26 and 27 prevention.mp.

30 28 or 29

31 (sunburn* or suntan* or tanning).mp.

32 ultraviolet rays/ or ultraviolet-radiation.mp.

33 ((sun-exposure* or sunprotect*) and sun-safety).mp.

34 (solar-exposure* or solar-protect*).mp.

35 exp sunlight/

36 exp protective clothing/ or protective-clothing.mp.

37 exp sunscreening agents/

38 sunscreening-agent*.mp.

39 sunscreen/

40 ultraviolet rays/

41 protective clothing/

42 sunscreen*.mp.

43 or/31-42

44 25 and 43

45 44 not 27

46 44 and 27 and prevention.mp.

47 45 or 46

48 30 or 47

[For the 2009-2011 search, run in May 2011]

49 limit 48 to (English language and yr=”2009 -Current”)

50 (200904* or 200905* or 200906* or 200907* or 200908* or 200909* or 200910* or 200911* or 200912* or 2010* or 2011*).up.

51 48 and 50

52 limit 51 to (English language)

53 49 or 52

[For the 2011-2013 search, run in April 2013]

49 limit 48 to (English language and yr=”2011-Current”)

50 (201104* or 201105* or 201106* or 201107* or 201108* or 201109* or 201110* or 201111* or 201112* or 2012* or 2013*).up.

51 48 and 50

52 limit 51 to (English language)

53 49 or 52

Saraiya M, Glanz K, Briss PA, et al. Interventions to prevent skin cancer by reducing exposure to ultraviolet radiation: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2004;27(5):422-66.

The following considerations are drawn from studies included in the evidence review, the broader literature, and expert opinion.

• Older adolescents and young adults are an important group to target for interventions to reduce UV exposure as they are often resistant to using adequate sun protective measures in their outdoor activities and many are frequent users of tanning beds.
• High school and college settings offer convenient places to reach these populations, and they offer different opportunities and challenges for implementing interventions.
• Intervention approaches that are well-suited to one setting may not be the most appropriate in another.

Evidence-Based Cancer Control Programs (EBCCP)

Find programs from the EBCCP website that align with this systematic review. (What is EBCCP?)