ABSTRACT
Recently more and more studies have reported high prevalence rates for a 'tanning dependence' among tanning bed users. The authors of these studies base their argumentation on a modified (m) version of the CAGE (Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty and Eye-opener) Criteria, initially used for alcohol addiction. By means of cognitive interviews and a large population survey, we tested the validity of the mCAGE Criteria and the above-mentioned prevalence that was deduced on the basis of rather small collectives. Firstly, it seems that the mCAGE Criteria wording used so far is inconsistent, misleading and intrinsically invalid. Secondly, our population-based data show a much lower percentage (15%) of current sunbed users with potential dependence symptoms than the above-mentioned previously published studies. Thirdly, the usage parameters for most of the supposed 'addicts' do not indicate a substance addiction: 38% of the users with positive scores reported not having visited a tanning studio at all in the previous month, 39% did not use sunbeds regularly and 89% did not show signs of tolerance to UV radiation. The mCAGE Criteria do not seem suitable for assessing tanning dependence.
Subject(s)
Behavior, Addictive/diagnosis , Behavior, Addictive/epidemiology , Sunbathing/psychology , Suntan , Surveys and Questionnaires , Ultraviolet Rays , Adolescent , Adult , Behavior, Addictive/psychology , Cognition , Female , Health Behavior , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Reproducibility of Results , Risk Factors , Ultraviolet Rays/adverse effects , Young AdultABSTRACT
In Europe, little is known about the prevalence of indoor tanning. The aims of this study were therefore to estimate the prevalence of sunbed use and to identify risk groups and motives in a population-based survey. The cross-sectional "SUN-Study 2008" ("Sunbed-Use: Needs for Action-Study 2008") was conducted in 2008. A total of 500 adults, aged 18-45 years, were randomly selected and asked about their indoor tanning practices, their motivation and risk perception, and the compliance of staff with international sunbed use recommendations. Forty-seven percent of subjects reported having visited an indoor tanning facility at least once in their lives. Prevalence of use was not reduced in risk groups for skin cancer. Risk awareness of users equalled that of non-users. The poor quality of services and advice provided by many solariums was alarming. It can be concluded that appropriate measures to change tanning habits need to be identified. Legal regulations could be one option.
