Indoor tanning rates drop in US adults between 2010 and 2013

Indoor tanning rates have dropped among adults in the United States between 2010 and 2013, according to recently published study results.

Perspective from Julia Siegel, BA and Martin A. Weinstock, MD, PhD

Researchers analyzed National Health Interview Survey data from 2010 and 2013, which is a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population aged 18 years and older (n=59,145). Response rates were 60.8% in 2010 and 61.2% in 2013. Using an indoor tanning device at least once during the 12 months prior to the survey was used to define “indoor tanning.”

The researchers used log-linear regression to evaluate factors associated with indoor tanning and also calculated the prevalence of indoor tanning.

Between 2010 and 2013, indoor tanning reduced from 5.5% to 4.2% among all adults (P < .001). Among women, the rate reduced from 8.6% to 6.5% (P < .001) and among men, from 2.2% to 1.7% (P = .03). Male and female infrequent tanners, defined as tanning one to nine times per year, also had reductions: In males, the rate reduced from 1.4% to 1% (P < .05) and in females, from 3.7% to 2.8% (P < .01). Among women who were frequent tanners (at least 10 times per year), the rate dropped from 4.8% to 3.6% (P < .001).

In an adjusted analysis of women, indoor tanning frequency was 28% lower among women aged 50 years and older, 45% lower among college graduates, 33% lower among women in fair or poor health and 23% lower among women who met aerobic or strength criteria.

Among male tanners in an adjusted analysis, indoor tanning frequency was 177% higher among men aged 40 to 49 years and 71% higher in men aged 50 years or older. Male cancer survivors had a 45% lower indoor tanning frequency.

“Our findings indicate a temporal decrease in the prevalence of indoor tanning across several demographic groups,” the researchers concluded. “In our study in 2013, a total of 1.6 million fewer women and 0.4 million fewer men engaged in indoor tanning compared with 2010. Despite these reductions, our study found an estimated 7.8 million women and 1.90 million men continue to engage in indoor tanning.” – by Bruce Thiel

Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.

Perspective

Julia Siegel, BA and Martin A. Weinstock, MD, PhD

The decrease in indoor tanning among adults in the United States is an important sign of progress in the effort to prevent melanoma and keratinocyte carcinomas, such as basal and squamous cell carcinomas of the skin. This study shows a decline across multiple demographic categories, including gender, race, education level, and region.

Educational efforts on the dangers of indoor tanning likely play a role in this trend, but this decline also may be due in part to the 10% excise tax on indoor tanning that went into effect in 2010. We have seen the success of increased taxes in the reduction of tobacco use among current smokers, as well as in the prevention of initiation of use among young adults. It also is likely that the trend of legislative restriction on indoor tanning for minors may be sending a public health message to people of all ages.

Although this decline in indoor tanning is an encouraging step forward, it is only one step. As an estimated 7.8 million women and 1.9 million men continue to indoor tan, further public health efforts are needed. Programs for teens and young adults at risk of developing a tanning addiction that could shape their actions into adulthood are particularly important, especially because so many of the melanomas that occur in younger adult years are attributable to indoor tanning exposure. As of this writing, 13 states and the District of Columbia have banned those aged younger than 18 years from commercial tanning facilities. Extending this to the remaining states is a worthwhile goal. Increasing the current tax on indoor tanning also would contribute to decreasing this harmful practice. Finally, clinicians and others can play an important role in education about the harms of indoor tanning and counseling regarding the benefits of and procedures for reducing exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

Julia Siegel, BA

Dermatoepidemiology fellow

Brown University

Martin A. Weinstock, MD, PhD

Center for Dermatoepidemiology

Brown University

Julia Siegel, BA and Martin A. Weinstock, MD, PhD

Disclosures: Siegel and Weinstock report no relevant financial disclosures.

Sources/Disclosures

Collapse

Source: Guy GP, et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.1568.