We have located links that may give you full text access.
Sunscreen application technique amongst patients with a history of skin cancer.
Archives of Dermatological Research 2020 September 16
BACKGROUND: Data on how patients with a history of skin cancer apply sunscreen are lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize (1) gender differences in sunscreen application technique (quantity used, anatomic site coverage, and time allocated) and (2) differences in sunscreen application to unaffected skin versus previous skin cancer sites.
METHODS: Subjects with a history of skin cancer were asked to apply sunscreen to their head as they normally would. The amount of sunscreen used and application time were recorded. Before and after photos were taken. Using Wood's lamp lighting, an anatomic site coverage score was rated on an ordinal scale (1 = 0-25%, 2 = 26-50%, 3 = 51-75%, 4 = 76-100% coverage).
RESULTS: Males used 530 mg more sunscreen (p < 0.001) and applied approximately 5 mg/cm2 of sunscreen versus women, who applied 2 mg/cm2 . The average coverage score was 3.27. Males were 7.61 times more likely to adequately apply sunscreen to the ears (p = 0.001). No differences were noted in application times. Coverage scores were similar for unaffected skin and previous skin cancer sites.
LIMITATIONS: Observations in a controlled setting may not reflect usual sunscreen application practices.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, skin cancer survivors of both genders effectively applied sunscreen in line with recommended quantity guidelines, but men were significantly better at protecting their ears.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize (1) gender differences in sunscreen application technique (quantity used, anatomic site coverage, and time allocated) and (2) differences in sunscreen application to unaffected skin versus previous skin cancer sites.
METHODS: Subjects with a history of skin cancer were asked to apply sunscreen to their head as they normally would. The amount of sunscreen used and application time were recorded. Before and after photos were taken. Using Wood's lamp lighting, an anatomic site coverage score was rated on an ordinal scale (1 = 0-25%, 2 = 26-50%, 3 = 51-75%, 4 = 76-100% coverage).
RESULTS: Males used 530 mg more sunscreen (p < 0.001) and applied approximately 5 mg/cm2 of sunscreen versus women, who applied 2 mg/cm2 . The average coverage score was 3.27. Males were 7.61 times more likely to adequately apply sunscreen to the ears (p = 0.001). No differences were noted in application times. Coverage scores were similar for unaffected skin and previous skin cancer sites.
LIMITATIONS: Observations in a controlled setting may not reflect usual sunscreen application practices.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, skin cancer survivors of both genders effectively applied sunscreen in line with recommended quantity guidelines, but men were significantly better at protecting their ears.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app