| Title |
To protect or not to protect: examining reasons for sun protection among young women at risk for skin cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10865-018-9920-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. V. Auerbach, C. J. Heckman, S. Darlow |
| Abstract |
We aimed to further the understanding of the low rates of sun protection in young women at risk for skin cancer. Six-hundred-sixty-one daily diary entries were received via text message over 14 days from 56 young women at moderate to high risk of developing skin cancer. Women reported whether or not they used sun protection and also listed what their reasons were for using protection or not using sun protection each day. Multi-level modeling was used to examine the influence of study variables when predicting daily sun protection or lack of protection. The number of days in which sun protection was reported was positively associated with "habit" and "prevention" as reasons for protection and negatively associated with "not-needed" and "unprepared" as reasons for non-protection. Self-reported sun protection increased over the 14-day study period. Results of this study suggest the potential value of interventions aimed at motives for sun-protection behaviors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,595,809
of 23,033,713 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#945
of 1,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,381
of 330,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,033,713 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.