From: A systematic review of compliance with indoor tanning legislation
First Author (Year) | Country (State) | Date of Data Collection | Legislationa | Methods | Site of Study | Outcomes of Interest |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brouse (2011) [37] | US (NY) | 2010 | Federal | In-person observation of the facility (N = 224 IT beds in 85 facilities) | Individual IT beds within IT facilities | Warning Labels: 65% of IT beds had warning labels present, 14% had warning labels that were barely visible, 24% were moderately visible, 25% were clearly visible, and 1% were completely visible. |
Choy (2017) [23] | US (14 states) | 2015 | State | Underage telephone shoppers (N = 412) | IT facilities and their operators | Age: 80% of facilities complied with under 17 or under 18 age restrictions. Health Effects: 20% of operators reported skin cancer, 52% reported sunburn, and 4% reported premature ageing. 10% denied any dangers from IT. Health Benefits: 89% of operators reported specific health benefits. |
Culley (2001) [33] | US (CA) | 1998 | State and Federal | In-person underage shoppers with observation of the facility (N = 54) | IT facilities and their operators | Parental Consent: 43% of facilities required parental consent for ages 14–18. Eye Protection: 100% of facilities provided protective eyewear, 89% required protective eyewear. Warning Labels: 85% of facilities had warning labels present, 74% had warning labels accessible, legible, correct, 85% had other (exposure) labels present, 74% had other (exposure) labels accessible, legible, correct, 20% had a warning sign posted in the IT area, and 15% had a warning sign that was legible, accessible, and correct. Health Effects: 32% of operators reported skin cancer, and 98% reported skin burns. |
De Maleissye (2011) [38] | France | 2009 | National | Online website observation (N = 71) | IT facility websites | Warning Labels: 35% of websites mentioned the ‘black box’ legal warning. Health Beneifts: 7% of websites reported health benefits. |
Fleischer (1993) [34] | US (NC) | 1991 | State and Federal | Facility inspection by researchers (N = 32) | IT facilities | Parental Consent: 13% of facilities had a minor consent form available and in use. Eye Protection: 84% of facilities had protective eyewear available. Warning Labels: 78% of facilities had warning signs that were easily viewed by customers, 72% had a warning sign posted within 1 metre of IT stations, 90% had warning sign text that was compliant, and 78% had warning labels attached to the sunlamp. Health Effects: 19% of facilities had a consumer statement about risks available for customers to sign. |
Forster (2006) [30] | US (MN, MA) | Not Reported | State | In-person underage shoppers (N = 200 facilities × 2 = 400 facility visits), followed up by telephone interviews (N = 136) | IT facilities and their operators | Age: By telephone, 19% of operators reported having a minimum age requirement; In person, 31% of operators did not sell an IT session to an underage buyer, 60% of operators assessed age eligibility, 57% asked for age, but did not assess identification, and 3% checked identification. When age was not asked and identification was not checked, a purchase attempt was successful 98% of the time, when age was asked but identification was not checked, a purchase attempt was successful 50% of the time, and when identification was checked, a purchase attempt was successful 35% of the time. Parental Consent: By telephone, 87% of operators complied with parental consent. In person, 32% of operators complied with parental consent. |
Gorig (2018) [36] | Germany | 2015 | National | Telephone interviews (N = 357) | Individuals who had used IT facilities since 2012 | Eye Protection: 87% of sunbed users were provided with protective eyewear, 85% were advised to use protective eyewear, and 68% used protective eyewear during their last sunbed use. Health Effects: 57% of sunbed users were given the opportunity to determine their skin type. 43% of sunbed users were ever advised of the negative health effects of IT, while 33% were ever offered written risk information. |
Grewal (2013) [24] | US (CA) | 2013 | State | Underage telephone shoppers (N = 338) | IT facilities and their operators | Age: 77% of facility operators complied with under 18 age restrictions. Health Effects: 16% of operators reported skin cancer, 11% reported sunburn, and 2% reported premature ageing. 61% of operators denied any dangers from IT. Health Benefits: 72% of operators reported specific health benefits. Risk Restrictions: 59% of operators stated daily IT was acceptable, and 22% of operators stated that unlimited IT was acceptable. |
Heilig (2005) [40] | US (CO, IL, TX, WI) | 2003 | State | Underage telephone shoppers (N = 400) | IT facilities and their operators | Health Effects: 54% of operators reported skin cancer (42 to 81%), 87% of operators reported sunburn (76 to 93%), and 54% of operators reported premature ageing (41 to 79%). |
Hester (2005) [25] | US (CO, IL, TX, WI) | 2003 | State | Underage telephone shoppers (N = 400) | IT facilities and their operators | Age: 23% of operators in TX, 74% of operators in IL, and 89% of operators in WI complied with under 13 age restrictions. 77% of operators in WI complied with under 16 age restrictions. Parental Consent: 74% of operators complied with parental consent in IL, 6% complied with parental accompaniment in TX. |
Hurd (2006) [35] | US (CA) | 2004 | State | Underage telephone shoppers and in-person underage shoppers (N = 115) | IT facilities and their operators | Parental Consent: By telephone, 73% of operators complied with parental consent. In person, 64% of operators complied with parental consent. |
Makin (2011) [31] | Australia (Victoria) | 2009 | State | Underage telephone shoppers and in-person underage shoppers (N = 30) | IT facilities and their operators | Age: By telephone, 23% of operators inquired about the customer’s age and 10% informed them identification was required. In person, when age was concealed, 80% of underage research assistants were granted access by operators, and 3% were allowed access who openly disclosed their age. Eye Protection: 97% of facilities provided eyewear. Warning Labels: 97% of facilities displayed the mandatory warning sign with the risk of skin cancer. Health Effects: 10% of operators reported skin cancer as a risk over the telephone, and 97% reported skin cancer in-person. Risk Restrictions: 90% of facilities complied with minimum time between exposures, 53% complied with skin type restrictions, 87% complied with whether they conducted a skin type assessment, and 83% complied with customer consent forms. |
Pichon (2009) [26] | US (50 states) | 2006 | State | Underage telephone shoppers (N = 3647 facilities) | IT facilities and their operators | Age: 70% of operators complied with under 16 age restrictions in Wisconsin. Parental Consent: 93% of operators complied with parental consent, and 43% complied with parental accompaniment. |
Salomone (2009) [29] | Chile | 2008 | National | In-person underage shoppers with observation of the facility (N = 24 facilities) | IT facilities and their operators | Age: 62% of facilities complied with stating under 18 age limits. Parental Consent: 50% of facilities complied with parental consent. Eye Protection: 25% of facilities complied with compulsory use of goggles. Warning Labels: 8% complied with use of obligatory warning sign in the reception, 63% had a warning sign in the IT booth, while 29% of the centers had no warning signs. Health Effects: 46% of operators gave oral spontaneous information, 0% of facilities had written information, 25% of operators reported potential risks, and 19% of facilities displayed a list of photosensitizing agents. Health Benefits: 29% of operators reported health benefits. |
Tripp (2017) [27] | US (TX) | 2015 | State | Underage telephone shoppers (N = 635) | IT facilities and their operators | Age: 81% of facilities complied with under 18 age restriction. |
Williams (2018) [28] | US (42 states and the District of Columbia) | 2015–2016 | State | Underage telephone shoppers (N = 427) | IT facilities and their operators | Age: Percent of operators complying with age restrictions by state: Under 14: GA (50%), ID (10%), ME (70%), ND (70%), WV (20%) Under 15: AL (0%) Under 16: PA (70%), WI (80%) Under 17: CT (50%), NJ (70%), NY (70%) Under 18: CA (90%), DE (90%), DC (50%), HI (86%), IL (100%), LA (70%), MN (90%), NV (60%), NH (100%), NC (50%), OR (100%), TX (80%), VT (70%), WA (60%) Parental Consent: Percent of operators complying with parental consent by state: Under 15: VA (70%) Under 18: AZ (90%), AR (40%), MA (70%), MI (30%), MS (40%), OH (90%), RI (70%), SC (90%) Percent of operators complying with parental accompaniment by state: Under 14: KY (30%), MA (70%), MS (40%), TN (40%) Under 15: WY (30%) Under 16: NB (70%), IN (50%) Under 18: UT (90%) |