TABLE 1.
Descriptive Data and Univariable Analyses of Predictors of Adolescent Indoor Tanning in the Past 12 Months in the 100 Most Populous US Cities, Categorical Variables: CITY100, 2005–2007
| Variablea | No. (% of Sample) | κb | % Tanned Past 12 Mo | OR (95% CI) | P |
| Psychosocial and individual levelc | |||||
| Adolescent age, y | |||||
| 14 (Ref) | 1486 (24.3) | NA | 5.5 | 1.00 | <.001 |
| 15 | 1688 (27.6) | 8.1 | 1.50 (1.20, 2.10) | ||
| 16 | 1603 (26.3) | 12.4 | 2.50 (1.90, 3.30) | ||
| 17 | 1330 (21.8) | 16.5 | 3.60 (2.70, 4.70) | ||
| Adolescent sex | |||||
| Girls (Ref) | 3153 (51.6) | NA | 17.1 | 1.00 | |
| Boys | 2962 (48.4) | 3.2 | 0.16 (0.13, 0.20) | <.001 | |
| Adolescent race | |||||
| Non-Hispanic White (Ref) | 4135 (69.0) | 0.90 | 12.6 | 1.00 | <.001 |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 447 (7.5) | 0.9 | 0.06 (0.02, 0.17) | ||
| Hispanic White | 273 (4.6) | 6.6 | 0.56 (0.34, 0.92) | ||
| Otherd | 1137 (18.9) | 7.0 | 0.58 (0.45, 0.75) | ||
| Parent education | |||||
| < College degree (Ref) | 2786 (46.2) | NA | 11.9 | 1.00 | |
| ≥ College degree | 3241 (53.8) | 9.1 | 0.74 (0.63, 0.88) | <.001 | |
| Household annual income | |||||
| < $40 000 (Ref) | 851 (15.1) | NA | 7.5 | 1.00 | <.001 |
| $40 000–$60 000 | 1040 (18.5) | 8.8 | 1.13 (0.81, 1.59) | ||
| > $60 000 | 3744 (66.4) | 11.7 | 1.60 (1.21, 2.11) | ||
| Adolescent weekly allowance | |||||
| $0–$10 (Ref) | 2017 (33.8) | NA | 4.9 | 1.00 | <.001 |
| $11–$25 | 1954 (32.8) | 9.3 | 2.10 (1.60, 2.70) | ||
| > $25 | 1987 (33.4) | 17.3 | 4.20 (3.30, 5.30) | ||
| Adolescent sun sensitivity | |||||
| Always burns, never tans | 661 (10.9) | 0.73 | 6.1 | 0.54 (0.38, 0.77) | |
| Usually burns, hard to tan | 1122 (18.6) | 11.7 | 1.10 (0.88, 1.39) | ||
| Sometimes burns, then tans | 1975 (32.8) | 11.3 | 1.07 (0.88, 1.30) | ||
| Rarely burns, easily tans (Ref) | 2263 (37.6) | 10.5 | 1.00 | .002 | |
| Parent ever indoor tanned | |||||
| No (Ref) | 4658 (77.0) | NA | 7.4 | 1.00 | |
| Yes | 1391 (23.0) | 20.6 | 3.10 (2.60, 3.70) | <.001 | |
| Parent: indoor tanning can cause skin cancer | |||||
| Agree | 5012 (82.8) | NA | 10.9 | 1.30 (1.01, 1.63) | .043 |
| Disagree or don't know (Ref) | 1041 (17.2) | 8.2 | 1.00 | ||
| Parent: people with a tan look more attractive | |||||
| Agree | 3896 (66.2) | NA | 12.6 | 2.10 (1.70, 2.50) | <.001 |
| Disagree (Ref) | 1987 (33.8) | 6.4 | 1.00 | ||
| Parent: concerned if adolescent tanned occasionally | |||||
| Not a lot (Ref) | 2559 (42.8) | NA | 16.4 | 1.00 | |
| A lot | 3417 (57.2) | 6.0 | 0.33 (0.27, 0.39) | <.001 | |
| Adolescent: parents allow me to tan | |||||
| Strongly or somewhat disagree (Ref) | 3559 (59.4) | 0.94 | 3.0 | 1.00 | |
| Strongly or somewhat agree | 2434 (40.6) | 21.6 | 8.90 (7.20, 11.10) | <.001 | |
| Adolescent: most friends like to be tanned | |||||
| Strongly or somewhat disagree (Ref) | 1355 (22.2) | 0.87 | 2.2 | 1.00 | |
| Strongly or somewhat agree | 4745 (77.8) | 12.8 | 6.40 (4.40, 9.30) | <.001 | |
| Adolescent: my chances of skin cancer are small | |||||
| Strongly or somewhat disagree (Ref) | 2820 (46.8) | 0.93 | 10.7 | 1.00 | |
| Strongly or somewhat agree | 3202 (53.2) | 10.2 | 0.94 (0.79, 1.11) | .44 | |
| Adolescent: people who tan have already damaged their skin | |||||
| Disagree or don't know (Ref) | 2782 (45.4) | 0.96 | 8.7 | 1.00 | |
| Agree | 3342 (54.6) | 11.8 | 1.40 (1.20, 1.70) | <.001 | |
| Adolescent: indoor tanning using lamps is safer than sunlight | |||||
| Disagree or don't know (Ref) | 4689 (76.6) | 0.91 | 10.4 | 1.00 | |
| Agree | 1433 (23.4) | 10.4 | 1.05 (0.86, 1.27) | .65 | |
| Adolescent: indoor tanning can cause skin cancer | |||||
| Disagree or don't know (Ref) | 963 (15.7) | 0.65 | 4.8 | 1.00 | |
| Agree | 5161 (84.3) | 11.4 | 2.50 (1.80, 3.40) | <.001 | |
| Adolescent: skin cancer is easy to treat | |||||
| Disagree or don't know (Ref) | 5690 (92.9) | –e | 10.4 | 1.00 | |
| Agree | 434 (7.1) | 10.1 | 0.98 (0.71, 1.40) | .90 | |
| Adolescent: getting an indoor tan first protects from burning in the sun | |||||
| Disagree or don't know (Ref) | 4050 (66.1) | 0.75 | 7.8 | 1.00 | |
| Agree | 2074 (33.9) | 15.5 | 2.20 (1.80, 2.50) | <.001 | |
| Adolescent: people with tan look more attractive | |||||
| Strongly or somewhat disagree (Ref) | 1650 (27.4) | 0.92 | 4.8 | 1.00 | |
| Strongly or somewhat agree | 4367 (72.6) | 12.6 | 2.90 (2.20, 3.60) | <.001 | |
| Adolescent: having tan makes people look healthier | |||||
| Strongly or somewhat disagree (Ref) | 2988 (49.7) | 0.95 | 8.9 | 1.00 | |
| Strongly or somewhat agree | 3031 (50.3) | 11.9 | 1.40 (1.20, 1.60) | <.001 | |
| Adolescent happy with appearance | |||||
| Rarely or sometimes (Ref) | 1461 (23.9) | 0.91 | 12.2 | 1.00 | |
| Often or most of time | 4645 (76.1) | 9.8 | 0.78 (0.65, 0.94) | .008 | |
| Adolescent ever noticed ads for indoor tanning | |||||
| No (Ref) | 1203 (19.7) | –e | 6.3 | 1.00 | |
| Yes | 4899 (80.3) | 11.4 | 1.70 (1.30, 2.20) | <.001 | |
| Adolescent knows anyone personally who has had skin cancer | |||||
| No (Ref) | 3638 (59.7) | 0.94 | 9.3 | 1.00 | |
| Yes | 2455 (40.3) | 12.1 | 1.30 (1.10, 1.60) | .001 | |
| Built-environmental level | |||||
| Proximity: adolescent lives within 2 mi of a tanning facilityf | |||||
| No | 1437 (23.6) | NA | 7.1 | 1.00 | |
| Yes | 4659 (76.4) | 11.3 | 1.52 (1.21, 1.91) | <.001 | |
| Policy levelg | |||||
| State law addressing minors’ use | |||||
| No | 2277 (37.2) | NA | 12.3 | 1.00 | |
| Yes | 3844 (62.8) | 9.2 | 0.72 (0.57, 0.93) | .01 | |
| Annual inspection | |||||
| No | 3659 (74.0) | NA | 9.2 | 1.00 | |
| Yes | 1285 (26.0) | 11.3 | 1.30 (0.84, 1.50) | .42 | |
Notes. CI = confidence interval; CITY100 = Correlates of Indoor Tanning in Youth study; NA = data not available; OR = odds ratio.
a
Variables organized by levels of influence addressed by an ecological model of behavior.11
b
Test–retest reliability from pilot study with 32 female college students.
c
Variables in this category were analyzed at the individual level.
d
American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, multiethnic/multiracial, and other–unspecified.
e
κ could not be computed because of lack of variability; there was 100% agreement.
f
This variable was analyzed at the individual level.
g
Variables in this category were analyzed at the city level.