Table 2. Presence of Sun Safety Practices by School Characteristics, School Health Policies and Practices Study, 2014a.
| Characteristic | Schools, % (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outdoor Activities Almost Always or Always Scheduled to Avoid Times When the Sun Was at Peak Intensityb | Teachers Allowed Time for Students to Apply Sunscreen at School | Teachers Reminded Students to Apply Sunscreen Before Going Outside at School | Sunscreen Made Available for Students to Use | |
| School level | ||||
| Elementary | 14.7 (9.6-21.8) | 49.5 (42.0-57.0) | 27.2 (21.2-34.2) | 11.9 (8.0-17.4) |
| Middle | 18.2 (13.3-24.4) | 51.6 (43.3-59.7) | 30.3 (23.6-38.0) | 12.9 (8.7-18.8) |
| High | 11.8 (7.7-17.5) | 37.5 (29.7-46.0) | 28.2 (21.4-36.1) | 17.2 (11.6-24.7) |
| χ2 P value; significant pairwise comparisonsc | .17 | .03; High < middle, elementary |
.79 | .42 |
| Region | ||||
| Northeast | 6.4 (3.0-13.0) | 49.7 (37.2-62.2) | 37.0 (26.1-49.5) | 16.1 (9.8-25.5) |
| Midwest | 8.4 (4.5-15.0) | 43.3 (33.4-53.7) | 24.7 (17.1-34.1) | 11.0 (6.6-17.7) |
| South | 26.6 (19.3-35.4) | 44.7 (35.6-54.2) | 24.0 (17.8-31.5) | 10.1 (5.8-16.9) |
| West | 14.0 (7.1-25.6) | 54.0 (43.6-64.1) | 30.5 (22.4-40.0) | 17.4 (10.6-27.2) |
| χ2 P value; significant pairwise comparisons | .002; South > Northeast, Midwest, West | .46 | .24 | .35 |
| Metropolitan status | ||||
| City | 15.9 (9.4-25.7) | 43.8 (34.8-53.2) | 26.9 (19.8-35.5) | 14.5 (9.1-22.3) |
| Suburb | 16.1 (9.6-25.8) | 53.6 (43.3-63.5) | 33.0 (25.2-41.8) | 13.0 (8.2-20.1) |
| Town | 10.8 (4.2-25.1) | 38.7 (24.3-55.3) | 18.1 (10.6-29.4) | 14.3 (6.6-28.2) |
| Rural | 14.6 (9.2-22.4) | 49.5 (40.4-58.7) | 28.9 (20.8-38.6) | 11.6 (6.7-19.3) |
| χ2 P value | .86 | .36 | .17 | .93 |
| School enrollment, No. | ||||
| 30-279 (Smallest tertile) | 10.8 (6.6-17.2) | 52.6 (43.5-61.6) | 30.4 (22.6-39.4) | 14.9 (9.5-22.7) |
| 280-517 (Middle tertile) | 13.0 (7.9-20.6) | 46.2 (37.5-55.2) | 26.3 (19.5-34.4) | 10.1 (6.1-16.3) |
| 518-3948 (Largest tertile) | 21.3 (14.5-30.1) | 43.9 (35.2-53.1) | 27.2 (20.9-34.4) | 14.5 (9.8-20.8) |
| Logistic regression P value (β)d | .01 (β = .001) | .04 (β = −.000) | .25 (β = −.000) | .98 (β = −.000) |
| Percent eligible for free or reduced-price lunch | ||||
| 0%-32% | 16.2 (10.2-24.8) | 52.0 (41.7-62.1) | 35.8 (26.9-45.8) | 17.6 (10.7-27.6) |
| 33%-65% | 14.1 (8.3-22.9) | 49.2 (40.2-58.4) | 29.8 (22.0-39.0) | 12.7 (8.0-19.7) |
| 66%-100% | 23.2 (15.3-33.4) | 37.6 (27.7-48.8) | 20.2 (12.8-30.4) | 7.2 (3.5-14.2) |
| Logistic regression P value (β) | .16 (β = .008) | .01 (β = −.012) | .01 (β = −.013) | .03 (β = −.017) |
a
Unweighted N = 577. Percentages and 95% CIs were calculated using weighted data.
b
During the 12 months before the study.
c
P = χ2 P value. When χ2 P value was <.05, t tests were used to identify significant pairwise difference (< or > indicates significant pairwise difference [P < .05]).
d
Logistic regression with independent variable as continuous. A negative β indicates a negative relationship. Categorical descriptive data are presented for context only.