Table 4.
Bivariate analyses and logistic regression on overall sun protection in children based on answers of 554 participants in wave 2020 of the National Cancer Aid Monitoring (NCAM).
| Sum Score of Protection Measures (1) | Use of ≥ 4 Protection Measures (2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bivariate Analysis | Multiple Logistic Regression | ||||
| Mean (SD) | p-Value | % | p-Value | OR (95%-CI) | |
| Children | |||||
| Sex | 0.494 | 0.484 | |||
| Male | 2.87 (1.23) | 50.7 | |||
| Female | 2.94 (1.32) | 53.4 | |||
| Age of child | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| 1–3 years | 3.70 (1.94) | 90.0 | Ref. | ||
| 4–6 years | 3.33 (1.07) | 65.8 | 0.20 (0.06–0.75) | ||
| 7–10 years | 2.75 (1.29) | 45.9 | 0.11 (0.03–0.38) | ||
| Skin color | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| (Very) fair skin | 3.33 (1.10) | 63.2 | Ref. | ||
| Medium skin | 2.85 (1.21) | 50.9 | 0.74 (0.48–1.14) | ||
| (Very) brown skin | 2.04 (1.44) | 26.9 | 0.37 (0.19–0.74) | ||
| Caregivers | |||||
| Sociodemographic characteristics | |||||
| Sex | 0.052 | 0.241 | |||
| Male | 2.85 (1.26) | 49.8 | |||
| Female | 2.97 (1.29) | 54.4 | |||
| Age of caregiver | 0.001 | 0.002 | |||
| 16–25 years | 3.25 (1.15) | 65.1 | Ref. | ||
| 26–35 years | 2.83 (1.22) | 47.9 | 0.50 (0.30–0.83) | ||
| 36–45 years | 2.70 (1.55) | 44.0 | 0.54 (0.30–0.97) | ||
| 46–55 years | 2.80 (1.23) | 54.7 | 0.69 (0.34–1.41) | ||
| 56–65 years | 2.82 (1.25) | 46.7 | 0.41 (0.18–0.94) | ||
| Immigrant background | 0.026 | 0.005 | |||
| No | 2.96 (1.23) | 54.6 | |||
| Yes | 2.66 (1.46) | 40.0 | |||
| School education | 0.461 | 0.591 | |||
| Low | 2.98 (1.37) | 56.4 | |||
| Medium | 2.92 (1.30) | 55.4 | |||
| High | 2.98 (1.25) | 51.5 | |||
| Employment status | 0.430 | 0.554 | |||
| Unemployed | 2.70 (1.31) | 45.7 | |||
| Part-time | 2.90 (1.28) | 51.7 | |||
| Full-time | 2.98 (1.24) | 52.8 | |||
| Area of residence | <0.001 | 0.002 | |||
| North | 3.01 (1.25) | 55.5 | |||
| South | 3.06 (1.14) | 53.4 | |||
| West | 2.99 (1.24) | 57.5 | |||
| East | 2.42 (1.45) | 36.4 | |||
| Skin characteristics and tanning behaviors | |||||
| Skin type | 0.005 | 0.027 | |||
| I | 3.49 (1.05) | 68.7 | Ref. | ||
| II | 3.04 (1.12) | 52.5 | 0.47 (0.23–0.97) | ||
| III–IV | 2.89 (1.26) | 50.6 | 0.57 (0.28–1.16) | ||
| V–VI | 2.70 (1.51) | 45.6 | 0.56 (0.24–1.32) | ||
| Current tanning bed use | 0.304 | 0.864 | |||
| No | 2.90 (1.29) | 52.1 | |||
| Yes | 3.17 (0.84) | 53.8 | |||
| Intentional outdoor tanning | 0.011 | 0.352 | |||
| never | 3.08 (1.41) | 59.5 | |||
| On 1 occasion | 2.95 (1.32) | 57.3 | |||
| On 2 occasions | 3.23 (1.16) | 55.4 | |||
| On 3 occasions | 2.81 (1.28) | 49.5 | |||
| Role model | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| Rather disagree | 2.16 (1.27) | 24.3 | Ref. | ||
| Rather agree | 3.08 (1.26) | 58.3 | 4.33 (2.45–7.67) | ||
| n | 543 | ||||
(1) Sun protection sum score ranges from 0 to 6. p-values based on Kruskal–Wallis H and Mann–Whitney U tests (2) Dependent variable: applying ≥4 protective measures when staying outside on a sunny summer day for longer than 10 min based on median split. p-values based on chi-squared tests. The logistic regression model included only variables that were significant in crude logistic regression analysis (see online supplement, Table S2). SD = standard deviation; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; Ref., reference category.