Tanning Devices: Behaviour of French Adults Participating to the SU.VI.MAX Cohort

P-378 Abstract: The adverse effects of excessive ultraviolet radiation on the skin are widely documented. In spite of precautionary warnings, a suntan is still considered as a sign of good health and attractiveness. The use of commercial tanning facilities still increases mainly because of the belief that cosmetic tanning represents a “safe” tan. The objective of the present study is to describe the use of tanning equipment within the SU.VI.MAX cohort. A self-administered questionnaire on sun exposure behaviour was specifically developed and addressed in 2001 to 12,741 French adult volunteers enrolled in the SU.VI.MAX cohort. Among the 7,359 individuals who answered the questionnaire, 1,179 (16%) – 953 women and 226 men – declared having experienced indoor tanning practice during lifetime. Seven percent of women declared a regular usage (6% for men), and 10% for duration of at least five years (10% for men). Among women, 44% of users belonged to the youngest classes of age at inclusion (35–44), versus 33% in non-users (in men data non available for these classes of age), 48% of users lived in North or in Ile-de-France, versus 39% in non-users (45% and 36% for men, respectively), 56% declared having lifetime tanning practices between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. in users, versus 37% in non-users (53% and 38%), 39% declared regular use of protection products during tanning in users, versus 24% in non-users (17% and 7%), 54% declared gradual sun exposure in users, versus 43% in non-users (53% and 38%), 13% declared having naturism practices in users, versus 6% in non-users (19% and 8%), and 93% declared having experienced sunburns in adulthood in users, versus 88% in non-users (93% and 89%). The awareness of the risk appears as good in users as in non-users whatever the gender: more than 95% have already heard about melanoma and know that sunburn can have significant consequences on the skin. Reasons evoked for justification of skin exposure to artificial UV light were: aesthetic reasons (35%), skin preparation before sun exposure (34%), medical reasons (10%), experimentation of the device because it was at their disposal or by curiosity (6%), physical or mental well-being (2%), to avoid natural sunlight (1%), other reasons (2%) and no admit reason (23%). Furthermore, a link was found between the fairest phototypes (Fitzpatrick’s classification) and the reason “skin preparation”. Whereas cosmetic tanning using artificial UV should be discouraged, it appears that the indoor tanners are also regular sunbathers. Moreover, the awareness of the risk of cancer and of photoageing appears not efficient to dishearten the indoor tanners.