Search

Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in many Western countries. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the relationship between skin cancer knowledge and sun-protective, exposure and tanning behaviours in the general population. A total of 34 studies, published in peer-reviewed journals over three decades, were reviewed and synthesised. Sun-protective behaviour was positively associated with skin cancer knowledge in most cases. Findings were inconsistent regarding other sun-related behaviours. Heterogeneity in measurement compromised the capacity to definitively link knowledge and sun-related behaviours. There is a need for development and utilisation of a standardised skin cancer knowledge scale, and guidelines are suggested., (© The Author(s) 2013.)

Limiting exposure to sunlight during childhood can significantly reduce the risk of skin cancer. This was the first national study to assess the sun protection policies and practices of early childhood services across Australia. It also examined the key predictors of services' sun protection practices. In 2007, 1017 respondents completed a self-administered survey about the sun protection policies and practices in their early childhood service (response rate of 59%). Most (95%) had a written sun protection policy. The most common policy inclusions were hat wearing (91%), sunscreen use (87%) and enforcement of policy (97%). Less frequently reported inclusions were protective clothing (69%), information for parents/caregivers (58%) and regular reviews/updates of policies (65%). Basic sun protection practices (e.g. required any type of hat and sunscreen use) were more commonly reported than extensive practices (required protective clothing or regularly applied sunscreen). Higher sun protection policy scores, being a formal childcare service as opposed to a kindergarten/pre-school and having SunSmart status as opposed to not, were associated with higher sun protection practice scores (P less than 0.001). Sun protection policies may be improved through encouraging services to have more specific policy inclusions and to model their policies on the SunSmart Early Childhood Program. (Contains 5 tables.)

Purpose: People affected by cancer who live in rural Australia experience inferior survival compared to their urban counterparts. This study determines whether self-reported physical and mental health, as well as health-promoting behaviours, also differ between rural and urban Australian adults with a history of cancer.Methods: Weighted, representative population data were collected via the South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance System between 1 January 2010 and 1 June 2015. Data for participants with a history of cancer (n = 4295) were analysed with adjustment for survey year, gender, age group, education, income, family structure, work status, country of birth and area-level relative socioeconomic disadvantage (SEIFA).Results: Cancer risk factors and co-morbid physical and mental health issues were prevalent among cancer survivors regardless of residential location. In unadjusted analyses, rural survivors were more likely than urban survivors to be obese and be physically inactive. They were equally likely to experience other co-morbidities (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, arthritis or osteoporosis). With adjustment for SEIFA, rural/urban differences in obesity and physical activity disappeared. Rural survivors were more likely to have trust in their communities, less likely to report high/very high distress, but equally likely to report a mental health condition, both with and without adjustment for SEIFA.Conclusions: There is a need for deeper understanding of the impact of relative socioeconomic disadvantage on health (particularly physical activity and obesity) in rural settings and the development of accessible and culturally appropriate interventions to address rural cancer survivors' specific needs and risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Common disease risk clusters in families due to shared genetics, exposure to environmental risk factors, and because many health behaviours are established and maintained in family environments. This randomised controlled trial will test whether the provision of a family health history (FHH) risk assessment tool increases intentions and engagement in health behaviors. Message distribution and collective behavior change within family networks will be mapped using social network analysis. The relative intervention impact will be compared between families from different ethnic backgrounds.Methods: One hundred and fifty mothers (50 Anglo-Australian, 50 Italian-Australian, 50 Vietnamese-Australian) will be recruited, with four or more other family members across three generations, including a child (aged 10-18 years). Each family is randomly assigned to intervention or control. At baseline and 6-month follow-up, all participants complete surveys to assess dietary and physical activity intentions and behaviors, attitudes towards food, and perceived disease risk. Intervention families receive a visual pedigree detailing their FHH of diabetes, heart disease, breast and bowel cancer, a health education workbook to ascertain members' disease risk (i.e. average or above average risk), and screening and primary prevention recommendations. After completion of follow-up assessments, controls will receive their pedigree and workbook. The primary hypothesis is that attitudes and lifestyle behaviors will improve more within families exposed to FHH feedback, although the extent of this improvement may vary between families from different ethnic backgrounds. Additionally, the extent of improvement in the treatment group will be moderated by the level of family disease risk, with above-average risk leading to greater improvement. A secondary aim will explore different family members' roles in message distribution and collective responses to risk using social network approaches and to compare network functioning between families with different ethnic backgrounds.Discussion: Results will guide future health promotion programs aimed at improving lifestyle factors. This research will assess whether FHH can motivate families to adopt family-level strategies to support health promoting behaviors. Secondary analyses aim to identify change agents within the family who are particularly effective in shifting normative behaviors.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001033730 . Retrospectively registered: 17 September, 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Male participation in screening for bowel cancer is sub-optimal. Theory-based interventions provide a means of improving screening uptake. Objective To test the efficacy of modifying consumer invitation material in line with continuum and stage theories of health behaviour on screening participation. Methods N = 9216 Australian men aged 50–74 years were randomised to one of four trial arms in a 2 × 2 factorial design randomised controlled trial. Participants received either standard invitation material (control group), or combinations of modified advance-notification and invitation letters. A subsample completed baseline and endpoint behavioural surveys. Results Participants who received the modified advance notification letter were 12% more likely to screen than those who received the standard version ( RR = 1.12, χ 2 (1) = 10.38, p = 0.001). The modified invitation letter did not impact screening uptake ( RR = 0.97, χ 2 (1) = 0.63, p = 0.424). No significant changes in psychological variables due to the intervention were observed. Conclusion Modifications to advance notification letters in line with health behaviour theories significantly improves screening uptake in men. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12612001122842 https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=362688 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]