↓ Skip to main content

Coverage of skin cancer and recreational tanning in North American magazines before and after the landmark 2006 International Agency for Research on Cancer report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Coverage of skin cancer and recreational tanning in North American magazines before and after the landmark 2006 International Agency for Research on Cancer report
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1511-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer E McWhirter, Laurie Hoffman-Goetz

Abstract

Skin cancer is an increasingly important global public health problem. Mass media is a key source of skin cancer information. We examined how media coverage of skin cancer has changed over time as a consequence of the release of a key public health report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2006, which linked ultraviolet (UV) radiation from indoor tanning and skin cancer. A directed content analysis of skin cancer and tanning coverage in 29 popular North American magazines (2001-2012) examined reporting of skin cancer risk factors, UV behaviors, and early detection in article text (n = 761) and images (n = 1267). Chi-square and correlational analyses were used determine whether coverage changed in relation to the 2006 IARC report. The total volume of articles about skin cancer and tanning increased modestly after the IARC report (χ (2) = 4.57, df = 1, p < .05); however, key IARC report messages (e.g., avoid indoor tanning, UV as a risk factor) were no more likely to be reported after compared to before the report. There were virtually no changes in the percentage of coverage for both risk factors and early detection information over time. There were some changes in the percentage of coverage about UV behaviors after the IARC report, but these variables were not directly related to the report. Magazines were more likely to encourage sunscreen use (χ (2) = 11.55, df = 1, p < .01) and less likely to promote the tanned look as attractive (χ (2) = 9.72, df = 1, p < .01) after the IARC report. It also became less common for magazines to promote sun avoidance (χ (2) = 6.82, df = 1, p < .01) and use of sunless tanners (χ (2) = 7.46, df = 1, p < .01) after the report. Despite a modest increase in volume of coverage post-IARC report, key messages from the report were not taken up by the media. While there have been some improvements in magazine reporting, there is a need for more effective dissemination of public health messages about skin cancer and tanning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 31%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 27%
Social Sciences 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2015.
All research outputs
#6,123,747
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,374
of 14,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,938
of 255,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#100
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.