Risk attitudes and sun protection behaviour: Can behaviour be altered by using a melanoma genomic risk intervention?. (August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Morton, Rachael L.; Asher, Rebecca; Peyton, Edward; Tran, Anh; Smit, Amelia K.; Butow, Phyllis N.; Kimlin, Michael G.; Dobbinson, Suzanne J.; Wordsworth, Sarah; Keogh, Louise; Cust, Anne E.
• Is Part Of: Cancer epidemiology. Volume 61(2019:Aug.)
• Page Start: 8
• Page End: 13
• Publication Date: 2019-08
• Subjects: Risk-taking -- Risk aversion -- DOSPERT -- Behaviour change -- Health economics -- Melanoma -- Genomics -- Prevention; Cancer -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Carcinogenesis -- Periodicals; 616.994005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2019.05.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1877-7821

Abstract

Highlights: Health-related risk taking was higher in younger people. Health-related risk taking was lower in people with a personal/family cancer history. Risk-averse individuals showed lower levels of sun-exposure than risk-seekers. Provision of genomic risk of melanoma to risk seekers might reduce sun-exposure. Abstract: Background: Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is directly associated with melanoma skin cancer, however reducing sun-exposure can be difficult to achieve at a population level. Methods: Using a genomic risk information behaviour change trial for melanoma prevention, we classified participants as risk-seeking, risk-neutral or risk-averse for domain-specific risk taking (DOSPERT). One-way ANOVA determined the association between socio-demographic characteristics and risk-taking score, and multivariable linear regression ascertained impact of an individual's underlying risk propensity on an objective measure of sun-exposure, standard erythemal dose (SED), at 3-months follow-up. Results: Of 119 participants, mean age 53 years; 50% males, 87% had a personal/family history of cancer; 19% were classified risk-seeking, 57% risk-neutral. The mean risk-taking score was significantly higher in younger participants (≤50 years: 13.86 vs. >50 years: 11.11, p = 0.003); and lower in those with a personal/family history of skin cancer versus without (10.55 vs 13.33, p = 0.009). Risk averse individuals had lower weekly mean SEDs at 3-months than risk neutral and risk seeking individuals (2.56, 5.81, 4.81 respectively, p = 0.01). Risk seekers showed fewer sun protective habits (p < 0.001); and higher intentional tanning, (p = 0.01). At 3-months, risk seekers attained 16%–54% lower SEDs in the genomic information group compared with controls, however this was not significantly different across risk groups (interaction p = 0.13). Conclusion: An individual's underlying risk attitude is likely associated with sun-exposure behaviours, and may modify the effect of a genomic risk information behaviour change intervention. Young people and risk seekers may benefit most from being given information on their genetic risk of melanoma.