Table 3

Impact of explanatory variables on tanning bed use (general & frequent)

General tanning bed use

(n = 1078)*

Frequent tanning bed use

(n = 318)**

Variable/determinants

OR

95% CI

p

OR

95% CI

p


Hazardousness UV***

1.283

.982 – 1.678

<.07

.960

.593 – 1.555

.869

Perceived Personal Risk***

1.000

.758 – 1.318

.999

.989

.605 – 1.618

.965

„Tanning is attractive“

1.732

1.297 – 2.313

<.001

1.398

.830 – 2.355

.207

„Tanned skin is healthy“

.856

.650 – 1.128

.270

2.387

1.489 – 3.826

<.001

„Sun feels good“

.933

.712 – 1.223

.615

1.885

1.170 – 3.038

<.01


*Binary logistic regression with respect to general tanning bed use. Odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. Tanning bed use dichotomized: users (1)/non-users (0). (User n = 317; non-user n = 761, Nagelkerke's Pseudo-R2 = 0.022)

**Binary logistic regression with respect to frequent tanning bed use. Odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. Tanning bed use dichotomized: high-frequent users (1) vs. low-frequent users (0). (High-frequent Users n = 138; low-frequent user (< 10 sessions per year & tanning bed users who had not tanned in the last 12 months) n = 180, Nagelkerke's Pseudo-R2 = .107)

*** As defined in the Methods Section.

Börner et al. BMC Dermatology 2009 9:6   doi:10.1186/1471-5945-9-6

Open Data