Blue light and the skin on social media: An analysis of posts on exposure and photoprotection strategies.

Abstract

Visible light (400– 700 nm), especially blue light, can produce erythema in all skin phototypes and longlasting changes in skin pigmentation in individuals with darker skin phototypes (SPT IVVI) when they are exposed to intensities and wavelengths similar to those from natural sun exposure.1– 5 In addition to the sun, electronic screens also emit blue light; however, they emit these wavelengths at much lower intensities— approximately three orders of magnitude lower than the corresponding intensities in sunlight. Notably, there is poor clinical evidence to substantiate adverse clinical effects from electronic blue light exposure.6,7 Despite this lack of evidence, there is public interest in the possible harmful effects of artificial blue light from electronic devices on the skin, and protection strategies against this specific source of blue light are being propagated and marketed in media outlets.8 As the public increasingly looks to social media as a source of medical information, awareness of its content is important for dermatologists to address medical misinformation. Our aim was to characterize the content contained in popular social media platforms about the sources of blue light likely to have clinical effects and blue light photoprotection strategies recommended on these platforms by different types of content creators. The top three social media platforms used for dermatologic information and product promotion were chosen based on the highest number of active users.9 Social media posts on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube were identified using search terms or the hashtag “blue light skin damage” or “blue light skin” and were analyzed between December 2021 and January 2022. NonEnglish language, therapeutic and nondermatologic posts were excluded. Included posts were categorized into one of the following content creator categories based on the similarities of services verified on their profiles and websites: commercial industry, dermatology professional (dermatologist or dermatology physician assistant), esthetician, layperson, news source, nondermatologist physician, and selfidentified skin expert. Reported sources of blue light (sun, electronic screen, sun and screen, not mentioned) and proposed photoprotection measures (tinted, mineral, and other sunscreens; topical antioxidants; screen filter) were collected. Descriptive and chisquare tests of proportions were conducted in SAS 9.4. A total of 344 posts were identified: 70 (49.4%) from TikTok, 88 (25.6%) from Instagram, and 86 (25%) from YouTube. Most of the 344 posts were created by commercial industry (n = 102; 29.7%), followed by 71 laypeople (20.7%), 41 dermatology professionals (11.9%), 40 selfidentified skin experts (11.6%), 38 estheticians (11.0%), 35 nondermatology physicians (10.2%), and 17 news sources (4.9%). Of the 344 posts, more than half (n = 196; 57.0%) solely reported electronic screens as the source of blue light, whereas 28 (8.1%) reported sun and 87 (25.3%) reported both sun and screen (p < .001) (Table 1). Only 33 posts (9.6%) did not report a source of blue light. A significantly higher proportion of nonmedical content creators solely reported screens as the source of blue light, including 66.7% of commercial industry reports, 76.3% of estheticians, 70.4% of laypeople, 52.9% of news sources, and 47.5% of selfidentified skin experts (all p < .001). Medical professionals had more widespread distributions regarding reported sources of blue light, where 31.7% of dermatology professionals reported sun only, 29.3% reported screen only, and 34.1% reported both sun and screen as blue light sources. Overall, medical professionals were most likely to report both sun and screen as sources of blue light, whereas nonmedical content creators were more likely to report electronic screens only (Table 1). The different content creators recommended various measures for photoprotection from blue light. A topical antioxidant (nonsunscreen creams, serum, mist, and cleansers) was recommended most frequently by 52.0% of all content creators (n = 179), followed by 71 (20.6%) recommendations for screen filter, 68 (19.8%) for tinted sunscreen, 57 (16.6%) for mineral sunscreen, and 61 (17.7%) for other sunscreen (p < .001) (Table 2). However, whereas six of the seven different content creator groups (including nondermatologist physicians) recommended a nonsunscreen topical antioxidant most frequently, a higher proportion of dermatology professionals recommended tinted sunscreen (n = 26; 63.4%; p < .001). After tinted sunscreen, dermatology professionals recommended a topical antioxidant (36.6%), followed by mineral sunscreen (26.8%), screen filter (26.8%), and other sunscreen (12.2%). Only selfidentified skin experts and news sources recommended all five photoprotection methods in relatively similar proportions (Table 2). Our findings suggest that most social media posts containing information about blue light exposure and photoprotection measures contain information that does not align with available evidence and are made by nonmedical content creators.6,7 As patients increasingly look to social media for health information, this significant presence could have a considerable influence on social media users.