A Content Analysis of Indoor Tanning Twitter Chatter During COVID-19 Shutdowns: Cross-Sectional Qualitative Study.

Q3 Medicine JMIR dermatology Pub Date : 2024-03-04 DOI:10.2196/54052
Laurie Groshon, Molly E Waring, Aaron J Blashill, Kristen Dean, Sanaya Bankwalla, Lindsay Palmer, Sherry Pagoto
{"title":"A Content Analysis of Indoor Tanning Twitter Chatter During COVID-19 Shutdowns: Cross-Sectional Qualitative Study.","authors":"Laurie Groshon, Molly E Waring, Aaron J Blashill, Kristen Dean, Sanaya Bankwalla, Lindsay Palmer, Sherry Pagoto","doi":"10.2196/54052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Indoor tanning is a preventable risk factor for skin cancer. Statewide shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in temporary closures of tanning businesses. Little is known about how tanners reacted to losing access to tanning businesses.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to analyze Twitter (subsequently rebranded as X) chatter about indoor tanning during the statewide pandemic shutdowns.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected tweets from March 15 to April 30, 2020, and performed a directed content analysis of a random sample of 20% (1165/5811) of tweets from each week. The 2 coders independently rated themes (κ=0.67-1.0; 94%-100% agreement).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About half (589/1165, 50.6%) of tweets were by people unlikely to indoor tan, and most of these mocked tanners or the act of tanning (562/589, 94.9%). A total of 34% (402/1165) of tweets were posted by users likely to indoor tan, and most of these (260/402, 64.7%) mentioned missing tanning beds, often citing appearance- or mood-related reasons or withdrawal. Some tweets by tanners expressed a desire to purchase or use home tanning beds (90/402, 22%), while only 3.9% (16/402) mentioned tanning alternatives (eg, self-tanner). Very few tweets (29/1165, 2.5%) were public health messages about the dangers of indoor tanning.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings revealed that during statewide shutdowns, half of the tweets about indoor tanning were mocking tanning bed users and the tanned look, while about one-third were indoor tanners reacting to their inability to access tanning beds. Future work is needed to understand emerging trends in tanning post pandemic.</p>","PeriodicalId":73553,"journal":{"name":"JMIR dermatology","volume":"7 ","pages":"e54052"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10949128/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/54052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Indoor tanning is a preventable risk factor for skin cancer. Statewide shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in temporary closures of tanning businesses. Little is known about how tanners reacted to losing access to tanning businesses.

Objective: This study aimed to analyze Twitter (subsequently rebranded as X) chatter about indoor tanning during the statewide pandemic shutdowns.

Methods: We collected tweets from March 15 to April 30, 2020, and performed a directed content analysis of a random sample of 20% (1165/5811) of tweets from each week. The 2 coders independently rated themes (κ=0.67-1.0; 94%-100% agreement).

Results: About half (589/1165, 50.6%) of tweets were by people unlikely to indoor tan, and most of these mocked tanners or the act of tanning (562/589, 94.9%). A total of 34% (402/1165) of tweets were posted by users likely to indoor tan, and most of these (260/402, 64.7%) mentioned missing tanning beds, often citing appearance- or mood-related reasons or withdrawal. Some tweets by tanners expressed a desire to purchase or use home tanning beds (90/402, 22%), while only 3.9% (16/402) mentioned tanning alternatives (eg, self-tanner). Very few tweets (29/1165, 2.5%) were public health messages about the dangers of indoor tanning.

Conclusions: Findings revealed that during statewide shutdowns, half of the tweets about indoor tanning were mocking tanning bed users and the tanned look, while about one-third were indoor tanners reacting to their inability to access tanning beds. Future work is needed to understand emerging trends in tanning post pandemic.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19 关闭期间室内日光浴推特聊天内容分析:交叉定性研究。
背景:室内日光浴是皮肤癌的一个可预防风险因素。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,全州范围内的停业导致日光浴企业暂时关闭。人们对日光浴者在失去日光浴店后的反应知之甚少:本研究旨在分析全州范围内大流行病停业期间有关室内日光浴的 Twitter(后改名为 X)聊天记录:我们收集了 2020 年 3 月 15 日至 4 月 30 日期间的推文,并对每周 20% 的推文随机样本(1165/5811)进行了定向内容分析。两名编码员独立评定主题(κ=0.67-1.0;94%-100% 一致):大约一半(589/1165,50.6%)的推文是由不可能在室内晒黑的人发布的,其中大部分嘲讽了晒黑者或晒黑行为(562/589,94.9%)。34%(402/1165)的推文是由可能进行室内日晒的用户发布的,其中大部分(260/402,64.7%)提到了错过日晒床,并经常提到与外表或心情有关的原因或退出。一些晒黑者的推文表达了购买或使用家用日晒床的愿望(90/402,22%),而只有 3.9%(16/402)的推文提到了日晒的替代方法(如自晒)。很少有推文(29/1165,2.5%)是关于室内日光浴危害的公共卫生信息:研究结果表明,在全州范围的关闭期间,一半有关室内日光浴的推文是在嘲笑日光浴床使用者和日光浴的外观,而大约三分之一是室内日光浴者对无法使用日光浴床的反应。要了解大流行后日光浴的新趋势,还需要今后的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Prevalence of Dermoscopy Use Among Dermatology Residents in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Cross-Sectional Study. Patterns of Public Interest in Lipomas and Lipoma-Removal Procedures: Google Trends Analysis. The Comparative Sufficiency of ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing AI in Answering Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis Questions About Common Dermatological Diagnoses. Modern Digital Query Analytics of Patient Education Materials on Acanthosis Nigricans: Systematic Search and Content Analysis. The Depth Estimation and Visualization of Dermatological Lesions: Development and Usability Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1