Perspectives of sunless-only tanning business owners.
Perspectives of sunless-only tanning business owners.
复制标题
只进行免晒日光浴的日光浴企业主的观点。
DOI：
10.1111/bjd.17461
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Pagoto,SL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nahar,VK;Oleski,JL;Choquette,AR;Hillhouse,JJ;Pagoto,SL
尊敬的编辑： 迄今为止，美国有 16 个州限制未成年人使用日光浴床。 1 反对限制室内晒黑政策的主要理由是担心这会损害小企业。 2-4 一种反驳意见是，晒黑企业可以通过提供无紫外线 (UV) 的免晒晒黑服务（例如喷雾或喷枪晒黑）来保持财务可行性，这将满足客户对晒黑的渴望，而不会让他们面临与紫外线辐射相关的风险。仅免晒日光浴企业已经存在，这些企业的所有者可能会提供与这种替代商业模式相关的见解。为了识别新英格兰的免晒晒黑企业，我们使用谷歌进行了搜索。 com 和黄页。通过电话、电子邮件或网站消息联系了 15 家企业的业主；所有人都同意参加。在采访中，企业主被问及业务特征、紫外线晒黑、财务可行性、是否与客户讨论紫外线晒黑的危险、他们对公众对免晒晒黑的兴趣的看法、商业机会和威胁、对紫外线晒黑立法的看法、客户的人口统计和紫外线晒黑习惯，以及客户免晒晒黑的利弊。我们对定性数据进行了主题分析。对响应进行分析以确定主题，然后使用这些主题对响应进行编码。使用 SPSS 22 版（IBM，Armonk，NY，USA）进行定量分析。这项研究得到了马萨诸塞大学医学院机构审查委员会的批准。在 15 名参与者中，10 名 (67%) 拥有实体沙龙，5 名 (33%) 只提供移动服务。业主平均经营 5 年 (SD 3)，每项服务收费从 20 美元到 75 美元不等（平均 46433 美元，SD 14433）。所有业主均表示无意提供紫外线晒黑服务。大多数业主表示担心紫外线晒黑的健康风险 [n= 14 (93%)]，作为他们提供免晒晒黑但不提供紫外线晒黑的原因。两名企业主 (13%) 个人受到皮肤癌的影响，他们将其归因于紫外线晒黑，两名 (13%) 表示他们认为免晒晒黑是一个新的商机。大多数业主 [n= 13 (87%)] 表示，仅免晒晒黑是一种可行的商业模式，两位业主报告说，他们
DEAR EDITOR, To date, 16 states in the USA restrict minors from using tanning beds. 1 The principal argument against policy that restricts indoor tanning is the concern that it would harm small businesses. 2–4 One counterargument is that tanning businesses could stay financially viable by offering ultraviolet (UV)-free sunless tanning services (eg spray or airbrush tanning), which would serve customers’ desire for a tan without exposing them to the risks associated with UV radiation. Sunless-only tanning businesses already exist and owners of these businesses may provide insights relating to this alternative business model. To identify sunless tanning businesses in New England, searches were conducted using Google. com and Yellow Pages. Owners of 15 businesses were contacted by phone, e-mail or via website message; all agreed to participate. During the interview, business owners were asked about business characteristics, UV tanning, financial viability, whether they discuss the dangers of UV tanning with their clients, their perceptions regarding public interest in sunless tanning, business opportunities and threats, views about UV tanning legislation, demographics and UV tanning habits of their clients, and pros and cons of sunless tanning for clients. We conducted a thematic analysis of qualitative data. Responses were analysed to identify themes and then, using these themes, responses were coded. Quantitative analyses were performed using SPSS version 22 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). This research was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Of the 15 participants, 10 (67%) owned brick-and-mortar salons and five (33%) provided only mobile services. Owners were in business for an average of 5 years (SD 3) charging from $20 to $75 (mean $46433, SD 14433) for each service. All owners reported that they have no intention to provide UV tanning services.Most owners cited concerns about the health risks of UV tanning [n= 14 (93%)] as the reason they offer sunless tanning but not UV tanning. Two business owners (13%) were personally affected by skin cancer, which they attributed to UV tanning, and two (13%) said they felt that sunless tanning was a novel business opportunity. Most owners [n= 13 (87%)] said that sunless-only tanning is a viable business model and two owners reported that they