Advertisement

European Journal of Dermatology

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 615–619 | Cite as

Clinical assessment of skin phototypes: watch your words!

  • Myrto Trakatelli
  • Matilda Bylaite-Bucinskiene
  • Osvaldo Correia
  • Antonio Cozzio
  • Esther De Vries
  • Ljiljana Medenica
  • Eduardo Nagore
  • John Paoli
  • Alexander J. Stratigos
  • Véronique Del Marmol
  • Jean-Luc BulliardEmail author
Clinical report
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Fitzpatrick skin phototype classification is widely used to assess risk factors for skin cancers. This skin type evaluation is easy to use in clinical practice but is not always applied as initially described, nor practiced in a standardisedway. This can have implications on the results of relevant dermato-epidemiological studies.

Objectives

To demonstrate, in a large multinational setting, that the phrasing of questions on sun sensitivity can have a strong impact on the perception and reporting of skin phototype, as well as the importance of a standardised procedure for phototype assessment.

Materials & methods

Using data collected from 48,258 screenees of the Euromelanoma campaign in six European countries from 2009 to 2011, we analysed the impact of change in the question phrasing on phototype classification in each country.

Results

Changing the wording of a question to assess the phototype of a person also significantly influenced the classification of phototypes in different countries (p<0.001 for each country). The difference essentially corresponded to a shift towards a less sun-sensitive skin type when a shorter question that did not include skin colour description was used. The only exception was Portugal where phototype was not patient-assessed and classification shifted towards a more sun-sensitive phototype. Results were statistically significant and highly consistent, irrespective of gender.

Conclusions

The phrasing of questions on skin type is important and substantially influences reporting. A standardized procedure to classify phototypes should be used in order to obtain comparable data between studies.

Key words

Fitzpatrick skin phototype classification question phrasing sun sensitivity wording country standardised procedure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Leiter U, Eigentler T, Garbe C. Epidemiology of skin cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol 2014; 810: 120–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fitzpatrick T. Soleil et peau. J Med Esthet 1975; 2: 33–4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fitzpatrick TB. The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Arch Dermatol 1988; 124: 869–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sachdeva S. Fitzpatrick skin typing: applications in dermatology. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2009; 75: 93–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eilers S, Bach DQ, Gaber R, et al. Accuracy of self-report in assessing Fitzpatrick skin phototypes I through VI. JAMA Dermatol 2013; 149: 1289–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rampen FH, Fleuren BA, de Boo TM, Lemmens WA. Unreliability of self-reported burning tendency and tanning ability. Arch Dermatol 1988; 124: 885–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ravnbak MH. Objective determination of Fitzpatrick skin type. Dan Med Bull 2010; 57: B4153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wulf HC, Philipsen PA, Ravnbak MH. Minimal erythema dose and minimal melanogenesis dose relate better to objectively measured skin type than to Fitzpatricks skin type. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2010; 26: 280–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bataille V, Cook D, Cuzick J, Edwards R, Newton J, Swerdlow A. Risk factors for melanoma: site variation in minimal erythema dose. Melanoma Res 1992; 2: 83–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dornelles S, Goldim J, Cestari T. Determination of the minimal erythema dose and colorimetric measurements as indicators of skin sensitivity to UV-B radiation. Photochem Photobiol 2004; 79: 540–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Leest RJ, de Vries E, Bulliard JL, et al. The Euromelanoma skin cancer prevention campaign in Europe: characteristics and results of 2009 and 2010. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011; 25: 1455–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stratigos AJ, Forsea AM, van der Leest RJ, et al. Euromelanoma: a dermatology-led European campaign against nonmelanoma skin cancer and cutaneous melanoma. Past, present and future. Br J Dermatol 2012; 167: 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taffé P. Probabilité et statistique pour les sciences de la santé: apprentissage au moyen du logiciel Stata, 2014. College Station, Texas: Stata Press, 560p.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schuman S, Presser S. Question wording as an independent variable in survey analysis. Sociol Methods & Res 1977; 6: 151–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reeder AI, Hammond VA, Gray AR. Questionnaire items to assess skin color and erythemal sensitivity: reliability, validity, and “the dark shift”. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19: 1167–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harrison SL, Buttner PG. Do all fair-skinned Caucasians consider themselves fair? Prev Med 1999; 29: 349–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kimball AB. Skin differences, needs, and disorders across global populations. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc 2008; 13: 2–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maresca V, Flori E, Picardo M. Skin phototype: a new perspective. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res 2015; 28: 378–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pichon LC, Landrine H, Corral I, Hao Y, Mayer JA, Hoerster KD. Measuring skin cancer risk in African Americans: is the Fitzpatrick Skin Type Classification Scale culturally sensitive? Ethn Dis 2010; 20: 174–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ackermann S, Vuadens A, Levi F, Bulliard JL. Sun protective behaviour and sunburn prevalence in primary and secondary schoolchildren in western Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly 2016; 146: w14370.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© JLE/Springer 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myrto Trakatelli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matilda Bylaite-Bucinskiene
    • 3
  • Osvaldo Correia
    • 4
  • Antonio Cozzio
    • 5
  • Esther De Vries
    • 6
  • Ljiljana Medenica
    • 7
  • Eduardo Nagore
    • 8
  • John Paoli
    • 9
  • Alexander J. Stratigos
    • 10
  • Véronique Del Marmol
    • 11
  • Jean-Luc Bulliard
    • 12
    Email author
  1. 1.Second Department of Dermatology and VenereologyAristotle University, Papageorgiou HospitalThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of DermatologySt.Pierre HospitalBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Centre of DermatologyVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania
  4. 4.Centro Dermatologia EpidermisInstituto CUF and Faculty of Medicine of University of PortoPortoPortugal
  5. 5.Department of DermatologyUniversity Hospital ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  6. 6.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsPontificia Universidad JaverianaBogotaColombia
  7. 7.Department of Dermatology, University of Belgrade, School of Medicine, Clinic of DermatovenereologyClinical Centre of SerbiaBelgradeSerbia
  8. 8.Department of DermatologyInstituto Valenciano de OncologiaValenciaSpain
  9. 9.Department of Dermatology, Institute of Clinical Sciences at the Sahlgrenska AcademyUniversity of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  10. 10.1st Department of Dermatology-VenereologyNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Andreas Sygros HospitalAthensGreece
  11. 11.Department of DermatologyHôpital Erasme, Université Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  12. 12.Division of Chronic DiseasesUniversity Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV) and University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations