Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 109, Issue 4, pp 473–479 | Cite as

Assessing a ban on the use of UV tanning devices among adolescents in Ontario, Canada: first-year results

  • Victoria Nadalin
  • Loraine D. MarrettEmail author
  • Caroline Cawley
  • John Atkinson
  • Thomas Tenkate
  • Jennifer McWhirter
  • Cheryl F. Rosen
Special Section on Epidemiology and Biostatistics: Quantitative Research



To describe the effect of the first year of a ban on UV tanning device (beds, lamps) use among those under 18 years of age in Ontario, Canada.


Online questionnaires were completed by adolescents in grades 7 to 12, aged less than 18 years: one when the ban was enacted (May 2014) and a second a year later (May 2015). Questionnaires asked grade, age, sex, and about use of UV tanning devices in the previous year. Recent users were asked about length, frequency, and location of use; service refusals and reasons; awareness of signs/warning labels; and use of eye protection. Weighted estimates and confidence intervals were generated.


There were 1561 participants in 2014 and 2305 in 2015. No reduction was observed in UV tanning device use (6.9% vs. 7.9%) in the 12 months preceding the survey. In 2015, most respondents used UV tanning devices in beauty establishments, which was a shift away from gyms and fitness centres as seen in 2014. Non-significant increases occurred in the proportions noticing warning signs/labels (57% vs. 71%), required to wear eye protection (92% vs. 99%), and refused service (17% vs. 21%). Most adolescents who were refused service did not use tanning devices that year (72%).


Use did not change in the year following enactment of a ban on UV tanning devices among youth in Ontario. The ban did lead to improvements in service refusal, awareness of warning signage, and use of eye protection. As service refusal deterred future use, enhanced enforcement is important.


UV radiation Adolescent Tanning bed Tanning lamp Government legislation 



Décrire les répercussions de la première année d’application d’une interdiction d’utiliser des appareils de bronzage aux UV (lits, lampes) pour les personnes de moins de 18 ans en Ontario (Canada).


Des questionnaires en ligne ont été remplis par des élèves de la 7e à la 12e année, âgés de moins de 18 ans : un premier lorsque l’interdiction a été promulguée (mai 2014), et un deuxième, un an plus tard (mai 2015). Les questions portaient sur la classe, l’âge, le sexe et l’utilisation d’appareils de bronzage aux UV au cours de l’année précédente. Les jeunes ayant utilisé ces appareils récemment devaient indiquer la durée et la fréquence d’utilisation, ainsi que le lieu. Ils devaient également préciser s’ils s’étaient vus refuser l’accès aux services de bronzage et les motifs de ces refus, s’ils avaient remarqué la présence d’avis et d’étiquettes de mise en garde, et s’ils avaient porté une protection des yeux. Des estimations pondérées et des intervalles de confiance ont été produits.


On comptait 1561 participants en 2014 et 2305 participants en 2015. Aucune diminution de l’utilisation des appareils de bronzage aux UV n’a été observée (6,9 % c. 7,9 %) au cours des 12 mois précédant le questionnaire. En 2015, la plupart des répondants utilisaient des appareils de bronzage aux UV dans des salons de beauté, un changement par rapport à 2014 où ces appareils étaient plus utilisés dans des salles de sport et des centres de conditionnement physique. Des augmentations non significatives ont été observées dans les proportions de personnes ayant remarqué la présence d’avis et d’étiquettes de mise en garde (57 % c. 71 %), ayant dû porter une protection des yeux (92 % c. 99 %) et confrontées à des refus (17 % c. 21 %). La plupart des adolescents confrontés à un refus n’ont pas utilisé d’appareil de bronzage cette année-là (72 %).


L’utilisation des appareils de bronzage aux UV n’a pas changé au cours de l’année suivant la promulgation de l’interdiction visant les jeunes de l’Ontario. L’interdiction a bien entraîné d’améliorations quant aux refus d’offrir des services de bronzage, à la présence d’avis et au port d’une protection des yeux. Les refus ayant découragé l’utilisation future à ces appareils, il est important de garantir une meilleure application de cette interdiction.


Rayons UV; Adolescent; Lit de bronzage; Lampe de bronzage; Législation gouvernementale 


Funding information

This study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, Cancer Care Ontario, and Ryerson University. It was conducted on behalf of the Ontario Sun Safety Working Group by four of its member organizations: Canadian Cancer Society, Cancer Care Ontario, Ryerson University, and the University Health Network.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. Atkinson, J., Cawley, C., Marrett, L., McWhirter, J., Nadalin, V., Rosen, C. F., et al. (2017). An assessment of the first year of a ban on tanning beds and lamps among adolescents in Ontario, Canada. Toronto: Ontario Sun Safety Group.Google Scholar
  2. Blashill, A. J., & Pagoto, S. (2017). Effect of legislation on indoor tanning prevalence in Alabama. Am J Public Health, 107(6), 966–968. Scholar
  3. Boniol, M., Autier, P., Boyle, P., & Gandini, S. (2012). Cutaneous melanoma attributable to sunbed use: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 345, e4757. Scholar
  4. Canadian Cancer Society’s Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. (2015). Canadian Cancer Statistics 2014. Special topic: skin cancer. Toronto: Canadian Cancer Society.Google Scholar
  5. Canadian Cancer Society’s Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. (2017). Canadian cancer statistics 2017. Special topic: pancreatic cancer. Toronto: Canadian Cancer Society.Google Scholar
  6. Coups, E. J., Stapleton, J. L., & Delnevo, C. D. (2016). Indoor tanning among New Jersey high school students before and after the enactment of youth access restrictions. J Am Acad Dermatol, 75(2), 440–442. Scholar
  7. Gordon, D., & Guenther, L. (2009). Tanning behavior of London-area youth. J Cutan Med Surg, 13(1), 22–32. Scholar
  8. Government of Canada (2017). Guidelines for tanning equipment owners, operators and users. Accessed 29 Jun 2018.
  9. Government of Ontario (2014) (2013, S.O. 2013, C.5.). Skin Cancer Prevention Act (Tanning Beds). Accessed 29 Jun 2018.
  10. Holman, D. M., Fox, K. A., Glenn, J. D., Guy Jr., G. P., Watson, M., Baker, K., et al. (2013). Strategies to reduce indoor tanning: current research gaps and future opportunities for prevention. Am J Prev Med, 44(6), 672–681. Scholar
  11. Mayer, J. A., Woodruff, S. I., Slymen, D. J., Sallis, J. F., Forster, J. L., Clapp, E. J., et al. (2011). Adolescents’ use of indoor tanning: a large-scale evaluation of psychosocial, environmental, and policy-level correlates. Am J Public Health, 101(5), 930–938. Scholar
  12. McWhirter, J. E., Byl, S., Green, A., Sears, W., & Papadopoulos, A. (2018). Availability of tanning salons in Ontario relative to indoor tanning policy (2001-2017). Prev Med Rep, 12, 40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mosher, C. E., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2010). Addiction to indoor tanning: relation to anxiety, depression, and substance use. Arch Dermatol, 146(4), 412–417. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Nadalin, V., Marrett, L., Atkinson, J., Tenkate, T., & Rosen, C. F. (2016). Tanning among Ontario adolescents pre-legislation: prevalence and beliefs. Prev Med, 91, 244–249. Scholar
  15. Nadalin, V., Marrett, L. D., Cawley, C., Minaker, L. M., & Manske, S. (2018). Intentional tanning among adolescents in seven Canadian provinces: provincial comparisons (CRAYS 2015). Prev Med, 111, 225–230. Scholar
  16. Pan, M., & Geller, L. (2015). Update on indoor tanning legislation in the United States. Clin Dermatol, 33(3), 387–392. Scholar
  17. Qutob, S. Q., O'Brien, M., Feder, K., McNamee, J., Guay, M., & Than, J. (2017). Tanning equipment use: 2014 Canadian community health survey. Health Rep, 28(1), 12–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Reid, I. (2012). Despite warnings, more youth in Ontario using indoor tanning beds. Toronto: Ipsos Accessed 29 June 2018.Google Scholar
  19. Reimann, J., McWhirter, J. E., Papadopoulos, A., & Dewey, C. (2018). A systematic review of compliance with indoor tanning legislation. BMC Public Health, 18(1).
  20. Simmons, R. G., Smith, K., Balough, M., & Friedrichs, M. (2014). Decrease in self-reported tanning frequency among Utah teens following the passage of Utah Senate Bill 41: an analysis of the effects of youth-access restriction laws on tanning behaviors. J Skin Cancer, 2014, 839601. Scholar
  21. Sinclair, C., & Makin, J. K. (2013). Implications of lessons learned from tobacco control for tanning bed reform. Prev Chronic Dis, 10, E28. Scholar
  22. Sinclair, C. A., Makin, J. K., Tang, A., Brozek, I., & Rock, V. (2014). The role of public health advocacy in achieving an outright ban on commercial tanning beds in Australia. Am J Public Health, 104(2), e7–e9. Scholar
  23. Statistics Canada. (2012). The Canadian population in 2011: population counts and growth. Ottawa: Minister of Industry Catalogue no. 98–310-X2011001. (Accessed October 27, 2017).Google Scholar
  24. Volkovova, K., Bilanicova, D., Bartonova, A., Letasiova, S., & Dusinska, M. (2012). Associations between environmental factors and incidence of cutaneous melanoma. Review. Environ Health, 11(Suppl 1), S12. Scholar
  25. World Health Organization. (2003). Artificial tanning beds. Risks and Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization Accessed 29 June 2018.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victoria Nadalin
    • 1
  • Loraine D. Marrett
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Caroline Cawley
    • 1
  • John Atkinson
    • 3
  • Thomas Tenkate
    • 4
  • Jennifer McWhirter
    • 5
  • Cheryl F. Rosen
    • 6
  1. 1.Cancer Care OntarioTorontoCanada
  2. 2.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Canadian Cancer SocietyTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Ryerson UniversityTorontoCanada
  5. 5.University of GuelphGuelphCanada
  6. 6.University Health Network and University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations