Back to all available

Skin-cancer screening preferences and trust in clinicians: Do outdoor enthusiasts value specialist checks?

oncology
public-health
sports-medicine

Abstract

Introduction: Australian outdoor enthusiasts are at heightened risk of skin cancer due to high level of ultraviolet (UV) exposure. Regular screening is essential for early detection; little is known about how trust in clinician expertise and screening frequency shape behaviors in this cohort .

Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 1,403 adult outdoor enthusiasts attending a skin cancer clinic collected data on UV exposure, screening habits, clinician preference and time since last skin check. Group comparisons and multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of specialist preference, and screening intervals were correlated with cancer detection.

Results: Over half of participants (54.9%) performed regular self/partner skin checks, while 7.8% had never had a clinical check. Trust in clinician expertise was strongly influential, with 84.2% prioritising who performed the check, 63.6% most recently screened by a skin-cancer specialist. Multivariable analysis, a prior skin cancer diagnosis (OR = 2.13, p < .001), regular self-examination (OR = 1.61, p = .001), and sunscreen use (OR = 1.49, p = .047) independently predicted specialist preference. Age, gender, skin type, family history, cumulative UV exposure, and activity were not significant predictors. Cancer diagnoses, including melanoma, were most common among those screened within the past 12–24 months, declining sharply beyond two years.

Conclusion: Prior skin cancer experience and proactive protective behaviours strongly influenced specialist preference. Timing of diagnoses supported the clinical value of regular screening in UV-exposed outdoor enthusiasts.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].