Influential factors for sun policy implementation in Danish kindergartens

Scandinavian Journal of Public Health

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 479-483

  Rezai, Ladan ^a   Thorgaard, Camilla ^a   Philip, Anja ^a  

^a DANISH CANCER SOCIETY RESEARCH CENTER   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Decision making; kindergarten; qualitative; sun policy

Indexed keywords

SUNSCREEN;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DAY CARE; DECISION MAKING; DENMARK; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; MELANOMA; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; QUESTIONNAIRE; SKIN TUMOR; SUNLIGHT; TIME;

CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DECISION MAKING; DENMARK; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MELANOMA; QUESTIONNAIRES; SKIN NEOPLASMS; SUNLIGHT; SUNSCREENING AGENTS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 79960484824     PISSN: 14034948     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1403494811403186     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Cancerregistret 2008. Nye tal fra Sundhedsstyrelsen; 2009:5.
2. Brown A., Elliott S. Review of sun protection policies and practices in Victorian Sun Smart accredited early childhood centres. Melbourne: Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council of Victoria; 2004.
3. Buller D.B., Buller M.K., Reynolds K.D. A survey of sun protection policy and education in secondary schools. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006;54:427-32.
4. Glanz K., Carbone E., Song V. Formative research for developing targeted skin cancer prevention programs for children in multiethnic Hawaii. Health Educ Res 1999;14:155-66.
5. Lowe J.B., Balanda K.P., Stanton W.R., Gillespie A. Evaluation of a three-year school-based intervention to increase adolescent sun protection. Health Educ Behav 1999;26:396-408.
6. Tripp M.K., Herrmann N.B., Parcel G.S., Chamberlain R.M., Gritz E.R. Sun protection is fun! A skin cancer prevention program for preschools. J School Health 2000;70:395-401.
7. Shoefield M.J., Edwards K., Pearce R. Effectiveness of two strategies for dissemination of sun-protection policy in New South Wales primary and secondary schools. Aust N Z J Public Health 1997;21:743-50.
8. Rogers E.M. Diffusion of Innovation, 5th edn. New York: Free Press; 2003.
9. Green L.W., Kreuter M.W. Health program planning. An educational and ecological approach, 4th edn. Boston: McGraw-Hill ; 2005.
10. King N. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell C., Symon G., editors. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. London: SAGE Publications; 2004.
11. Hartland J., Turdor-Smith C., Bowker S. Smoke-free policies in schools: a qualitative investigation of the benefits and barriers. Health Educ J 1998;57:51-59.
12. Brown K.M., Akintobi T.H., Pitt S., McDermott R., Berends V., Agron P., Purcell A. Californan school board members’ perception of factors influencing school nutrition policy. J School Health 2004;74:52-58.
13. Brown K.M., Pitt S., Reyes L. School board member survey results: nutrition and physical activity for examination of communication factors affecting policymakers. Sacramento : Californian Project Lean; 2004.
14. Brown A. and Elliot S. Review of sun protection policies and practices in Victorian Sun Smart accredited early childhood centres. Victoria: Center of Behavioural Research in Cancer and Sun Smart & The Cancer Council Victoria; 2004.
15. Buller D.B., Borland R. Skin cancer prevention for children: a critical review. Health Educ Behav 1999;26:317-43.