Sun Exposure

Research Question: What interventions are effective* in promoting benefits and/or reducing harm from exposure to sunlight?

*‘Effectiveness’ in this context relates not only to the size of the effect, but it also takes into account any harmful or negative side effects, including inequitable outcomes

**Interventions including intake of vitamin D should additionally take account of NICE Guideline PH56 Vitamin D: increasing supplement use in at-risk groups 2014 and guidance from the Scientific Advisory Commission on Nutrition

Population: General Populous
Intervention (non-NHS): may be applied to the general population, or relevant target population at risk of over- or under- exposure to sunlight. Relevant sub-groups may be studied, identified by factors such as age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, employment, geographical location or other factors relating to risk. In July 2016, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition [2] made recommendations on the “population protective” reference nutrient intake (RNI) levels for vitamin D. Their report describes population groups with particularly high risk as frail older adults and other individuals not spending substantial time outdoors, those wearing concealing clothing; and people from ethnic groups with dark skin.
Comparator: Not Specified
Outcomes: The primary outcome must be health related, and may include behaviour change and risk reduction. Researchers should indicate how long term impact will be assessed. Proposals should be linked to underlying theory and may include a logic model to justify their approach to evaluation.
Commissioning Brief: 

Studies should generate evidence to inform the implementation of single or multi-component interventions. Studies may include evidence syntheses, studies evaluating interventions, including trials, quasi- and natural experimental evaluations, and feasibility and pilot studies for these. We welcome applications for linked studies (e.g. pilot + main evaluation). Secondary analyses of existing epidemiological data and/or impact modelling studies may also be funded. We encourage the adoption of a systems perspective where appropriate to the study context. In all cases a strong justification for the chosen design and methods must be made.
The primary outcome measure of the research, if not necessarily the intervention itself, must be health-related. The positive or negative impacts of the intervention, including inequitable outcomes should be considered.  Researchers are asked to indicate how long-term impacts will be assessed. All applications should identify underlying theory and include a logic model (or equivalent) to help explain underlying context, theory and mechanisms. Proposals should ensure adequate public involvement in the research.
For all proposals, applicants should clearly state the public health utility of the outcomes and the mechanisms by which they will inform future public health policy and practice. Details about the potential pathway to impact and scalability of interventions, if shown to have an effect, should be provided, including an indication of which organisation(s) might fund the relevant intervention(s) if widely implemented.
Representatives of policy or practice communities relevant to the project should be directly engaged or involved with the development and delivery of PHR research because this produces research that is more closely grounded in, and reflective of, their concerns and makes the subsequent uptake and application of research findings more likely. By policy or practice, we mean any organisation that is involved in shaping policy or delivering public health services relevant to the research, whether at local or national levels. This might include local authorities, charities, voluntary organisations, professional bodies, commercial organisations, governmental and arms-length bodies.