No abstract

The background of this article is that assessment and quantification of skin color is important to health care; color is one indicator of overall health and is linked to oxygenation, tissue perfusion, nutritional status, and injury. The purpose is to describe how skin color varies across racial/ethnic groups so that the information can be applied to clinical practice. The method used is cross-sectional, descriptive design (n = 257). We recorded self-defined race/ethnicity and used a spectrophotometer to measure skin color at two anatomic sites. Skin color variables included L* (light/dark), a* (red/green), and b* (yellow/blue). As regards results, we found significant differences in L*, a*, and b* values by site and race/ethnicity in White, Asian, and Biracial participants. L*: F(3, 233) = 139.04, p < .01 and F(3, 233) = 118.47, p < .01. Black participants had significantly lower mean L* values and wider ranges of L*, a*, and b* as compared with other groups. In regard to application, these findings suggest that clinicians and researchers should plan and provide care based on skin color, rather than race/ethnicity.

Skin is the primary interface between health care providers and patients and is assessed clinically to predict physiological stability or instability. The biomechanical properties of human skin, most notably elasticity and viscoelasticity, are critical to its protective function. In this article, the authors describe the physiological basis for skin elasticity and viscoelasticity. The authors discuss the role of viscoelasticity in nursing science and consider avenues for scientific exploration of the skin’s biomechanical properties, including applications in pressure ulcer research, injury, and healing. They also discuss the Cutometer® as one option for measurement of viscoelasticity in clinical and bench research protocols.

The Fitzpatrick Skin Phototypes (FSP) were developed to classify skin color and response to ultraviolet radiation. FSP are used clinically to assess risk for sunburn and skin cancer. Our aim was to determine the criterion-related validity of self-reported FSP when compared with skin color and sunburn history, controlling for age, race/ ethnicity, and seasonality/geography. We performed a secondary analysis of data (N=466) from an observational study. The racial/ethnic composition of the sample was 45% White/White Hispanic (WWH), 40% Black/Black Hispanic (BBH), and 15% Other Identities. Outcome measures were self-reported FSP and sunburn history, as well as physiological measures of skin color (L* lightness/darkness, a* redness/greenness, b*yellowness/blueness). Correlation between FSP and L* was -.77 (95% CI -.81, -.73; P<.001). Although 60% of the variance in FSP was accounted for by L* values for the entire sample, only 5% of the variance was accounted for among BBH participants (r=-.23), and up to 30% for WWH/Other Identity participants (r=-.48 and -.52). Mul­tiple regression analysis indicated L* and b* values, sunburn history, and race/ethnicity, but not geography/seasonality or a* values significantly and collectively accounted for 72% of the variance in FSP. While the criterion validity of FSP was established by the strong relationship between L* values and FSP for the entire sample, when exam­ined at the level of individual racial/ethnic subgroups, criterion validity of FSP was not demonstrated. When self-reported FSP are used for clinical skin assessment and sun cancer screening, they provide a restricted range of options for people with darker skin that does not capture variations in their skin color. Inaccuracy of clinical data may lead to unequal treatment or inadequate cancer risk assessment. Ethn Dis. 2019;29(3):505-512. doi:10.18865/ed.29.3.505