Sun safety this summer: from UV apps to sun protection tips that actually work

Posted by Angela Rodrigues, Associate Professor in Psychology, Northumbria University and co-lead of the Fuse Behaviour Change Cluster

The UK has already seen unusually hot weather this year, with temperatures high enough to make sun safety a live issue well before many people have packed for their summer holidays.

For many of us, the instinctive response to good weather is to get outside while it lasts. But sudden bursts of hot, bright weather are also a reminder that sun protection needs to start before we are already on the beach.

UV exposure is not only a problem on foreign holidays or during peak summer. In the UK, UV levels can reach 3 or above from as early as April – this is the point at which many public health bodies advise taking sun protection seriously, especially for people who burn easily.

Abroad, particularly in southern Europe or long-haul destinations, levels commonly reach 8, 9 or 10 in summer. That is a significant jump from what most people living in the UK are used to at home, and one reason holidays are often when their skin is most at risk.

My research with holidaymakers suggests that people want to manage sun exposure better – especially when they are given clear, location-specific information about UV levels, plus practical reminders about when to protect themselves.

Staying safe in the sun works best as a combination of habits: seeking shade, wearing a hat, covering up, limiting time in strong midday sun, and using sunscreen properly.

Not just sunscreen

One of the most effective things you can do is seek shade during the middle of the day, when UV levels are at their highest – typically 11am-3pm in the UK and during similar peak hours abroad. A wide-brimmed hat, a long-sleeved layer for the hottest part of the day, and sunglasses that offer UV protection all add meaningful protection that sunscreen alone cannot provide.

Planning ahead makes this much easier. Before you head out, check the UV index for your destination. Most weather apps now include this. Then plan the highest-exposure parts of your day around it.

Think of sun protection as part of your morning routine: apply sunscreen before leaving the house, just as you would brush your teeth, and pack a hat, sunglasses and sunscreen in your day bag. It is also worth taking a light cover-up such as a T-shirt, kaftan or sarong to protect your shoulders and chest.

When you stop for lunch, that is your natural cue to reapply sunscreen. Many people on holiday take a midday break anyway. A shaded lunch, and even a short siesta during peak UV hours, is not just a pleasant holiday habit. It is good sun safety.

By the time you head back out later in the afternoon, you’ll have rested, cooled down and reapplied sunscreen, and you are making better use of the lower-UV part of the day.

Simple “if-then” plans can help too. If the UV index is forecast to be 3 or above, then I will cover up and seek shade. If I am heading to the beach, then I will reapply sunscreen as soon as I arrive and again after swimming.

One thing our research consistently shows is that most people underestimate how quickly their skin can burn, particularly in strong sun. Rather than trying to calculate a safe window, treat the UV index as your guide. If it is 3 or above, cover up and seek shade during the strongest part of the day.

Sunscreen works best when applied generously and reapplied regularly, but guidance on how much to use can feel vague. Our research suggests a helpful rule of thumb: for your face, neck and ears, aim for around a teaspoon’s worth. For a full body application, you need considerably more than most people use, roughly the equivalent of a golf ball.

Applying more than you think you need, and reapplying every two hours when you are outdoors, makes a real difference to the protection your skin gets. You should also reapply after swimming, sweating or towelling off, even if the product is labelled water resistant.

Apps are useful – if they change what you do

Studies of sun protection apps suggest these digital tools can help when they give people specific, usable information rather than vague warnings. In my research into holidaymakers’ views of these apps, participants valued UV index information and location-based reminders because these helped them to plan their day, rather than simply reacting once already in strong sun.

Personalised guidance can make sun protection feel less like guesswork by taking account of your skin type, where you are and how strong the UV is at that moment.

If you use a sun protection app, look for one that provides real-time, location-specific UV forecasting and concrete, practical advice, rather than general reminders. Even a basic UV index tracker can help you decide when to cover up, when to seek shade and when UV levels are lower.

The SunSmart Global UV app (supported by the World Health Organization, the World Meteorological Organization, the UN Environment Programme and the International Labour Organization) shows what this can look like. It gives users location-specific UV information and indicates when sun protection is needed.

That is the kind of practical guidance holidaymakers in my research said they wanted: advice that helps them make decisions in the moment, not just general messages about staying safe in the sun.

Enjoy the good weather

Sun protection does not mean staying indoors. It means making the sun easier to enjoy: checking the UV index, packing a hat and sunscreen, seeking shade when UV is strongest, and reapplying before your skin reminds you.

Skin cancer is largely preventable, and small habits add up. The aim is to make sun protection part of the day – not an afterthought once you are already hot, tired and turning pink.



Image: Photo by Kampus Production from Pexels

Adapted with thanks to The Conversation

More than quit rates - our smoking research was about complexity, trust, and real voices

Posted by Angela Rodrigues, Associate Professor at Northumbria University, and co-lead of the Fuse Behaviour Change Cluster, and Team

By the time we wrapped up our final interviews, we felt a mix of pride, exhaustion, and curiosity. Pride because we’d managed to complete a complex mixed-methods evaluation across four pilot sites. Exhaustion because, well, public health research never seems to run smoothly, and we had a few recruitment bumps along the way. And curiosity because we still weren’t sure how all the pieces would fit together. This was a mixed-methods evaluation of a 20-week smoking cessation service in the North East & North Cumbria.

The context: why this service mattered

When we first got involved, the idea was simple: evaluate an enhanced stop smoking service designed specifically for people living with severe mental illness (SMI). People with SMI experience stark health inequalities. On average, they die 15-20 years earlier than the general population, largely due to chronic physical health conditions rather than psychiatric causes. Smoking is a major reason for this health gap, and it is something that can be changed. Yet many tobacco dependence services do not adequately meet their needs.

The service offered more support than the standard provided by the local council, combining behavioural support with medication-assisted treatment over 20 weeks. It followed a ‘cut down to quit’ model, and aimed to be person-centred, flexible, and responsive.

Our approach: mixed methods and lived experience

We used a mixed-methods approach, including quantitative analysis of recruitment and outcomes, surveys with service providers, qualitative interviews with both staff and service users, and a review of Smokefree Taskforce documents. We started with a well-defined plan, but the process taught us to embrace flexibility. Recruitment was slow. Referral pathways shifted. Data systems didn’t always talk to each other. And finding service users willing to be interviewed was harder than we expected.

One of the most rewarding aspects was working with our Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP). They helped shape our protocol, refine our interview questions, and interpret findings. Their input reminded us why we do this work. It’s easy to get lost in methodological frameworks, but the real insight often comes from lived experience. One LEAP member words stuck with us:

“You need to understand what it’s like to be told to quit smoking when smoking is the only thing that gets you through the day.”

What we found: complexity at every level

The Behaviour Change Wheel framework (figure 1) helped us make sense of what was happening on the ground. Service providers used a range of strategies, including medication, leaflets, nicotine e-cigarettes, planning, and social support. Most felt capable and motivated to deliver the service, but some found it more harder than expected. Complexity was a recurring theme, as illustrated in one advisor words:

“It’s not just about smoking, it’s about everything else going on in their lives.”

Figure 1: Visual map of key themes identified in our study

We also saw how broader systems shaped delivery. Some sites had strong links with primary care; others struggled. Data recording was patchy. Staff wanted more training, not just in smoking cessation, but in understanding mental health complexity more broadly. And while the service was designed to be flexible, that flexibility sometimes created confusion. Who was eligible? How long should support last? What counted as a successful quit?

For service users, the benefits were clear: 

• better physical and mental health
• financial savings
• fewer unpleasant smells
• and fewer side effects than expected.

But staying engaged was tough. Motivation fluctuated. Life got in the way. Participants reminded us regularly that behaviour change doesn’t happen in a vacuum:

“I wanted to quit, but then my meds changed and everything fell apart.”

The challenge and value of qualitative work

Personally, we found the qualitative interviews both the most challenging and the most illuminating part of the process. Some participants were open and reflective; others were more reserved and required extra support and reassurance to feel comfortable speaking openly, particularly service users. We learned to be flexible in our approach, arranging a casual phone call with service users to build a rapport prior to the interview.

Despite the difficulties recruiting service users, once they were engaged in the interviews, all were eager and willing to share their experiences. We learned that it is important to develop a level of trust with service users, and that patience and empathy can encourage openness and in-depth understanding.

There were challenges too. We had hoped for more interviews with service users, more consistent data, and deeper engagement with those delivering the service. In particular, connecting with service deliverers proved difficult, largely due to the time lag between service implementation and the research evaluation. By the time we began our research, staff had moved on, memories had faded, and priorities had shifted, making it harder to capture a full and accurate picture of delivery. But public health research rarely hands you a neatly packaged story. What it does offer is insight into systems, into people, and into the messy, unpredictable reality of trying to improve lives.

Why it worked: partnership and collaboration

Looking back, we think the study worked because it was grounded in genuine partnership. The Smokefree NHS strategic team were incredible, collaborative, responsive, and deeply committed to making the service work.

We built relationships with service providers who shared their experiences openly, with LEAP members who challenged our assumptions, and with service users who trusted us enough to talk. Within our research team, we supported each other through the inevitable ups and downs. That collective effort, across roles, organisations, and lived experiences, is what made the project feel meaningful.

This experience has already shaped how we’re approaching future projects. Next time, we’ll go in with clearer expectations, more flexible timelines, and a deeper appreciation for the emotional labour involved, not just for us as researchers, but for the people we’re working with.

Researching smoking cessation in people living with severe mental illness isn’t just about measuring quit rates or evaluating service models. It’s about recognising the complexity of their lives, earning trust, and ensuring their voices shape the research process. More than anything, this project reminded us that we, as researchers, must be more attuned, more patient, and more willing to adapt.

---

About the authors:

Dr Angela Rodrigues, Associate Professor, Northumbria University, and co-lead of the Fuse Behaviour Change Cluster

Dr Lauren Hoult, Associate Lecturer, Researcher in Behaviour Change & Public Health, Northumbria University

Prof Katie Haighton, Professor in Public Health and Wellbeing, Northumbria University