# Evaluation of Golf Apparel for Ultraviolet Protection: An Analysis of Skin Coverage Provided by Leading U.S. Golf Apparel Brands for a High-Risk Population

## TL;DR

This study found that golf clothing from top U.S. brands offers limited UV protection, especially for high-risk body areas, and suggests improvements through collaboration with health experts.

## Contribution

The study evaluates UV protection in golf apparel for different demographics, highlighting design shortcomings and recommending UPF-certified clothing.

## Key findings

- Only 7.1% to 16.7% of golf apparel items had UPF labeling.
- Coverage for arms, hands, and neck was limited, while chest and back coverage was nearly universal.
- Significant differences in design features across age and gender groups were observed.

## Abstract

Background

This study aimed to assess the extent of protective design elements and fabric characteristics of apparel items specifically marketed to golfers from leading online U.S. brands for providing adequate ultraviolet (UV) protection across demographic groups, with particular attention to anatomical areas at highest risk of UV exposure.

Methodology

Five leading golf apparel brands were identified using a composite metric. Brand webpages designated for golf-specific apparel were assessed for design features and textile claims across categories (tops, bottoms, accessories, hats) for men, women, and children. A seven-point composite score quantified skin coverage provided by tops. Chi-square tests determined differences in offerings across demographics.

Results

Across 671 golf apparel items, adequate protection of vulnerable body sites was low overall. Ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) labeling was low for clothing options, ranging from 7.1% to 16.7%. Coverage offered by garment design, including the arms, hands, and neck, was limited overall, while chest and back coverage were nearly universal. The mean composite scores for coverage features of tops on a seven-point scale were 3.69 for both men and women and 3.48 for children. Significant differences in top features across demographic groups were observed using a chi-square analyses for back coverage (χ²(2) = 16.59, p < 0.001), shoulder coverage (χ²(2) = 12.40, p = 0.002), whole arm coverage (χ²(2) = 19.85, p < 0.001), and hand coverage (χ²(2) = 7.76, p = 0.021), suggesting design variations among age and gender that may impact sun-protective elements.

Conclusions

Performance apparel specifically marketed toward golfers often lacks key design features and textiles for adequate protection of vulnerable skin. Manufacturers likely emphasize style and wearability over evidence-based UV protective principles; collaboration with dermatologists and public health experts can improve these gaps in garment design and marketing. Clinicians should additionally recognize these shortcomings and counsel golfers on their increased risks, as available clothing options may not ensure adequate UV protection. Recommendation for UPF-certified garments and targeted sun-protective accessories, such as sleeves, can offer more reliable and versatile UV protection for this vulnerable population.