Where's Your Phone? A Survey of Where Women Aged 15-40 Carry Their Smartphone and Related Risk Perception: A Survey and Pilot Study

2017 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 1392

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Where's Your Phone? A Survey of Where Women Aged 15-40 Carry Their Smartphone and Related Risk Perception: A Survey and Pilot Study Redmayne M. Where's Your Phone? A Survey of Where Women Aged 15-40 Carry Their Smartphone and Related Risk Perception: A Survey and Pilot Study. PLoS One. 2017 Jan 6;12(1):e0167996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167996. Abstract Smartphones are now owned by most young adults in many countries. Installed applications regularly update while the phone is in standby. If it is kept near the body, this can lead to considerably higher exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation than occurred without internet access. Very little is known about current smartphone carrying habits of young women. This survey used an online questionnaire to ask about smartphone location under several circumstances to inform the power calculation for a women's health study. They were also asked about risk perceptions. Data was analysed using Pearson chi square. Three age categories were made: 15-20, 21-30, 31-40. Smartphones were generally kept on standby (96% by day, 83% at night). Of all participants, in the last week the most common locations of the phone when not in use or during passive use was off-body (86%), in the hand (58%), a skirt/trouser pocket (57%), or against the breast (15%). Pocket and near-the-breast storage were significant by age (χ215.04, p = 0.001 and χ210.96, p = 0.04, respectively), both positively influenced by the youngest group. The same influence lay in the association between holding the phone (χ211.082, p = 0.004) and pocket-storage (χ219.971, p<0.001) during passive use. For calls, 36.5% solely used the phone against the head. More than half kept the phone 20-50 cms from their head at night (53%), while 13% kept it closer than 20 cms. Many (36%) thought RF-EMR exposure was related to health problems while 16% did not. There was no relationship between thinking RF-EMR exposure causes health problems in general and carrying the phone against the upper or lower body (p = 0.69 and p = 0.212, respectively). However, calls with the phone against the head were positively related to perception of health risk (χ2 6.695, p = 0.035). Our findings can be used in the power calculation for a case-control study. journals.plos.org

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecross_sectional

Effect directionunclear

PopulationWomen aged 15–40

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In the last week, common phone locations when not in use or during passive use included off-body (86%), in the hand (58%), in a skirt/trouser pocket (57%), or against the breast (15%). More than half kept the phone 20–50 cm from their head at night (53%), while 13% kept it closer than 20 cm. Perceiving RF-EMR as related to health problems (36% yes; 16% no) was not associated with carrying the phone against the upper or lower body, but using the phone against the head for calls was positively related to perception of health risk (p=0.035).

Outcomes measured

Smartphone carrying location (various circumstances: not in use, passive use, calls, at night)
Phone standby status (day/night)
Risk perception regarding RF-EMR and health problems
Association between carrying/usage patterns and risk perception

Limitations

Sample size not reported in provided abstract/metadata
Self-reported behaviors and perceptions via online questionnaire
Cross-sectional design; cannot infer causality
Exposure levels (frequency, SAR, measured RF-EMR) not quantified

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Women aged 15–40",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Smartphone carrying location (various circumstances: not in use, passive use, calls, at night)",
    "Phone standby status (day/night)",
    "Risk perception regarding RF-EMR and health problems",
    "Association between carrying/usage patterns and risk perception"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In the last week, common phone locations when not in use or during passive use included off-body (86%), in the hand (58%), in a skirt/trouser pocket (57%), or against the breast (15%). More than half kept the phone 20–50 cm from their head at night (53%), while 13% kept it closer than 20 cm. Perceiving RF-EMR as related to health problems (36% yes; 16% no) was not associated with carrying the phone against the upper or lower body, but using the phone against the head for calls was positively related to perception of health risk (p=0.035).",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in provided abstract/metadata",
    "Self-reported behaviors and perceptions via online questionnaire",
    "Cross-sectional design; cannot infer causality",
    "Exposure levels (frequency, SAR, measured RF-EMR) not quantified"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "smartphone",
    "mobile phone",
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation",
    "RF-EMR",
    "carrying habits",
    "risk perception",
    "women",
    "standby",
    "night-time proximity"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones-rf",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Study focuses on smartphone carrying/usage patterns relevant to RF exposure."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167996
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library