Which sources of electromagnetic field are of the highest concern for electrosensitive individuals? - Questionnaire study with a literature review

Electromagnetic biology and medicine · 2020 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 1728

Study snapshot

PublicationElectromagnetic biology and medicine · 2020

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Which sources of electromagnetic field are of the highest concern for electrosensitive individuals? - Questionnaire study with a literature review Artur Kacprzyk, Gabriela Kanclerz, Eugeniusz Rokita , Grzegorz Tatoń. Which sources of electromagnetic field are of the highest concern for electrosensitive individuals? - Questionnaire study with a literature review. Electromagn Biol Med. 2020 Oct 24;1-8. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2020.1839489. Abstract The primary goal of the study was to identify sources of electromagnetic field (EMF) which are attributed to negative health outcomes by a general population of electrohypersensitive (EHS) individuals. Secondary goal was to investigate the differences in indicated sources in subgroups distinguished based on gender, sex, place of living, place of work and the distance between place of living and the nearest mobile phone base station (MPBS). The cross-sectional study aiming to describe and analyze the population of EHS subjects was performed using a web-based questionnaire. The full survey consisted of 32 questions and concerned participants' baseline characteristics and details on sensitivity to electronic devices. Participants were regarded as EHS if they answered "yes" to the question "Do the electric/electronic/telecommunication devices negatively affect your well-being?" and indicated at least one device which in their opinion had such an impact. We identified 408 EHS subjects, out of which 288 (70.73%) were females and 120 (29.27%) were males. Phones, especially mobile devices, were attributed to negative health outcomes by the highest number of subjects (309, 75.74% and 267, 65.44% for phones and mobile phones, respectively). Additional subgroup analysis indicated that older participants and participants who live closer to MPBS more often complained of physical symptoms attributed to MPBS impact (p = .02 and p < .01, respectively). Phones, especially mobile devices, are the most important source of EMF influencing EHS subjects. People who self-reported living closer to MPBS and older individuals seem to be remarkably more concerned about MPBS health impact. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Conclusions Phones, especially mobile devices, are the most important source of EMF negatively affecting electrosensitive subjects, followed by laptops, personal computers and Wi-Fi routers. People who self-reported living closer to MPBS and older individuals seem to be remarkably concerned about MPBS health impact. Nevertheless, analysis of available literature on the subject indicates significant discrepancy in sources of EMF adversely affecting well- being of EHS subjects, indicating heterogeneous nature of the condition.

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

PopulationSelf-identified electrohypersensitive (EHS) individuals recruited via a web-based questionnaire

Sample size408

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a web-based cross-sectional questionnaire, 408 participants met the study’s EHS definition. Phones (especially mobile phones) were most frequently attributed to negative health outcomes (309/408 for phones; 267/408 for mobile phones). Older participants and those reporting living closer to a mobile phone base station more often reported physical symptoms attributed to MPBS impact (p = .02 and p < .01, respectively).

Outcomes measured

Self-reported negative health outcomes/well-being effects attributed to EMF sources
Self-reported physical symptoms attributed to mobile phone base stations (MPBS)
Concern/attribution of symptoms to specific EMF sources

Limitations

Cross-sectional, questionnaire-based design
EHS status defined by self-report and attribution to devices
Web-based recruitment may introduce selection bias
Outcomes are attributions/concerns rather than objectively measured exposure or health endpoints
Exposure metrics (frequency, field strength, SAR) not reported in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "multiple EMF sources (phones/mobile phones, laptops, personal computers, Wi‑Fi routers, mobile phone base stations)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Self-identified electrohypersensitive (EHS) individuals recruited via a web-based questionnaire",
  "sample_size": 408,
  "outcomes": [
    "Self-reported negative health outcomes/well-being effects attributed to EMF sources",
    "Self-reported physical symptoms attributed to mobile phone base stations (MPBS)",
    "Concern/attribution of symptoms to specific EMF sources"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a web-based cross-sectional questionnaire, 408 participants met the study’s EHS definition. Phones (especially mobile phones) were most frequently attributed to negative health outcomes (309/408 for phones; 267/408 for mobile phones). Older participants and those reporting living closer to a mobile phone base station more often reported physical symptoms attributed to MPBS impact (p = .02 and p < .01, respectively).",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Cross-sectional, questionnaire-based design",
    "EHS status defined by self-report and attribution to devices",
    "Web-based recruitment may introduce selection bias",
    "Outcomes are attributions/concerns rather than objectively measured exposure or health endpoints",
    "Exposure metrics (frequency, field strength, SAR) not reported in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electrohypersensitivity",
    "EHS",
    "questionnaire",
    "cross-sectional",
    "self-report",
    "mobile phones",
    "phones",
    "Wi-Fi routers",
    "laptops",
    "personal computers",
    "mobile phone base stations",
    "MPBS"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Addresses EHS and perceived health impacts from common RF sources; potentially relevant to broader EMF health guidance discussions."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1080/15368378.2020.1839489
PubMed: 33100040

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library