Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and risk perception: A pilot experimental study

2019 · Mixed · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

MixedModerate evidencePaper 1860

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and risk perception: A pilot experimental study Berihun M., Zeleke BM, Bhatt CR, Brzozek C, Abramson MJ, Freudenstein F, Croft RJ, Wiedemann P, Benke G. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and risk perception: A pilot experimental study. Environmental Research. 170:493-499. March 2019. doi.org Highlights • People may get concerned about radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposures. • We examined people's risk perceptions to RF-EMF from mobile phone base stations. • Personal RF-EMF exposure measurement and provision did not affect risk perception. • Personal exposure knowledge improves confidence in self-protection from RF-EMF. Abstract Background Exposure to far-field radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) has raised public concerns in recent decades. However, it is not known if individuals' perception towards the health risks of RF-EMF is dependent on their knowledge of the objectively measured personal RF-EMF exposure levels. Objectives This pilot study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of objectively measuring personal RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone base stations (MPBS) and to determine if the risk perception of people to the potential health risk of exposure to RF-EMF from MPBS is dependent on their knowledge of personal RF-EMF exposure levels. Design An experimental study was conducted in 383 adults, recruited in Melbourne, Australia. Participants were randomized to one of the three groups: 1) basic information group who were provided with basic information about RF-EMF to read prior to completing a risk perception assessment questionnaire; 2) precautionary group who were provided with an information pack which included precautionary messages; and 3) personal exposure measurement group who were provided with a summary of their quantitative RF-EMF exposure from MPBS. The same basic information about RF-EMF was also given to the precautionary and personal exposure measurement groups. Results Participants had a mean (± SD) age of 36.9 ± 12.5 years; 66.7% were women. Overall, 44.1% had noticed an MPBS in their neighbourhood. The mean (SD) values (from 1 to 7) for risk perceptions to RF-EMF from MPBS were 4.02 (1.67) for basic information, 3.82 (1.62) for precautionary messages, and 3.97 (1.72) for the personal exposure measurement groups. These differences were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the personal exposure measurement group were more confident that they could protect themselves from RF-EMF than the precautionary or basic information groups. Conclusion Our findings suggest that providing people with personal RF-EMF exposure measurements may not affect their perceived risk from MPBS, but increase their confidence in protecting themselves. Conclusions In conclusion, our study demonstrated that, compared to those provided with precautionary messages and basic information, people provided with personal RF-EMF exposure data did not have significantly different scores for their exposure or risk perception towards RF-EMF in general or that from MPBS, but had greater confidence in being able to protecting themselves from RF-EMF. As a strategy, providing software apps on mobile phones that measure actual exposure could be implemented with the intention of providing realistic exposure information. This may 'demystify' the relatively abstract notion of personal RF-EMF exposure, and ultimately boost confidence in protection. Future research, preferably from a larger and more diverse sample, should aim to investigate the impact of provision of objectively measured exposure information and the knowledge of personal, as well as environmental RF-EMF exposures from both near-field and far-field sources on peoples` risk perception and risk communication vis-a-vis telecommunication technologies. sciencedirect.com

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 typerandomized_trial

Effect directionmixed

PopulationAdults recruited in Melbourne, Australia

Sample size383

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In 383 adults randomized to basic information, precautionary messages, or provision of personal quantitative RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone base stations, mean risk perception scores (1–7 scale) did not differ significantly between groups. The personal exposure measurement group reported greater confidence that they could protect themselves from RF-EMF than the other groups.

Outcomes measured

Risk perception toward RF-EMF from mobile phone base stations
Risk perception toward RF-EMF in general
Confidence in ability to protect oneself from RF-EMF
Noticing a mobile phone base station in neighbourhood

Limitations

Pilot study
Feasibility-focused study
Future research suggested with a larger and more diverse sample
Exposure information limited to far-field RF-EMF from mobile phone base stations (near-field and other sources not assessed in this study)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone base station",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Adults recruited in Melbourne, Australia",
  "sample_size": 383,
  "outcomes": [
    "Risk perception toward RF-EMF from mobile phone base stations",
    "Risk perception toward RF-EMF in general",
    "Confidence in ability to protect oneself from RF-EMF",
    "Noticing a mobile phone base station in neighbourhood"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In 383 adults randomized to basic information, precautionary messages, or provision of personal quantitative RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone base stations, mean risk perception scores (1–7 scale) did not differ significantly between groups. The personal exposure measurement group reported greater confidence that they could protect themselves from RF-EMF than the other groups.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Pilot study",
    "Feasibility-focused study",
    "Future research suggested with a larger and more diverse sample",
    "Exposure information limited to far-field RF-EMF from mobile phone base stations (near-field and other sources not assessed in this study)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "RF-EMF",
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "risk perception",
    "risk communication",
    "personal exposure measurement",
    "mobile phone base stations",
    "far-field exposure",
    "Melbourne",
    "randomized groups"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Addresses public risk perception and communication regarding RF-EMF exposure from base stations."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.058
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library