Prevalence of various environmental intolerances in a Swedish and Finnish general population

2017 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 2214

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Prevalence of various environmental intolerances in a Swedish and Finnish general population Karvala K, Sainio M, Palmquist E, Nyback MH, Nordin S. Prevalence of various environmental intolerances in a Swedish and Finnish general population. Environ Res. 2017 Nov 18;161:220-228. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.014. Abstract OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of various environmental intolerances (EIs), using several criteria in a Swedish and a Finnish general population. Ill-health attributed to low-level environmental exposures is a commonly encountered challenge in occupational and environmental medicine. METHODS: In population-based questionnaire surveys, the Västerbotten Environmental Health Study (Sweden) and the Österbotten Environmental Health Study (Finland), EI was inquired by one-item questions on symptom attribution to chemicals, certain buildings, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and difficulties tolerating sounds. The respondents were asked whether they react with central nervous system (CNS) symptoms or have a physician-diagnosed EI attributed to the corresponding exposures. Prevalence rates were determined for different age and sex groups and the Swedish and Finnish samples in general. RESULTS: In the Swedish sample (n = 3406), 12.2% had self-reported intolerance to chemicals, 4.8% to certain buildings, 2.7% to EMFs, and 9.2% to sounds. The prevalence rates for the Finnish sample (n = 1535) were 15.2%, 7.2%, 1.6%, and 5.4%, respectively, differing statistically significantly from the Swedish. EI to chemicals and certain buildings was more prevalent in Finland, while EI to EMFs and sounds more prevalent in Sweden. The prevalence rates for EI with CNS-symptoms were lower and physician-diagnosed EIs considerably lower than self-reported EIs. Women reported EI more often than men and the young (18-39 years) to a lesser degree than middle-aged and elderly. CONCLUSIONS: The findings reflect the heterogeneous nature of EI. The differences in EI prevalence between the countries might reflect disparities concerning which exposures people perceive harmful and focus their attention to. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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

PopulationSwedish and Finnish general population (questionnaire survey respondents)

Sample size4941

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In the Swedish sample (n=3406), 2.7% reported intolerance attributed to EMFs; in the Finnish sample (n=1535), 1.6% reported intolerance attributed to EMFs, with statistically significant differences between countries. Prevalence estimates based on CNS symptoms were lower than self-reported intolerance, and physician-diagnosed intolerances were considerably lower than self-reported; women reported environmental intolerance more often than men.

Outcomes measured

Self-reported environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
Self-reported environmental intolerance attributed to chemicals
Self-reported environmental intolerance attributed to certain buildings
Self-reported environmental intolerance attributed to sounds
Environmental intolerance with central nervous system (CNS) symptoms
Physician-diagnosed environmental intolerance

Limitations

Environmental intolerance was assessed by questionnaire using one-item questions (self-report).
Exposure levels were not measured; attribution to EMFs/other exposures was based on respondents' perceptions.
Cross-sectional design limits causal inference.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "general environmental exposures (including electromagnetic fields)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Swedish and Finnish general population (questionnaire survey respondents)",
  "sample_size": 4941,
  "outcomes": [
    "Self-reported environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs)",
    "Self-reported environmental intolerance attributed to chemicals",
    "Self-reported environmental intolerance attributed to certain buildings",
    "Self-reported environmental intolerance attributed to sounds",
    "Environmental intolerance with central nervous system (CNS) symptoms",
    "Physician-diagnosed environmental intolerance"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In the Swedish sample (n=3406), 2.7% reported intolerance attributed to EMFs; in the Finnish sample (n=1535), 1.6% reported intolerance attributed to EMFs, with statistically significant differences between countries. Prevalence estimates based on CNS symptoms were lower than self-reported intolerance, and physician-diagnosed intolerances were considerably lower than self-reported; women reported environmental intolerance more often than men.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Environmental intolerance was assessed by questionnaire using one-item questions (self-report).",
    "Exposure levels were not measured; attribution to EMFs/other exposures was based on respondents' perceptions.",
    "Cross-sectional design limits causal inference."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "environmental intolerance",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF intolerance",
    "prevalence",
    "questionnaire",
    "Sweden",
    "Finland",
    "central nervous system symptoms",
    "physician-diagnosed"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Study framed as relevant to occupational and environmental medicine, though conducted in general populations."
    }
  ]
}

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.2017.11.014
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library