German wide cross sectional survey on health impacts of electromagnetic fields in the view of general practitioners.

International journal of public health · 2010 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 4405

Among responders, 37.3% (short questionnaire) and 57.5% (long questionnaire) agreed that some persons' health complaints are caused by EMF even when legal limit values are met. A late responder analysis for the short questionnaire suggested a lower estimate o…

Study snapshot

PublicationInternational journal of public health · 2010

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The proportion of general practitioners (GPs) in Germany who assume health impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMF) is assessed. Moreover, factors associated with this risk perception are examined. METHODS: A 7% random sample was drawn from online lists of all the GPs working in Germany. 1,867 doctors received a long version of a self-administered postal questionnaire about EMF and health (response rate 23.3%), 928 doctors received a short version (response rate 49.1%). RESULTS: 37.3% of responders to the short and 57.5% of responders to the long questionnaire agreed "that there are persons whose health complaints are caused by EMF when legal limit values are met". A late responder analysis for the survey with the short questionnaire led to a still lower estimate of 29% for GPs believing in health-relevant effects of EMF. CONCLUSION: About a third of German GPs associate EMF with health complaints and thus deviate considerably from current scientific knowledge. To avoid a strong selection bias in the surveys of the perception of EMF risks, use of short questionnaires and late responder analysis are recommended.

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

PopulationGeneral practitioners (GPs) working in Germany

Sample size2795

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

GPs' belief/risk perception that EMF can cause health complaints when legal limit values are met
Factors associated with EMF risk perception (mentioned as examined; specific factors not reported in abstract)
Survey response rates and potential selection bias (short vs long questionnaire; late responder analysis)

Limitations

Low response rate for long questionnaire (23.3%) and moderate for short questionnaire (49.1%), suggesting potential selection bias
Outcome is perception/belief rather than measured health effects
Details on associated factors examined are not provided in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "General practitioners (GPs) working in Germany",
  "sample_size": 2795,
  "outcomes": [
    "GPs' belief/risk perception that EMF can cause health complaints when legal limit values are met",
    "Factors associated with EMF risk perception (mentioned as examined; specific factors not reported in abstract)",
    "Survey response rates and potential selection bias (short vs long questionnaire; late responder analysis)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Among responders, 37.3% (short questionnaire) and 57.5% (long questionnaire) agreed that some persons' health complaints are caused by EMF even when legal limit values are met. A late responder analysis for the short questionnaire suggested a lower estimate of 29% believing in health-relevant effects of EMF.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Low response rate for long questionnaire (23.3%) and moderate for short questionnaire (49.1%), suggesting potential selection bias",
    "Outcome is perception/belief rather than measured health effects",
    "Details on associated factors examined are not provided in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF",
    "risk perception",
    "general practitioners",
    "Germany",
    "cross-sectional survey",
    "questionnaire",
    "selection bias",
    "late responder analysis"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

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: 10.1007/s00038-009-0110-2
PubMed: 20020175

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library