Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields: a content analysis of British newspaper reports.

PloS one · 2013 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 4596

Study snapshot

PublicationPloS one · 2013

Study typeother

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) is a controversial condition in which people describe symptoms following exposure to electromagnetic fields from everyday electrical devices. However, double-blind experiments have found no convincing evidence that electromagnetic fields cause these symptoms. In this study, we assessed whether recent newspaper reporting in the UK reflected this scientific evidence. We searched a database of newspaper articles to identify all those that contained IEI-EMF related keywords and selected a random sample of 60 for content analysis. For our primary outcomes, we assessed how many articles mainly or wholly presented an electromagnetic cause for IEI-EMF and how many discussed unproven treatments for the condition such as strategies intended to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields or the use of complementary and alternative therapies. We also assessed whether the type of information source used by a newspaper article (e.g. scientist, person with IEI-EMF, politician) or the type of newspaper (broadsheet, tabloid, local or regional) was associated with either outcome. Of the 60 articles, 43 (71.7%) presented a mainly electromagnetic cause, compared to 13 (21.7%) which presented mainly non-electromagnetic causes and 4 (6.7%) which did not discuss a cause. 29 (48.3%) did not mention any potential treatment, while 24 (40.0%) mentioned eletromagnetic field related strategies and 12 (20.0%) mentioned complementary or alternative therapies. Articles which quoted someone with IEI-EMF were significantly more likely to report an electromagnetic cause and to present unproven treatments. Those which used a scientist as a source were more likely to present a non-electromagnetic cause for the condition. The widespread poor reporting we identified is disappointing and has the potential for to encourage more people to misattribute their symptoms to electromagnetic fields. Scientists should remain engaged with the media to counteract this effect.

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 typeother

Effect directionunclear

PopulationBritish newspaper articles (UK) about idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF)

Sample size60

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a random sample of 60 UK newspaper articles, 43 (71.7%) mainly presented an electromagnetic cause for IEI-EMF, 13 (21.7%) mainly presented non-electromagnetic causes, and 4 (6.7%) did not discuss a cause. Nearly half (48.3%) mentioned no treatment; 40.0% mentioned EMF-related exposure-reduction strategies and 20.0% mentioned complementary/alternative therapies. Articles quoting someone with IEI-EMF were more likely to report an electromagnetic cause and unproven treatments, while those using a scientist as a source were more likely to present a non-electromagnetic cause.

Outcomes measured

Proportion of articles mainly/wholly presenting an electromagnetic cause for IEI-EMF
Proportion of articles discussing unproven treatments (EMF exposure-reduction strategies; complementary/alternative therapies)
Association of information source type (e.g., scientist, person with IEI-EMF, politician) with reporting of cause and treatments
Association of newspaper type (broadsheet, tabloid, local/regional) with reporting of cause and treatments

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "everyday electrical devices",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "British newspaper articles (UK) about idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF)",
  "sample_size": 60,
  "outcomes": [
    "Proportion of articles mainly/wholly presenting an electromagnetic cause for IEI-EMF",
    "Proportion of articles discussing unproven treatments (EMF exposure-reduction strategies; complementary/alternative therapies)",
    "Association of information source type (e.g., scientist, person with IEI-EMF, politician) with reporting of cause and treatments",
    "Association of newspaper type (broadsheet, tabloid, local/regional) with reporting of cause and treatments"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a random sample of 60 UK newspaper articles, 43 (71.7%) mainly presented an electromagnetic cause for IEI-EMF, 13 (21.7%) mainly presented non-electromagnetic causes, and 4 (6.7%) did not discuss a cause. Nearly half (48.3%) mentioned no treatment; 40.0% mentioned EMF-related exposure-reduction strategies and 20.0% mentioned complementary/alternative therapies. Articles quoting someone with IEI-EMF were more likely to report an electromagnetic cause and unproven treatments, while those using a scientist as a source were more likely to present a non-electromagnetic cause.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "IEI-EMF",
    "idiopathic environmental intolerance",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "newspaper reporting",
    "media content analysis",
    "UK",
    "unproven treatments",
    "complementary and alternative therapies"
  ],
  "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: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065713
PubMed: 23799038

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library