Risks perception of electromagnetic fields in Taiwan: the influence of psychopathology and the degree of sensitivity to electromagnetic fields.

Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2013 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 4618

Study snapshot

PublicationRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2013

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Little is known about the perceived health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and factors associated with risk perception in non-Western countries. Psychological conditions and risk perception have been postulated as factors that facilitate the attribution of health complaints to environmental factors. This study investigated people's perceived risks of EMFs and other environmental sources, as well as the relationships between risk perception, psychopathology, and the degree of self-reported sensitivity to EMFs. A total of 1,251 adults selected from a nationwide telephone interviewing system database responded to a telephone survey about the relationships between environmental sources and human health. The interview included questions assessing participants' psychiatric conditions and the presence and degree of sensitivity to EMFs. One hundred and seventy participants were self-identified as having sensitivity to EMFs, and 141 met the criteria for psychiatric conditions without EMF sensitivity. More than half of the survey respondents considered power lines and mobile phone base stations to affect people's health to a big extent. Higher sensitivity to EMFs, psychopathology, being female, being married, more years of education, and having a catastrophic illness had positive associations with perceived risks of EMF-related environmental sources as well as for all environmental sources combined. We observed no moderating effect of psychopathology on the association between degree of sensitivity to EMF and risk perception. Thus, psychopathology had influence on general people's risk perception without having influence on the relationship between people's degree of sensitivity to EMF and risk perception. The plausible explanations are discussed in the text.

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

PopulationAdults in Taiwan (nationwide telephone survey respondents)

Sample size1251

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a nationwide telephone survey of 1,251 adults in Taiwan, more than half of respondents reported that power lines and mobile phone base stations affect people's health to a big extent. Higher self-reported sensitivity to EMFs and psychopathology (as well as female sex, being married, more education, and catastrophic illness) were positively associated with perceived risks of EMF-related sources and with perceived risks across all environmental sources combined; psychopathology did not moderate the association between EMF sensitivity and risk perception.

Outcomes measured

Perceived health risks of EMF-related sources (risk perception)
Self-reported sensitivity to EMFs
Psychiatric conditions/psychopathology
Perceived risks of environmental sources (combined)

Limitations

Cross-sectional survey design (associations only)
Risk perception and EMF sensitivity were self-reported
Exposure was not objectively measured (focus on perceived risks rather than measured EMF exposure)
Psychiatric conditions assessed via survey questions (details not provided in abstract)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "power lines; mobile phone base stations; other environmental sources",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Adults in Taiwan (nationwide telephone survey respondents)",
  "sample_size": 1251,
  "outcomes": [
    "Perceived health risks of EMF-related sources (risk perception)",
    "Self-reported sensitivity to EMFs",
    "Psychiatric conditions/psychopathology",
    "Perceived risks of environmental sources (combined)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a nationwide telephone survey of 1,251 adults in Taiwan, more than half of respondents reported that power lines and mobile phone base stations affect people's health to a big extent. Higher self-reported sensitivity to EMFs and psychopathology (as well as female sex, being married, more education, and catastrophic illness) were positively associated with perceived risks of EMF-related sources and with perceived risks across all environmental sources combined; psychopathology did not moderate the association between EMF sensitivity and risk perception.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Cross-sectional survey design (associations only)",
    "Risk perception and EMF sensitivity were self-reported",
    "Exposure was not objectively measured (focus on perceived risks rather than measured EMF exposure)",
    "Psychiatric conditions assessed via survey questions (details not provided in abstract)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "risk perception",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF sensitivity",
    "idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to EMF",
    "psychopathology",
    "telephone survey",
    "Taiwan",
    "power lines",
    "mobile phone base stations"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Addresses public risk perception of EMF sources (power lines, base stations), relevant to EMF health risk communication context."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1111/risa.12041
PubMed: 23551091

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library