General practitioners' knowledge and concern about electromagnetic fields.

International journal of environmental research and public health · 2014 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 4642

Study snapshot

PublicationInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2014

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Our aim is to explore general practitioners' (GPs') knowledge about EMF, and to assess whether different knowledge structures are related to the GPs' concern about EMF. Random samples were drawn from lists of GPs in Germany in 2008. Knowledge about EMF was assessed by seven items. A latent class analysis was conducted to identify latent structures in GPs' knowledge. Further, the GPs' concern about EMF health risk was measured using a score comprising six items. The association between GPs' concern about EMF and their knowledge was analysed using multiple linear regression. In total 435 (response rate 23.3%) GPs participated in the study. Four groups were identified by the latent class analysis: 43.1% of the GPs gave mainly correct answers; 23.7% of the GPs answered low frequency EMF questions correctly; 19.2% answered only the questions relating EMF with health risks, and 14.0% answered mostly "don't know". There was no association between GPs' latent knowledge classes or between the number of correct answers given by the GPs and their EMF concern, whereas the number of incorrect answers was associated with EMF concern. Greater EMF concern in subjects with more incorrect answers suggests paying particular attention to misconceptions regarding EMF in risk communication.

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 directionmixed

PopulationGeneral practitioners (GPs) in Germany (sampled in 2008)

Sample size435

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Among 435 participating GPs, latent class analysis identified four knowledge groups: mainly correct answers (43.1%), correct on low-frequency EMF questions (23.7%), correct only on EMF-health risk questions (19.2%), and mostly "don't know" (14.0%). There was no association between latent knowledge class (or number of correct answers) and EMF concern, but a higher number of incorrect answers was associated with greater EMF concern.

Outcomes measured

GPs' knowledge about EMF (7-item assessment; latent knowledge classes)
GPs' concern about EMF health risk (6-item score)
Association between EMF knowledge and EMF concern (multiple linear regression)

Limitations

Cross-sectional design (associations only)
Low response rate (23.3%)

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) in Germany (sampled in 2008)",
  "sample_size": 435,
  "outcomes": [
    "GPs' knowledge about EMF (7-item assessment; latent knowledge classes)",
    "GPs' concern about EMF health risk (6-item score)",
    "Association between EMF knowledge and EMF concern (multiple linear regression)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Among 435 participating GPs, latent class analysis identified four knowledge groups: mainly correct answers (43.1%), correct on low-frequency EMF questions (23.7%), correct only on EMF-health risk questions (19.2%), and mostly \"don't know\" (14.0%). There was no association between latent knowledge class (or number of correct answers) and EMF concern, but a higher number of incorrect answers was associated with greater EMF concern.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Cross-sectional design (associations only)",
    "Low response rate (23.3%)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "general practitioners",
    "knowledge",
    "concern",
    "risk perception",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "latent class analysis",
    "Germany"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.32,
      "reason": "Focuses on EMF knowledge/misconceptions and risk communication among health professionals, relevant to EMF health-risk guidance 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: 10.3390/ijerph111212969
PubMed: 25514150

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library