General practitioners using complementary and alternative medicine differ from general practitioners using conventional medicine in their view of the risks of electromagnetic fields: a postal survey from Germany.

Journal of primary care & community health · 2015 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 4670

Study snapshot

PublicationJournal of primary care & community health · 2015

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: General practitioners (GPs) play a key role in consulting patients worried about health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF). We compared GPs using conventional medicine (COM) with GPs using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) concerning their perception of EMF risks. Moreover, we assessed whether the kind of alternative medicine has an influence on the results. METHODS: A total of 2795 GPs drawn randomly from lists of German GPs were sent an either long or short self-administered postal questionnaire on EMF-related topics. Adjusted logistic regression models were fitted to assess the association of an education in alternative medicine with various aspects of perceiving EMF risks. RESULTS: Concern about EMF, misconceptions about EMF, and distrust toward scientific organizations are more prevalent in CAM-GPs. CAM-GPs more often falsely believed that mobile phone use can lead to head warming of more than 1°C (odds ratio [OR] = 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-3.3), more often distrusted the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.4-3.6), were more often concerned about mobile phone base stations (OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.6-3.6), more often attributed own health complaints to EMF (OR = 3.2, 95% CI = 1.8-5.6), and more often reported at least 1 EMF consultation (OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.6-3.9). GPs using homeopathy perceived EMF as more risky than GPs using acupuncture or naturopathic treatment. CONCLUSION: Concern about common EMF sources is highly prevalent among German GPs. CAM-GPs perceive stronger associations between EMF and health problems than COM-GPs. There is a need for evidence-based information about EMF risks for GPs and particularly for CAM-GPs. This is the precondition that GPs can inform patients about EMF and health in line with current scientific knowledge.

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

PopulationGerman general practitioners (GPs), comparing complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) vs conventional medicine (COM) users

Sample size2795

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a postal survey of 2795 German GPs, CAM-GPs reported higher concern about EMF, more misconceptions, and more distrust toward scientific organizations than COM-GPs. CAM-GPs were more often concerned about mobile phone base stations (OR=2.4, 95% CI=1.6-3.6), more often falsely believed mobile phone use can warm the head by >1°C (OR=2.2, 95% CI=1.5-3.3), more often distrusted the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (OR=2.2, 95% CI=1.4-3.6), more often attributed own health complaints to EMF (OR=3.2, 95% CI=1.8-5.6), and more often reported at least one EMF consultation (OR=2.5, 95% CI=1.6-3.9).

Outcomes measured

Perception of EMF risks (concern about EMF sources)
Misconceptions about EMF (e.g., belief mobile phone use can warm head >1°C)
Distrust toward scientific organizations (e.g., Federal Office for Radiation Protection)
Attribution of own health complaints to EMF
Reporting at least one EMF-related patient consultation
Differences by type of alternative medicine (homeopathy vs acupuncture/naturopathy)

Limitations

Cross-sectional survey design (cannot establish causality)
Self-administered postal questionnaire (potential response and reporting bias)
Exposure not measured; outcomes are perceptions/beliefs rather than health effects

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "mobile phone; mobile phone base stations",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "German general practitioners (GPs), comparing complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) vs conventional medicine (COM) users",
  "sample_size": 2795,
  "outcomes": [
    "Perception of EMF risks (concern about EMF sources)",
    "Misconceptions about EMF (e.g., belief mobile phone use can warm head >1°C)",
    "Distrust toward scientific organizations (e.g., Federal Office for Radiation Protection)",
    "Attribution of own health complaints to EMF",
    "Reporting at least one EMF-related patient consultation",
    "Differences by type of alternative medicine (homeopathy vs acupuncture/naturopathy)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a postal survey of 2795 German GPs, CAM-GPs reported higher concern about EMF, more misconceptions, and more distrust toward scientific organizations than COM-GPs. CAM-GPs were more often concerned about mobile phone base stations (OR=2.4, 95% CI=1.6-3.6), more often falsely believed mobile phone use can warm the head by >1°C (OR=2.2, 95% CI=1.5-3.3), more often distrusted the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (OR=2.2, 95% CI=1.4-3.6), more often attributed own health complaints to EMF (OR=3.2, 95% CI=1.8-5.6), and more often reported at least one EMF consultation (OR=2.5, 95% CI=1.6-3.9).",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Cross-sectional survey design (cannot establish causality)",
    "Self-administered postal questionnaire (potential response and reporting bias)",
    "Exposure not measured; outcomes are perceptions/beliefs rather than health effects"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "general practitioners",
    "complementary and alternative medicine",
    "conventional medicine",
    "risk perception",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "mobile phones",
    "base stations",
    "misconceptions",
    "distrust",
    "Germany",
    "postal survey",
    "logistic regression",
    "homeopathy",
    "acupuncture",
    "naturopathy"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.32,
      "reason": "Mentions distrust toward a radiation protection scientific organization (Federal Office for Radiation Protection) and need for evidence-based EMF risk information."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1177/2150131914546332
PubMed: 25142575

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library