IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v11y2014i12p12969-12982d43461.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

General Practitioners’ Knowledge and Concern about Electromagnetic Fields

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff

    (Unit of Health Promotion Research, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg 6700, Denmark)

  • Jürgen Breckenkamp

    (Department of Epidemiology and International Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld 33615, Germany)

  • Pia Veldt Larsen

    (Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense 5000, Denmark)

  • Bernd Kowall

    (Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Center of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen 45147, Germany)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff & Jürgen Breckenkamp & Pia Veldt Larsen & Bernd Kowall, 2014. "General Practitioners’ Knowledge and Concern about Electromagnetic Fields," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:11:y:2014:i:12:p:12969-12982:d:43461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/12/12969/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/12/12969/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernd Kowall & Jürgen Breckenkamp & Kristina Heyer & Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff, 2010. "German wide cross sectional survey on health impacts of electromagnetic fields in the view of general practitioners," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 55(5), pages 507-512, October.
    2. Frédéric Vandermoere, 2008. "Hazard Perception, Risk Perception, and the Need for Decontamination by Residents Exposed to Soil Pollution: The Role of Sustainability and the Limits of Expert Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 387-398, April.
    3. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    4. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    5. Donald MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Robert G. Mason & John Detweiler & Stephen E. Binney & Brian Dodd, 1994. "Perceived Risks of Radioactive Waste Transport Through Oregon: Results of a Statewide Survey," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 5-14, February.
    6. Derick A. Akompab & Peng Bi & Susan Williams & Janet Grant & Iain A. Walker & Martha Augoustinos, 2013. "Heat Waves and Climate Change: Applying the Health Belief Model to Identify Predictors of Risk Perception and Adaptive Behaviours in Adelaide, Australia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-21, May.
    7. Adwin Bosschaart & Wilmad Kuiper & Joop Schee & Judith Schoonenboom, 2013. "The role of knowledge in students’ flood-risk perception," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 69(3), pages 1661-1680, December.
    8. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt‐Marie Drottz‐Sjöberg, 1991. "Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Employees," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 607-618, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cécile Marie & Didier Lémery & Françoise Vendittelli & Marie-Pierre Sauvant-Rochat, 2016. "Perception of Environmental Risks and Health Promotion Attitudes of French Perinatal Health Professionals," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Vern R. Walker, 1995. "Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 603-609, October.
    3. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    4. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Theresa A. K. Knoblauch & Michael Stauffacher & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2018. "Communicating Low‐Probability High‐Consequence Risk, Uncertainty and Expert Confidence: Induced Seismicity of Deep Geothermal Energy and Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 694-709, April.
    6. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2021. "The Impact of Psychological Distance on Judging Satisfaction with Nuclear Energy Policy via Knowledge Calibration and an Integrated Causal Path Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-11, September.
    7. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    8. Filimonau, Viachaslau & Högström, Michaela, 2017. "The attitudes of UK tourists to the use of biofuels in civil aviation: An exploratory study," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 84-94.
    9. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    10. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    11. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    12. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    13. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    14. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Sarah-Kristina Wist & Sinika-Marie Steinhilber & Ulrike Triemer, 2014. "Using participation to create resilience: how to involve citizens in designing a hospital system?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 208-223, June.
    15. Brianne Suldovsky & William K. Hallman, 2022. "The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Lennart Sjöberg, 1998. "Worry and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 85-93, February.
    17. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    18. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    20. Mika Kivimäki & Raija Kalimo & Simo Salminen, 1995. "Perceived Nuclear Risk, Organizational Commitment, and Appraisals of Management: A Study of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 391-396, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:11:y:2014:i:12:p:12969-12982:d:43461. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.