Kowall Bernd, Breckenkamp Jürgen, Berg-Beckhoff Gabriele
German Diabetes Center at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany
Department of Epidemiology and International Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.
J Prim Care Community Health. 2015 Jan;6(1):21-8. doi: 10.1177/2150131914546332. Epub 2014 Aug 20.
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.
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.
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.
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.
全科医生（GP）在为担心电磁场（EMF）对健康产生影响的患者提供咨询方面发挥着关键作用。我们比较了使用传统医学（COM）的全科医生和使用补充与替代医学（CAM）的全科医生对EMF风险的认知。此外，我们评估了替代医学的类型是否会对结果产生影响。
从德国全科医生名单中随机抽取2795名全科医生，向他们发送一份关于EMF相关主题的长或短的自填式邮政问卷。采用调整后的逻辑回归模型来评估替代医学教育与感知EMF风险的各个方面之间的关联。
在使用补充与替代医学的全科医生中，对EMF的担忧、对EMF的误解以及对科学组织的不信任更为普遍。使用补充与替代医学的全科医生更常错误地认为使用手机会导致头部温度升高超过1°C（优势比[OR]=2.2，95%置信区间[CI]=1.5 - 3.3），更常不信任联邦辐射防护办公室（OR = 2.2，95% CI = 1.4 - 3.6），更常担心手机基站（OR = 2.4，95% CI = 1.6 - 3.6），更常将自己的健康问题归因于EMF（OR = 3.2，95% CI = 1.8 - 5.6），并且更常报告至少有1次EMF咨询（OR = 2.5，95% CI = 1.6 - 3.9）。使用顺势疗法的全科医生比使用针灸或自然疗法的全科医生认为EMF风险更高。
在德国全科医生中，对常见EMF来源的担忧非常普遍。使用补充与替代医学的全科医生比使用传统医学的全科医生认为EMF与健康问题之间的关联更强。需要为全科医生，特别是使用补充与替代医学的全科医生提供基于证据的关于EMF风险的信息。这是全科医生能够根据当前科学知识向患者告知EMF与健康相关信息的前提条件。
