Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: a psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach.

PAPER pubmed Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 1994 Other Effect: mixed Evidence: Low

Read original paper → DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00293.x PMID: 7800866 Evidence Lab

Abstract

Potential health risks from exposure to power-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) have become an issue of significant public concern. This study evaluates a brochure designed to communicate EMF health risks from a scientific perspective. The study utilized a pretest-posttest design in which respondents judged various sources of EMF (and other) health and safety risks, both before reading the brochure and after. Respondents assessed risks on dimensions similar to those utilized in previous studies of risk perception. In addition, detailed ratings were made that probed respondents' beliefs about the possible causal effects of EMF exposure. The findings suggest that naive beliefs about the potential of EMF exposure to cause harm were highly influenced by specific content elements of the brochure. The implications for using risk-communication approaches based on communicating scientific uncertainty are discussed.

AI evidence extraction

At a glance

Study type

Other

Effect direction

mixed

Population

—

Sample size

—

Exposure

ELF power-frequency

Evidence strength

Low

Confidence: 66% · Peer-reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a pretest-posttest evaluation of a brochure communicating EMF health risks, respondents’ naive beliefs about the potential for EMF exposure to cause harm were highly influenced by specific content elements of the brochure.

Outcomes measured

Risk perception ratings of EMF and other health/safety risks (pre/post brochure)
Beliefs about possible causal effects of EMF exposure
Influence of brochure content elements on beliefs about EMF harm

Limitations

Sample size not reported in abstract
Population characteristics not described in abstract
No details provided on specific brochure content elements or magnitude of changes
Outcome measures and statistical results not reported in abstract

Suggested hubs

who-icnirp (0.2)
Discusses communicating scientific uncertainty about EMF health risks, which may relate to institutional risk communication, but no specific organization is mentioned.

View raw extracted JSON

{
    "study_type": "other",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "ELF",
        "source": "power-frequency",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": null,
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Risk perception ratings of EMF and other health/safety risks (pre/post brochure)",
        "Beliefs about possible causal effects of EMF exposure",
        "Influence of brochure content elements on beliefs about EMF harm"
    ],
    "main_findings": "In a pretest-posttest evaluation of a brochure communicating EMF health risks, respondents’ naive beliefs about the potential for EMF exposure to cause harm were highly influenced by specific content elements of the brochure.",
    "effect_direction": "mixed",
    "limitations": [
        "Sample size not reported in abstract",
        "Population characteristics not described in abstract",
        "No details provided on specific brochure content elements or magnitude of changes",
        "Outcome measures and statistical results not reported in abstract"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "low",
    "confidence": 0.66000000000000003108624468950438313186168670654296875,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "electromagnetic fields",
        "power-frequency",
        "ELF",
        "risk perception",
        "risk communication",
        "brochure",
        "scientific uncertainty",
        "pretest-posttest",
        "psychometric evaluation"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.200000000000000011102230246251565404236316680908203125,
            "reason": "Discusses communicating scientific uncertainty about EMF health risks, which may relate to institutional risk communication, but no specific organization is mentioned."
        }
    ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract/metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Comments

No comments yet.