Table 4 |
|||
|
Number of GPs who believed that EMFs can cause symptoms |
|||
|
all GPs |
% (95% C.I.) |
OR (95% C.I.)a |
pb |
|
|
|||
|
61.4 (56.1 – 66.4) |
|||
|
Sex |
|||
|
Male |
57.8 (51.9 – 63.5) |
1 (reference) |
|
|
Female |
76.1 (64.7 – 84.7) |
1.76 (0.89 – 3.53) |
0.095 |
|
Age group |
|||
|
<35 – 44 |
70.3 (58.2 – 80.1) |
1 (reference) |
|
|
45 – 54 |
66.7 (58.1 – 74.3) |
0.76 (0.38 – 1.53) |
|
|
55 – 64 |
55.1 (46.7 – 63.1) |
0.65 (0.33 – 1.29) |
|
|
≥ 65 |
25 (8.9 – 53.2) |
0.22 (0.04 – 1.2) |
0.25 |
|
Majority of patients comes from rural/urban area |
|||
|
Majority from rural area |
63.7 (55 – 71.6) |
1 (reference) |
|
|
Majority from urban or agglomeration area |
54.7 (46.4 – 62.7) |
0.57 (0.33 – 0.99) |
|
|
Equally urban or agglomeration/rural |
70.5 (59.6 – 79.5) |
0.85 (0.43 – 1.68) |
0.12 |
|
Self-rated information level |
|||
|
Rather bad |
58.1 (46.7 – 68.7) |
1 (reference) |
|
|
Middle |
66.5 (59.1 – 73.1) |
1.22 (0.67 – 2.23) |
|
|
Rather good |
56.7 (46.4 – 66.4) |
0.76 (0.39 – 1.5) |
0.27 |
|
Complementary-medicine certificate |
|||
|
None |
54.6 (48.8 – 60.3) |
1 (reference) |
|
|
At least onec |
94.8 (85.9 – 98.2) |
13.75 (4.09 – 46.2) |
<0.0001 |
|
|
|||
|
Percentage of GPs who believe that EMF can cause symptoms, stratified by GP-characteristics. aOdds ratio of believing that EMF can cause symptoms compared to not believing or being unsure about it after multiple logistic regression (model variables: sex, age group, urban/rural patient collective, self rated information level and complementary-medicine certificate). bp-value after likelihood ratio test cAt least one of the following: traditional Chinese medicine/acupuncture, neural therapy, homeopathy or anthroposophical medicine. |
|||
|
Huss and Röösli BMC Public Health 2006 6:267 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-267 |
|||
