Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Het effect van de GGD brochure “GSM- en UMTS-antennes, wat betekenen ze voor uw gezondheid?” op de risicoperceptie van GSMen UMTS-antennes

  • Published:
Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen Aims and scope

De afgelopen tien jaar is het gebruik van mobiele telefonie, en daarmee ook het aantal GSM/UMTS antennes, enorm toegenomen. Onder meer deze sterke groei van de mobiele telefonie heeft de afgelopen jaren geleid tot publieke bezorgdheid over mogelijke schadelijke gezondheidseffecten van GSM/UMTS antennes. Ter ondersteuning van de publieksvoorlichting is er door GGD Nederland en het toenmalige Landelijk Centrum Medische Milieukunde een brochure gemaakt “GSM- en UMTS-antennes, wat betekenen ze voor uw gezondheid?” Het hoofddoel van deze studie was om na te gaan wat het effect is van het lezen van deze GGD brochure op de risicoperceptie van GSM/UMTS antennes. Een digitale vragenlijst werd twee keer voorgelegd aan elke deelnemer in een randomized controlled trial (RCT). Voor het trekken van de steekproef is gebruik gemaakt van een Internet onderzoekspanel. De gegevens van 365 deelnemers zijn met behulp van variantieanalyse geanalyseerd. Ten opzichte van de controlegroep blijkt het lezen van de GGD brochure in de interventiegroep te hebben geleid tot minder bezorgdheid (lagere risicoscore). Bovendien bleek dit positieve effect van de brochure het grootst bij degenen met een negatieve attitude ten opzichte van GSM/UMTS antennes (vooral ouderen en laag opgeleiden). Concluderend kunnen we stellen dat de GGD brochure een effectief hulpmiddel is in de dagelijkse GGD praktijk.

Abstract

Impact of information on risk perception from base stations

The past decade the number of mobile phone users has increased dramatically. This increase has led to the construction of more base stations. Since the Wimax net (a competitor of the UMTS net) will be introduced soon, even more base stations will be built in the near future. Public concern about adverse health effects due to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from base stations presents a major public health issue in the Netherlands. To inform the general public about EMF health risks from base stations, the Dutch public health services designed a brochure. This study evaluates the impact of this brochure on people’s risk perception. Furthermore, it was tested whether the effect of the brochure on risk perception was influenced by respondents’ attitudes towards base stations. A web-based questionnaire was administered twice in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The respondents were members of an Internet research panel. 365 adult members, aged 18 years and older, participated in this study. Results showed that after reading the brochure risk score decreased (less concerned) and, further, that this decrease was greater among those with a negative attitude (and corresponding high risk score) towards base stations. Most respondents were positive about the information in the brochure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figuur 1
Figuur 2
Figuur 3

Literatuur

  1. Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H, Keller C. Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks. Risk Analysis 2005;25:1253–1264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schreier N, Huss A, Röösli M. The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventiv Med 2006; 51: 202–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gezondheidsraad. Elektromagnetische Velden: Jaarbericht 2008. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad, 2009 (publicatienr. 2009/02).

  4. Gezondheidsraad. Ongerustheid over lokale milieufactoren. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad, 2001 (publicatienr. 2001/10).

  5. Morgan MG, Slovic P, Nair I et al. Powerline Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception. Risk Analysis 1985;5:139–149.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. MacGregor DG, Slovic P, Morgan MG. Perception of Risks From Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk-Communication Approach. Risk Analysis 1994;14:815–828.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wiedemann, P.M., Schütz, H. The Precautionary Principle and Risk Perception: Experimental Studies in the EMF Area. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113:402–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wiedemann, P.M., Thalmann, AT, Grutsch, MA, Schütz, H. The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust. J Risk Res 2006;9:361–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dolan, M., Rowley, J. The Precautionary Principle in the Context of Mobile Phone and Base Station Radiofrequency Exposures. Environ Health Perspect 2009;117:1329–1332.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barnett J, Timotijevic L, Shepherd R, Senior V. Public Responses to Precautionary Information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible Health Risks from Mobile Phones. Health Policy;82:240–50.

  11. Sjöberg L. Factors in Risk Perception. Risk Analysis 2000;20:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eagly AH, Kulesa P, Brannon PA, Shaw K, Hutson-Comeaux S. Why Counterattitudinal Messages are as Memorable as Proattitudinal Messages: The Importance of Active Defense Against Attack. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2000;26:1392–1408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kelsey JL et al. Methods in observational epidemiology. 2nd edition. New York Oxford University Press, 1996.

  14. Visschers VHM, Meertens RM, Passchier WF, Vries NK de. How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information ? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks. Risk Analysis 2007; 27:715–727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Visschers VHM, Meertens RM, Passchier WF, Vries NK de. An Associative Approach to Risk Perception: Measuring the Effects of Risk Communications Directly and Indirectly. J Risk Res 2007;10:371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Siegrist M, Keller C, Cousin M. Implicit Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power and Mobile Phone Base Stations: Support for the Affect Heuristic. Risk Analysis 2006;26:1021–1029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Plas M van der, Houthuijs DJM, Dusseldorp A, Penders RMJ, Pruppers MJM. Magnetische velden van hoogspanningslijnen en leukemie bij kinderen. Bilthoven: RIVM, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Elsman-Domburg MG. GGD-Richtlijn Risicocommunicatie. Amsterdam: Landelijk Centrum Medische Milieukunde, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bronner F, Kuijlen T. The live or digital interviewer: A comparison between CASI, CAPI and CATI with respect to differences in response behavior. Int J Market Res 2007;49:167–190.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gosling SD, Vazire S, Srivastava S, John OP. Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. Am Psychologist 2004;59: 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Klein JD, Thomas RK, Sutter EJ. Self-reported smoking in online surveys; prevalence estimate validity and item format effects. Medical Care 2007;45:691–695.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Riva G, Teruzzi T, Anolli L. The use of the internet in psychological research: comparison of online and offline questionnaires. Cyber Psychol Behavior 2003;6:73–80.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. afdeling Gezondheidsbevordering, GGD Zuid Limburg, Postbus 2022, 6160 HA, Geleen, The Netherlands

    Paola Esser

  2. Sociale Geneeskunde, Universiteit Maastricht, Postbus 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Hans Bosma

Authors
  1. Paola Esser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans Bosma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Esser, P., Bosma, H. Het effect van de GGD brochure “GSM- en UMTS-antennes, wat betekenen ze voor uw gezondheid?” op de risicoperceptie van GSMen UMTS-antennes. Tijds. gezondheids.wetenschappen 89, 229–235 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-011-0076-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-011-0076-3

Trefwoorden:

Keywprds:

Search

Navigation