Mobile phone carrying locations and risk perception of men: A cross-sectional study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
09
06
2021
accepted:
20
05
2022
entrez:
7
6
2022
pubmed:
8
6
2022
medline:
10
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Little was known about the relationship between carrying mobile phone handsets by men and their risk perception of radiofrequency-electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure due to carrying handsets close to the body. This study aimed to determine where men usually carried their handsets and to assess the relationship to risk perception of RF-EMF. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire about mobile phone use, handset carrying locations, and levels of risk perception to RF-EMF. Data were analysed using linear regression models to examine if risk perception differed by mobile phone carrying location. The participants were 356 men, aged 18-72 years. They owned a mobile phone for 2-29 years, with over three quarters (78.7%) having a mobile phone for over 20 years. The most common locations that men kept their handsets when they were 'indoors' were: on a table/desk (54.0%) or in close contact with the body (34.7%). When outside, 54.0% of men kept the handset in the front trouser pocket. While making or receiving calls, 85.0% of men held their mobile phone handset against the head and 15.0% either used earphones or loudspeaker. Men who carried their handset in close contact with the body perceived higher risks from RF-EMF exposure compared to those who kept it away from the body (p<0.01). A substantial proportion of men carried their mobile phone handsets in close proximity to reproductive organs i.e. front pocket of trousers (46.5%). Men who kept their handset with the hand (p < .05), and those who placed it in the T-shirt pocket (p < .05), while the phone was not in use, were more likely to perceive health risks from their behaviour, compared to those who kept it away from the body. However, whether this indicates a causal relationship, remains open.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35671286
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269457
pii: PONE-D-21-18441
pmc: PMC9173639
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0269457Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no competing interests
Références
Am Econ Rev. 2013 Oct;103(6):2087-120
pubmed: 29533059
Int Braz J Urol. 2011 Jul-Aug;37(4):432-54
pubmed: 21888695
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Nov 06;12(11):14177-91
pubmed: 26561826
Biol Lett. 2005 Sep 22;1(3):253-5
pubmed: 17148180
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2014 Apr;27(2):293-303
pubmed: 24692074
Front Public Health. 2015 Jan 13;2:289
pubmed: 25629026
Fertil Steril. 2008 Jan;89(1):124-8
pubmed: 17482179
Int J Prev Med. 2018 Jul 20;9:61
pubmed: 30123435
J Hum Reprod Sci. 2020 Jul-Sep;13(3):174-183
pubmed: 33311902
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 6;12(1):e0167996
pubmed: 28060844
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Jun 08;14(6):
pubmed: 28594366