Skip to main content

Table 3 number and percentage of GPs who reported at least one EMF-consultation, stratified by GP-characteristics.

From: Consultations in primary care for symptoms attributed to electromagnetic fields – a survey among general practitioners

  % (95% C.I.) OR (95% C.I.) a p b
all GPs 69 (64 – 74)   
Sex    
   Male 69.5
(63.8 – 74.6)
1
(reference)
 
   Female 68.7
(56.8 – 78.5)
0.79
(0.40 – 1.56)
0.50
Age group (years)    
   <35 – 44 78.1
(66.6 – 86.5)
1
(reference)
 
   45 – 54 69.8
(61.3 – 77.2)
0.52
(0.24 – 1.1)
 
   55 – 64 65.2
(57.0 – 72.7)
0.48
(0.23 – 1.02)
 
   ≥ 65 66.7
(39.1 – 86.2)
0.46
(0.1 – 2.04)
0.23
Majority of patients comes from rural/urban area    
   Majority from rural area 73.4
(65 – 80.4)
1
(reference)
 
   Majority from urban or agglomeration area 61.9
(53.6 – 69.5)
0.53
(0.30 – 0.94)
 
   Equally urban or agglomeration/rural 75.6
(65.1 – 83.8)
0.83
(0.4 – 1.69)
0.079
Self-rated information level    
   Rather bad 55.4
(44.1 – 66.2)
1
(reference)
 
   Middle 69.9
(62.7 – 76.3)
1.56
(0.86 – 2.87)
 
   Rather good 77.8
(68.2 – 85.1)
2.49
(1.22 – 5.1)
0.041
Complementary medicine certificate    
   None 63.7
(58.0 – 69.1)
1
(reference)
 
   At least onec 96.6
(88.3 – 99.0)
16.1
(3.74 – 69.2)
<0.0001
  1. Percentage of GPs who report at least one EMF consultation, stratified by GP-characteristics. aOdds ratio of reporting at least one EMF consultation after multiple logistic regression (model variables: sex, age group, urban/rural patient collective, self rated information level and complementary-medicine certificate). bp-value of likelihood ratio test after logistic regression. cAt least one of the following: traditional Chinese medicine/acupuncture, neural therapy, homeopathy or anthroposophical medicine