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

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

	% (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 one^c	96.6 (88.3 – 99.0)	16.1 (3.74 – 69.2)	<0.0001

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

ISSN: 1471-2458