請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/64446
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭尊仁 | |
dc.contributor.author | Mei-Chih Tseng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 曾美智 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T17:47:39Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-09-17 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2012-09-17 | |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2012-08-14 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. Roosli M. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: a systematic review. Environ Res 2008;107:277-287.
2. Liden C, Wahlberg JE. Work with video display terminals among office employees. V. Dermatologic factors. Scand J Work Environ Health 1985;11:489-493. 3. Koh D, Goh CL, Jeyaratnam J, et al. Dermatological symptoms among visual display unit operators using plasma display and cathode ray tube screens. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1990;19:617-620. 4. Berg M, Hedblad MA, Erhardt K. Facial skin complaints and work at visual display units. A histopathological study. Acta Derm Venereol 1990;70:216-220. 5. Carmichael AJ, Roberts DL. Visual display units and facial rashes. Contact Dermatitis 1992;26:63-64. 6. Rubin GJ, Nieto-Hernandez R, Wessely S. Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'): An updated systematic review of provocation studies. Bioelectromagnetics 2010;31:1-11. 7. Bergqvist U, Vogel E, Aringer L, et al. Possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromagnetic fields. A report prepared by a European group of experts for the European Commission, DG V. Solna, Sweden, National Institute for Working Life, 1997. 8. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. International Workshop on Electromagnetic Field Hypersensitivity; 2004 25-27 Oct 2004; Prague, Czech Republic. WHO Press, Milan 9. International Programme on Chemical Safety/World Health Organization. Annals of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: State-of-the-Science Symposium. Proceedings. Baltimore, Maryland, October 30-November 1, 1995. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1996;24:S1-189. 10. Kipen HM, Fiedler N. The role of environmental factors in medically unexplained symptoms and related syndromes: conference summary and recommendations. Environ Health Perspect 2002;110 (suppl 4):591-595. 11. Levallois P. Hypersensitivity of human subjects to environmental electric and magnetic field exposure: a review of the literature. Environ Health Perspect 2002;110 (suppl 4):613-618. 12. Hillert L, Berglind N, Arnetz BB, et al. Prevalence of self-reported hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields in a population-based questionnaire survey. Scand J Work Environ Health 2002;28:33-41. 13. Bailer J, Rist F, Witthoft M, et al. Symptom patterns, and perceptual and cognitive styles in subjects with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004;24:517-525. 14. Levallois P, Neutra R, Lee G, et al. Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California. Environ Health Perspect 2002;110 (suppl 4):619-623. 15. Schreier N, Huss A, Roosli M. The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed 2006;51:202-209. 16. Eltiti S, Wallace D, Zougkou K, et al. Development and evaluation of the electromagnetic hypersensitivity questionnaire. Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28:137-151. 17. Schuz J, Petters C, Egle UT, et al. The 'Mainzer EMF-Wachhund': results from a watchdog project on self-reported health complaints attributed to exposure to electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 2006;27:280-7. 18. Schrottner J, Leitgeb N. Sensitivity to electricity--temporal changes in Austria. BMC Public Health 2008;8:310. 19. Carlsson F, Karlson B, Orbaek P, et al. Prevalence of annoyance attributed to electrical equipment and smells in a Swedish population, and relationship with subjective health and daily functioning. Public Health 2005;119:568-577. 20. Bergdahl J, Anneroth G, Stenman E. Description of persons with symptoms presumed to be caused by electricity or visual display units--oral aspects. Scand J Dent Res 1994;102:41-5. 21. Frick U, Kharraz A, Hauser S, et al. Comparison perception of singular transcranial magnetic stimuli by subjectively electrosensitive subjects and general population controls. Bioelectromagnetics 2005;26:287-298. 22. Rubin GJ, Cleare AJ, Wessely S. Psychological factors associated with self-reported sensitivity to mobile phones. J Psychosom Res 2008;64:1-9. 23. Landgrebe M, Frick U, Hauser S, et al. Cognitive and neurobiological alterations in electromagnetic hypersensitive patients: results of a case-control study. Psychol Med 2008;38:1781-1791. 24. Stenberg B, Bergdahl J, Edvardsson B, et al. Medical and social prognosis for patients with perceived hypersensitivity to electricity and skin symptoms related to the use of visual display terminals. Scand J Work Environ Health 2002;28:349-57. 25. Chia S-E, Chia H-P, Tan J-S. Prevalence of Headache among Handheld Cellular Telephone Users in Singapore: A Community Study. Environ Health Perspect 2000;108. 26. Roosli M, Moser M, Baldinini Y, et al. Symptoms of ill health ascribed to electromagnetic field exposure--a questionnaire survey. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2004;207:141-50. 27. Bergdahl J. Psychologic aspects of patients with symptoms presumed to be caused by electricity or visual display units. Acta Odontol Scand 1995;53:304-310. 28. Johansson A, Nordin S, Heiden M, et al. Symptoms, personality traits, and stress in people with mobile phone-related symptoms and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. J Psychosom Res 2010;68:37-45. 29. Black DW. The relationship of mental disorders and idiopathic environmental intolerance. Occup Med 2000;15:557-70. 30. Caccappolo-van Vliet E, Kelly-McNeil K, Natelson B, et al. Anxiety sensitivity and depression in multiple chemical sensitivities and asthma. J Occup Environ Med 2002;44:890-901. 31. Bornschein S, Hausteiner C, Zilker T, et al. Psychiatric and somatic disorders and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) in 264 'environmental patients'. Psychol Med 2002;32:1387-94. 32. Simon GE, Katon WJ, Sparks PJ. Allergic to life: psychological factors in environmental illness. Am J Psychiatry 1990;147:901-6. 33. Bailer J, Witthoft M, Paul C, et al. Evidence for overlap between idiopathic environmental intolerance and somatoform disorders. Psychosom Med 2005;67:921-9. 34. Hausteiner C, Bornschein S, Bickel H, et al. Psychiatric morbidity and low self-attentiveness in patients with environmental illness. J Nerv Ment Dis 2003;191:50-5. 35. Wiesmuller GA, Ebel H, Hornberg C, et al. Are syndromes in environmental medicine variants of somatoform disorders? Med Hypotheses 2003;61:419-30. 36. Binkley KE, Kutcher S. Panic response to sodium lactate infusion in patients with multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome.[see comment]. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997;99:570-4. 37. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) . Washington, DC., 2000. 38. Katerndahl DA, Bell IR, Palmer RF, et al. Chemical Intolerance in Primary Care Settings: Prevalence, Comorbidity, and Outcomes. The Annals of Family Medicine 2012;10:357-365. 39. Hillert L, Hedman BK, Soderman E, et al. Hypersensitivity to electricity: working definition and additional characterization of the syndrome. J Psychosom Res 1999;47:429-38. 40. Landgrebe M, Barta W, Rosengarth K, et al. Neuronal correlates of symptom formation in functional somatic syndromes: a fMRI study. Neuroimage 2008;41:1336-1344. 41. Berg M, Bengt A. An occupational study of employees with VDU-associated symptoms: the importance of stress. Stress Med 1996;12:51-54. 42. Goldberg D. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Windsor: Nfer-Nelson, 1992. 43. Nelson CB, Kessler RC, D M. Scoring the World Health Organization's Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001. 44. Bergdahl J, Marell L, Bergdahl M, et al. Psychobiological personality dimensions in two environmental-illness patient groups. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:251-256. 45. Osterberg K, Persson R, Karlson B, et al. Personality, mental distress, and subjective health complaints among persons with environmental annoyance. Hum Exp Toxicol 2007;26:231-241. 46. Frick U, Rehm J, Eichhammer P. Risk perception, somatization, and self report of complaints related to electromagnetic fields--a randomized survey study. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2002;205:353-360. 47. Bergdahl J, Bergdahl M. Environmental illness: evaluation of salivary flow, symptoms, diseases, medications, and psychological factors. Acta Odontol Scand 2001;59:104-110. 48. Bergdahl J, Stenberg B, Eriksson N, et al. Coping and self-image in patients with visual display terminal-related skin symptoms and perceived hypersensitivity to electricity. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2004;77:538-542. 49. Hausteiner C, Bornschein S, Zilker T, et al. Dysfunctional cognitions in idiopathic environmental intolerances (IEI)--an integrative psychiatric perspective. Toxicol Lett 2007;171:1-9. 50. Barsky AJ. Amplification, somatization, and the somatoform disorders. Psychosomatics 1992;33:28-34. 51. Brown RJ. Psychological mechanisms of medically unexplained symptoms: an intergrative conceptual model. Psychol Bull 2004;130:793-812. 52. Rief W, Hiller W, Margraf J. Cognitive aspects of hypochondriasis and the somatization syndrome. J Abnorm Psychol 1998;107:587-95. 53. Rief W, Ihle D, Pilger F. A new approach to assess illness behaviour.[see comment]. J Psychosom Res 2003;54:405-14. 54. Kirmayer LJ, Looper KJ. Abnormal illness behaviour: physiological, psychological and social dimensions of coping with distress. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2006;19:54-60. 55. Clauw DJ. Potential mechanisms in chemical intolerance and related conditions. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2001;933:235-53. 56. Lyskov E, Sandstrom M, Hansson Mild K. Neurophysiological study of patients with perceived 'electrical hypersensitivity'. Int J Psychophysiol 2001;42:233-41. 57. Sandstrom M, Lyskov E, Hornsten R, et al. Holter ECG monitoring in patients with perceived electrical hypersensitivity. Int J Psychophysiol 2003;49:227-35. 58. Ziemann U, M. H. Basic neurophysiological studies with TMS. In: George M, Belmaker R, editors. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuropsychiatry. Washington: American Psychiatric Press, 2000:45-98. 59. Langguth B, Eichhammer P, Zowe M, et al. Altered motor cortex excitability in tinnitus patients: a hint at crossmodal plasticity. Neurosci Lett 2005;380:326-9. 60. Wassermann EM, Greenberg BD, Nguyen MB, et al. Motor cortex excitability correlates with an anxiety-related personality trait. Biol Psychiatry 2001;50:377-82. 61. Landgrebe M, Hauser S, Langguth B, et al. Altered cortical excitability in subjectively electrosensitive patients: results of a pilot study. J Psychosom Res 2007;62:283-8. 62. Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang G-J, et al. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA 2011;305:808-13. 63. European Commission. Electromagnetic Fields: Special Eurobarometer 272a / Wave 66.2 - TNS Opinion & Social. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_272a_en.pdf [Access date: July 2007] 64. Burgess A. Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts. Health Risk & Society 2002;4:175-188. 65. Kristiansen IS, Elstein AS, Gyrd-Hansen D, et al. Radiation from mobile phone systems: Is it perceived as a threat to people's health? Bioelectromagnetics 2009;30:393-401. 66. Franken RE, Gibson KJ, Rowland GL. Sensation seeking and the tendency to view the world as threatening. Personality and Individual Differences 1992;13:31-38. 67. Soneryd L. Deliberations on the unknown, the unsensed, and the unsayable? Science, Technology & Human Values 2007;32:287-314. 68. Bouyer M, Bagdassarian S, Chaabanne S, et al. Personality correlates of risk perception. Risk Analysis 2001;21:457-466. 69. MacGregor DG, Fleming R. Risk perception and symptom reporting. Risk Analysis 1996;16:773-83. 70. Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H, et al. Perception of mobile phone and base station risks. Risk Analysis 2005;25:1253-64. 71. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987;236:280-285. 72. Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H. Trust in Cooperative Risk Management. Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. London: Earthscan, 2007. 73. Douglas M, AWaldavsky A. Risk and culture. Berkely, CA: University of California Press, 1982. 74. Rayner S. Cultural theory and risk analysis. In: Krimsky S, Golding D, editors. Social Theories of Risk. Westport: Praeger, 1992:83-116. 75. Siegrist M, Gutscher H, Earle TC. Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research 2005;8:145-156. 76. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR. Gender and environmental risk concerns. Environment and Behavior 1996;28:302-339. 77. Kleef Ev, Fischer ARH, Khan M, et al. Risk and benefit perceptions of mobile phone and base station technology in Bangladesh. Risk Analysis 2010;30:1002-1015. 78. Petrie KJ, Broadbent EA, Kley N, et al. Worries about modernity predict symptom complaints after environmental pesticide spraying. Psychosom Med 2005;67:778-82. 79. Petrie KJ, Sivertsen B, Hysing M, et al. Thoroughly modern worries: the relationship of worries about modernity to reported symptoms, health and medical care utilization. J Psychosom Res 2001;51:395-401. 80. Bailer J, Witthoft M, Rist F. Modern health worries and idiopathic environmental intolerance. J Psychosom Res 2008;65:425-33. 81. Lind R, Arslan G, Eriksen HR, et al. Subjective health complaints and modern health worries in patients with subjective food hypersensitivity. Dig Dis Sci 2005;50:1245-51. 82. McMahan S, Meyer J. Symptom prevalence and worry about high voltage transmission lines. Environ Res 1995;70:114-8. 83. Filipkowski KB, Smyth JM, Rutchick AM, et al. Do healthy people worry? Modern health worries, subjective health complaints, perceived health, and health care utilization. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2010;17:182-8. 84. Tseng MM-C, Lin Y-P, Cheng T-J. Prevalence and psychiatric comorbidity of self-reported electromagnetic field sensitivity in Taiwan: A population-based study. J Formos Med Assoc 2011;110:634-641. 85. Lindesay J, Baillon S, Brugha T, et al. Worry content across the lifespan: an analysis of 16- to 74-year-old participants in the British National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity 2000. Psychol Med 2006;36:1625-33. 86. Walls J, Pidgeon N, Weyman A, et al. Critical trust: understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation. Health, Risk and Society 2004;6:133-150. 87. Hung YT, Huang YC. Telephone sampling: Random digit dialing in Taiwan. Election Research 2001;7:173-84 (Text in Chinese). 88. AAPOR. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 4 ed. Lenexa, Kansas: AAPOR, 2006. 89. Bureau of National Health Insurance. Bureau of National Health Insurance: Caring for the Disadvantaged Groups. Available at: http://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Data/791317593071.pdf. [Access date: July 10, 2008] 90. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Covi L. The SCL-90: an outpatient psychiatric rating scale: preliminary report. Psychopharmacol Bull 1973;9:13-28. 91. Lee M-B, Lee Y-J, Yen L-L, et al. Reliability and validity of using a Brief Psychiatric Symptom Rating Scale in clinical practice. J Formos Med Assoc 1990;89:1081-1087. 92. Department of Statistics Ministry of the Interior Taiwan. Population of 15 Years and Over by Educational Attainment. Available at: http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/index.asp [Access date: Jan 12, 2008] 93. Stata Corp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 10.0 Stata: College Station, TX, 2007. 94. Lumley T. Survey: analysis of complex survey samples, 2011. 95. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988. 96. Bunin GR, Spector LG, Olshan AF, et al. Secular trends in response rates for controls selected by random digit dialing in childhood cancer studies: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Am J Epidemiol 2007;166:109-16. 97. O’Rourke D, Chapa-Resendez G, Hamilton L, et al. An Inquiry into Declining RDD Response Rates Part I: Telephone Survey Practices. Survey Research, 1998:1-4. 98. Oftedal G, Wilen J, Sandstrom M, et al. Symptoms experienced in connection with mobile phone use. Occupational Medicine (Oxford) 2000;50:237-245. 99. Mortazavi SMJ, Ahmadi J, Shariati M. Prevalence of subjective poor health symptoms associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields among university students. Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28:326-330. 100. Bagedahl-Strindlund M, Ilie M, Furhoff AK, et al. A multidisciplinary clinical study of patients suffering from illness associated with mercury release from dental restorations: psychiatric aspects. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1997;96:475-482. 101. Davidoff AL, Fogarty L. Psychogenic origins of multiple chemical sensitivities syndrome: a critical review of the research literature. Arch Environ Health 1994;49:316-325. 102. Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies. Psychosom Med 2005;67:224-232. 103. Wise TN. Update on consultation-liaison psychiatry (psychosomatic medicine). Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2008;21:196-200. 104. Sykes R. Somatoform disorders in DSM-IV: mental or physical disorders? J Psychosom Res 2006;60:341-344. 105. Rief W, Isaac M. Are somatoform disorders 'mental disorders'? A contribution to the current debate. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2007;20:143-146. 106. Dimsdale JE, Dantzer R. A biological substrate for somatoform disorders: importance of pathophysiology. Psychosom Med 2007;69:850-854. 107. Witthoft M, Rist F, Bailer J. Evidence for a Specific Link Between the Personality Trait of Absorption and Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance. J Toxicol Environ Health 2008;71:795-802. 108. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, et al. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 2004;24:311-22. 109. Kaptein AA, Helder DI, Kleijn WC, et al. Modern health worries in medical students. J Psychosom Res 2005;58:453-457. 110. Barriball KL, Christian SL, While AE, et al. The telephone survey method: a discussion paper. J Adv Nurs 1996;24:115-21. 111. Groves RM. Survey errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989. 112. Osterberg K, Persson R, Karlson B, et al. Annoyance and performance of three environmentally intolerant groups during experimental challenge with chemical odors. Scand J Work Environ Health 2004;30:486-96. 113. First MB, Spitzer R, Gibbon M, et al. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders. Patient ed. New York: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute, 2002. 114. Cheng TA, Williams P. The design and development of a screening questionnaire (CHQ) for use in community studies of mental disorders in Taiwan. Psychol Med 1986;16:415-22. 115. Schat AC, Kelloway EK, Desmarais S. The Physical Health Questionnaire (PHQ): construct validation of a self-report scale of somatic symptoms. J Occup Health Psychol 2005;10:363-81. 116. Spielberger CD. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto CA: Mind Garden Inc. , 1983. 117. Chen WJ, Chen HM, Chen CC, et al. Cloninger's Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: psychometric properties and construct validity in Taiwanese adults. Compr Psychiatry 2002;43:158-66. 118. Eysenck H, Eysenck S. The manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London University of London Press, 1964. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/64446 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 背景/目的:人類對電磁波敏感的報導已經超過20年,但有關電磁波敏感者的盛行率和特徵卻知道得不多,特別是有關風險感知、精神疾病的罹病和電磁波過敏間的關係。在此研究中,我們的研究目的有三,一、調查台灣地區成年人口中,自稱電磁波敏感者的盛行率和其特徵;二、調查心理不適和電磁波敏感的嚴重度對這些特徵的影響;三、調查台灣地區民眾對電磁波的風險感知,及其和電磁波敏感和心理不適的關係。方法:這是一個針對全國民眾認為環境因子對健康影響的電話調查訪問,執行期間為2007年8月。參與者是成年人,經由電腦化的電話訪問系統,採兩階段地區分層系統性抽樣方法,每戶選出一位成年人接受訪談。總共1251人完成這次電話訪問,回覆率為17.76%,合作率為32.5%。訪談內容包括人口學資料,有無重大傷病、自覺健康狀況、自覺電磁波敏感,對環境因子的風險感知、職業功能障礙和醫療使用情形等。以簡短症狀量表(BSRS-5)大於6分者認為有精神科狀況。結果:台灣地區自覺電磁波敏感者的盛行率為13.3% (n = 170)。年齡65歲以上較少自覺對電磁波敏感,而自覺健康不佳,無工作,和有精神科狀況者有較高機會合併自覺電磁波敏感。自覺電磁波敏感和有精神科狀況者,均有無法工作和日常活動障礙等症狀。多變項分析發現心理不適愈嚴重會和自覺健康狀況不佳、增加醫療使用,無法工作和日常活動障礙有關,但是電磁波敏感的嚴重度祇和無法工作有關。男性比起女性較少關注電磁波對人體的健康危險,然而教育程度愈高、已婚、有重大疾病,對電磁波敏感程度愈高,以及有較高心理不適者,對電磁波和所有環境因子相關的健康風險,有較高的關注。結論:台灣地區自覺電磁波敏感者的盛行率比西方國家要高。除精神科狀況外,自覺電磁波敏感者還會合併自覺健康不佳和職業功能障礙。電磁波敏感者的特徵大多數是與心理不適的嚴重程度有關,而不是和電磁波敏感程度有關。心理不適的嚴重程度愈高對電磁波的風險感知愈高,但是精神科狀況和自覺電磁波敏感的相關不受電磁波的風險感知的影響。電磁波敏感程度愈高,其對電磁波的健康風險的感知愈高,但電磁波敏感程度和對電磁波的風險感知的關係也不受心理不適嚴重度的影響。精神科狀況和對電磁波的風險感知,兩者分別都和自覺電磁波敏感有獨立的相關。電磁波敏感者有其異質性,包含有認知、情緒和行為等面項的症狀。本研究的限制包括回覆率偏低,橫切面的調查無法推論因果關係,和用自填量表未使用精神科面談建立診斷。未來對電磁波敏感者的病因研究,可將重點放在聯繫功能不良性認知、情緒,以及身體症狀的神經生物機轉上。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Background/purpose: Hypersensitivity of human subjects to environmental electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) has been reported for more than 20 years. Little was known regarding the relationships between psychiatric morbidity, risk perception, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. In this study, we aimed, first, to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of people with self-reported electromagnetic field sensitivity (SREMFS) in a sample of adult population in Taiwan; second, to examine the differential effects of elevated psychopathology and the degree of electrosensitivity on the common characteristics of SREMFS (or Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance with attribution to EMF, IEI-EMF); and third, to examine the risk perception of EMFs in Taiwanese people and its relationships with elevated psychopathology and degree of sensitive to EMFs. Methods: Questions regarding hypersensitivity to EMF were included in a telephone survey for environmental agents on health and well-being. Participants were adults selected from nation-wide households registered in the database of the computer-assisted Telephone Interviewing system via two-stage geographically stratified systematic sampling. A total of 1251 persons successfully completed telephone interviews administered by trained interviewers (response rate = 17.76% and cooperation rate = 32.5%). The interview content consists of questions regarding demographic variables, presence of catastrophic illness, self-reported health condition, self-reported electric and magnetic field sensitivity, risk perception of 13 kinds of environmental agents, impairment of functioning, as well as medical utilization. People with psychiatric morbidity were identified by a screening questionnaire, the Brief Symptom Rating Scale-5 (BSRS-5), with a cutoff score at 6. Results: The estimated prevalence of people with SREMFS was 13.3 % (n = 170). People aged above 65-years-old were associated with a lower risk of reporting sensitivity to EMFs, while people with a very poor self-reported health status, those who were unable to work, and those who had psychiatric morbidity were associated with a higher risk of having SREMFS. Individuals with IEI-EMF shared features with those having psychiatric conditions including inability to work and impairment of daily activities. The severer degree of psychopathology was associated with poorer subjective health, increased medical utilization, and functional incapacities whereas the severer degree of electrosensitivity was associated with non-employment only. More than half of the survey population showed very concerned about the effects of power lines and mobile phone base stations on human health in Taiwanese people. Male gender was negatively associated with perception of health risks concerning EMF and overall environmental agents, whereas higher educational level, being married, having catastrophic illness, higher degree of sensitivity to EMFs, and the elevated psychopathology were positively associated with higher levels of concerns toward EMFs and all environmental agents. Conclusions: The prevalence of SREMFS (or IEI-EMF) in general population of Taiwan was higher than that reported in Western countries. In addition to psychiatric conditions, people with SREMFS (or IEI-EMF) were associated with very poor subjective health conditions and inability to work. The commonly reported features in people with IEI-EMF were mostly associated with degree of psychopathology instead of degree of sensitivity to EMFs. The elevated psychopathology was associated with a higher level of perceived health risks regarding EMFs, but the relationship between psychiatric conditions and IEI-EMF was independent from the effect of risk perception concerning base stations. The higher degree of electrosensitivity was associated with a higher level of perceived health risks regarding EMFs, and their relationship was also independent from the effect of psychopathology. This study suggested that people with IEI-EMF comprised heterogeneous group and had symptoms in independent constructs of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors. This study had several limitations including low response rate, cross-sectional design, and using self-administered questionnaire without interview for psychiatric morbidity. Future research on the etiology of IEI-EMF may focus on the neurobiological mechanisms linking between dysfunctional cognitions, emotion, and somatic symptoms. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T17:47:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-D95841002-1.pdf: 1579592 bytes, checksum: d23eb314a9becacf35ca9795569988b7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要 i
Abstract iii 第一章 引言 1.1 電磁波敏感者的名稱和發展 1 1.2 電磁波敏感者的操作定義和特徵 1 1.3 電磁波敏感和環境疾病 2 第二章 流行病學研究 2.1 電磁波敏感者的盛行率和相關因素 3 2.2 電磁波敏感者之症狀和分類 4 2.3 電磁波敏感者和精神科疾病相關性 5 第三章 病因 3.1 環境疾病的心理和情緒因素 7 3.2 環境疾病的認知因素 7 3.3 環境疾病的神經生理和腦影像學研究 7 第四章 風險感知 4.1 民眾對環境因子的健康風險感知 10 4.2 風險感知相關的心理和社會網絡因子 10 4.3 現代健康憂慮 11 4.4 精神疾病者對現代生活與科技對健康的風險感知 11 第五章 研究假說 5.1 自述電磁波敏感者在臺灣的盛行率和相關因子 13 5.2 心理不適對電磁波的過敏者的特徵的影響 15 5.3 心理不適對風險感知與電磁波敏感間關係的影響 16 第六章 電話調查研究目的和方法 6.1 目的 17 6.2 研究方法 17 第七章 電話調查研究結果和討論 7.1 自述電磁波敏感者在台灣的盛行率和相關因子 22 7.2 心理不適對自述電磁波敏感者的特徵的影響 23 7.3 臺灣地區民眾對電磁場及其他環境因子的風險感知及其相關因子 25 7.4 討論 27 7.5 研究限制 32 第八章 總結 35 參考文獻 36 表格 49 圖 69 附錄 72 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 台灣地區自覺電磁波敏感者:盛行率、風險感知、及精神科狀況的共病 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Self-reported electric and magnetic field sensitivity in Taiwan: Prevalence, risk perception and psychiatric co-morbidity | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 詹長權,陳保中,高淑芬,林宜平,張武修 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 電磁場,電磁波敏感,盛行率,心理不適,風險感知,電話調查, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | electromagnetic fields,electromagnetic sensitivity,prevalence,psychopathology,risk perception,telephone survey, | en |
dc.relation.page | 156 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2012-08-14 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 職業醫學與工業衛生研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 職業醫學與工業衛生研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-101-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.54 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。