ArticleOpen research Europe2025
Does personal relevance moderate communication effects? The example of risk communication about 5G-related electromagnetic fields.
Article in Open research Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Ten-Country Study on Public Perceptions of 5G EMF Emissions: Who Feels Exposed, and Why?Bioelectromagnetics · 2026Article
- RF-EMF Risk Perception and Trust in Radiation Protection Authorities: A Comparative Study on Precautionary Information in Germany and Greece.Bioelectromagnetics · 2026Article
- Factors associated with risk perception among school and nursery school teachers concerning potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Technological advancements, such as the introduction of the fifth generation technology standard 5G, offer opportunities but also raise concerns. Although no evidence suggests negative effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) within defined exposure limits, authorities responsible for risk communication provide precautionary advice to help citizens reduce personal exposure. However, previous research indicates that precautionary information can increase risk perception and decrease trust. Methods: This cross-sectional study investigated effects of precautionary information on risk perception and trust in the context of 5G, using large general population samples in Germany and Greece. For the first time, personal relevance was examined as a potential moderating factor, using a novel approach to assess practical and thematic relevance. Participants were first surveyed on their relevance of the topic, then provided with basic information about "RF-EMF and health", and, in the experimental group, with additional precautionary information. Different measures for risk perception and trust followed. We expected higher risk perception and lower trust for the experimental group, and assumed that at lower personal relevance, this effect would be stronger. Results: Contrary to expectations, precautionary information increased just one risk perception measure and only in Germany. The anticipated moderating effect of personal relevance was not found, but relevance itself significantly predicted risk perception, with higher relevance correlating with higher risk perception. Exploratory findings revealed higher risk perception among females compared to males and in Greece compared to Germany. Conclusions: That there were only few effects of the precautionary information may be linked to the focus on actions to reduce personal exposure when using mobile devices. The results underline the importance of considering personal relevance and demographic factors in risk communication and highlight directions for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.