ArticleBMC public health2026
Risk perception of electromagnetic fields among school teachers and nursery school teachers: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
backgroundAlthough there is no evidence for adverse health effects from non-ionising electromagnetic fields (EMFs) exposure below legal limits, this concern is widespread among the general population. School teachers and nursery school teachers are considered multipliers of health-related information as they impart knowledge to parents and children. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the risk perception regarding EMFs among these professional groups. The extent to which school teachers and nursery school teachers are in contact with questions concerning EMFs and health in their work has not been investigated. Nor is there any knowledge about the information level of school teachers and nursery school teachers regarding EMFs. Data on teachers' perception regarding EMFs is important though to meet information needs.
methodsA cross-sectional study among school teachers and nursery school teachers in Germany was carried out in 2024, combining an online survey (N = 1400) with focus groups (N = 29). We calculated prevalence estimates for participants' risk perception, subjective information level, and EMFs relevance in everyday work with correction for non-response. Furthermore, we conducted a latent class analysis to identify types of EMFs risk perception.
resultsA third of all participating school teachers (32%) and nursery school teachers (33%) indicated that, in their view, EMF exposure below legal limits may cause adverse health effects. Five types of risk perception concerning EMFs were identified using latent class analysis, with the high risk perception class comprising 11% of the participants. Many school teachers (56%) and nursery school teachers (77%) perceived themselves as poorly informed about EMFs. The group discussions provided deeper insights and supported these findings. The interviews revealed that both professional groups had concerns about the health effects of EMFs. Knowledge of scientific evidence concerning EMFs and health was low. Moreover, the discussions revealed a desire for more information on EMFs and health.
conclusionsA notable proportion of school teachers and nursery school teachers indicated considerable risk perception towards EMFs. Most participants indicated low subjective information levels, expressing a need for information on EMF health effects. Communication formats tailored to this target group should be developed and evaluated.
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.