Literature DB >> 8553807

Psychologic aspects of patients with symptoms presumed to be caused by electricity or visual display units.

J Bergdahl1.   

Abstract

Psychologic factors were studied in 10 patients with symptoms presumed to be caused by electricity (EG) and in 10 patients with symptoms presumed to be caused by visual display units (VG) and compared with a sex- and age-matched control group (CG). Psychologic differences between the EG and VG were also measured. The symptoms presumed to be caused by electricity or visual display units were registered, and the personality, psychologic functioning, and quality of life were determined by using the Karolinska Scales of Personality (KSP), an additional Personality Scale (PS), a Psychological Functioning Scale (PFS), and a quality of Life Scale (QLS). The results showed that the commonest general symptoms in the EG/VG were skin complaints, fatigue, pain, and dizziness, and the commonest oral symptoms were gustatory disturbance, burning mouth, and temporomandibular joint dysfunction. The patients in the EG described more different types of both general and oral symptoms than those in the VG. The result showed that the VG scored significantly higher only in the KSP Somatic Anxiety and Muscular Tension scales, and the EG scored significantly lower in the KSP Socialization scale and significantly higher in the Somatic Anxiety, Muscular Tension, and Psychasthenia scales. In addition, only the EG differed significantly on the PS, PFS, and QLS. The EG differed significantly in such psychologic aspects as being more fatigued in the PS, in having more difficulty in concentrating, in taking the initiative, and in getting on with people in the PFS and experiencing inactivity and visiting other people rarely in the QLS. The conclusion was that patients with symptoms presumed to be caused by electricity and visual display units differed from each other psychologically and, therefore, should be handled clinically in different ways. The need for an interdisciplinary approach to these patients is emphasized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8553807     DOI: 10.3109/00016359509005992

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Odontol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6357            Impact factor:   2.331


  7 in total

1.  Health response of two communities to military antennae in Cyprus.

Authors:  A W Preece; A G Georgiou; E J Dunn; S C Farrow
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2007-01-25       Impact factor: 4.402

2.  Psychobiological personality dimensions in two environmental-illness patient groups.

Authors:  Jan Bergdahl; Lena Mårell; Maud Bergdahl; Hjördis Perris
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2005-10-08       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Coping and self-image in patients with visual display terminal-related skin symptoms and perceived hypersensitivity to electricity.

Authors:  J Bergdahl; B Stenberg; N Eriksson; G Lindén; L Widman
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2004-11-05       Impact factor: 3.015

4.  Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California.

Authors:  Patrick Levallois; Raymond Neutra; Geraldine Lee; Lilia Hristova
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 5.  Hypersensitivity of human subjects to environmental electric and magnetic field exposure: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Patrick Levallois
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 9.031

6.  Odor and noise intolerance in persons with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

Authors:  Steven Nordin; Gregory Neely; David Olsson; Monica Sandström
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 7.  Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses.

Authors:  Maël Dieudonné
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 5.984

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.