Awareness of mobile phone hazards among university students in a Malaysian medical school

doi:10.4236/health.2011.37068

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Vol.3, No.7, 406-415 (2011)

doi:10.4236/health.2011.37068

Health

Awareness of mobile phone hazards among university

students in a malaysian medical school

Latha Rajendra Kumar*, Kiu Daw n Chii, Lye Chuan Way, Yogeet a Jetly, Veena Rajendaran

Faculty of Medicine, Asian Institute of Medical Science and Technology, Bukit Air Nasi, Kedah, Malaysia;

*Corresponding Author: latha.rajendrakumar@gmail.com

Received 6 January 2011; revised 28 January 2011; accepted 30 February 2011.

ABSTRACT

This paper seeks to examine the awareness of

potential health hazards b y using mobile phone

among AIMST (Asian Institute of Medical sci-

ence and technology) University students. This

is a cross-sectional survey conducted by dis-

tributing ‘perception questionnaire’. Perception

of health hazards and outcomes were compared

by gender, age, course of study, preferred ear,

number of calls and SMS daily, the brand of

mobile phone and use of mobile phone acces-

sory (Bluetooth and hands free). The overall

perception of mobile phone hazard in AIMST

university student was 62%.Most subjects agreed

that mobile phone usage can cause headache,

loss of mental attention and sleeping distur-

bances and most disagree that mobile phone

usage can cause constipation and diarrhea. Out

of the 124 subjects who were aware of the side

effects, 5% of the males and 10% of the females

felt that there was no need to minimize the un-

wanted effects. The paper is useful to the gen-

eral population particularly to the students as

the perceived health risk did not significantly

deter students from using mobile phone. The

reasons given by students for the continued

usage of mobile phone in spite of their aware-

ness of the associated hazards have been dis-

cussed. This study offers new insight into level

of awareness and perception of mobile phone

hazard among University students.

Keywords: Mobile Phone; Hazards; Perception

Questionnaire; University Students

1. INTRODUCTION

A mobile phone is a long-range, electronic device used

for mobile voice or data communication over a network

of specialized base stations known as cell sites. In addi-

tion to the standard voice function of a mobile phone,

current mobile phones may support many additional ser-

vices, and accessories, such as SMS for text messag- ing,

email, packet switching for access to the Internet, ga-

ming, Bluetooth, infrared, ca mera with video recorder

and MMS for sending and receiving photos and video,

MP3 player, radio and GPS. Most current mobile phones

connect to a cellular network of base stations (cell sites),

which is in turn interconnected to the public switched

telephone network (PSTN) (the exception is satellite

phones).

The dependence on the mobile phone is increasingly

high.At the same time, this new information and com-

munication technology may cause harm. Although there

are only a few studies of mobile phone use, it has been

suggested that excessive mobile phone use may be

associated with health-compromising behaviors, such as

smoking or alcohol drinking [1]. Some previous studies

of Internet use suggest that excessive Internet use may

be associated with subjective distress, loneliness and

social isolation [2]. There is concern that microwaves

might induce or promote cancer, and the symptoms as-

sociated with their use include sleep disturbance, mem-

ory problems, headaches, nausea, and dizziness [3].

Changes in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier,

electroencephalographic activity, and blood pressure have

also been reported [4].

However, health concerns have induced a large body

of research (both epidemiological and experimental, in

non-human animals and in humans). Tantalizing findings

in humans include a speeding up of reaction time during

exposure, particularly during behavioral tasks calling for

attention, and electroencephalographic changes during

cognitive processes [5-9]. The only established health

hazard cited by the independent group comes from the

use of mobile phon es while driving. The risk is the same

when the phone is used “hands free” (via a loudspeaker

or a hands free device), implyin g that it is due to the dis-

traction caused by the conversation.

A study carried out by the Center for Reproductive

L. R. Kumar et al. / Health 3 (2011) 406-415

407

Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, USA [10] have published a

comprehensive, up-to-the-minute overview of the effects

of cell phone exposure on human health.In another such

research, by Siegrist M et al. [11] , studied the percep-

tions of risks associated with mobile phones, base sta-

tions, and other sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF).

Results showed people who use their mobile phones

frequently perceived lower risks and higher benefits than

people who use their mobile phones infrequently. Study

conducted by Hutter et al., [12,13 ] on adverse health ef-

fects of mobile phones and their base stations.

Objectives

1) To find out the percentage of students in AIMST

University who have awareness of the hazards of mobile

phone.

2) To find out which of the hazards of mobile phone

use has greater pe rcep t i o n among AIMST Students.

3) To find out how many students actually practice

any safety measures to minimize the unwanted ef- fects

of mobile phone.

4) To look for ways and means the student population

is trying to minimize the unwanted effects.

We hypothesized that less than 50% of the AIMST

student population would have perception of the hazards

of mobile phone usage.

Methods: During our survey, 233 questionnaires were

randomly giv en around the campus. However not all the

student responded to the survey? Of the 233 question-

naire given, 212 were respondents however some ques-

tionnaire was incompletely filled and their data could not

be included in study.

Questionnaire was prepared and pilot tested on 10

students and peers reviewed by senior staff. The ethical

clearance committee clearance was thus obtained. (Ap-

pendix 1)

Informed Consent was obtained [14-16] from the

participants.

2. DATA ENTRY INTO EPI INFO

(FIGURE 1)

1) Question 3: Gender : M-male, F-female

2) Question 8: Do you use a cell phone : Y-yes, N-no

3) Questio n 12: 1-pouch, 2-hip-pock et, 3-around your

neck, 4-in the bag , 5-any other

4) Question 15 : 1-ri g ht , 2-l eft, 3-both, 4-not sure

5) Question 17 and 18: Y-yes, N- no

6) Question I:1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-slightly

agree, 4-agree, 5-strongly agree

Question III: Y-yes, N-no

A survey was randomly done on 200 students of

AIMST UNIVERSITY. The 200 students, who re-

sponded to our survey, comprised of 79 (39.5%) males

and 121 (60.5%) females. (Figure 2)

The distribution of the sample population in AIMST

University. BDS (dentistry), BIT (Information technol-

ogy), BM (business management), Bpharm (pharmacy),

BTC (biotech), FIS (foundation in science), MBBS

(medicine), PT (physiotherapy). (Figure 3)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

One of the subject was using the mobile phone for 15

years. Most subjects have been using their mobile phone

for 5 years . ( Figure 4)

78% males and 84% females have at least one mobile

phone. (Table 1)

5 most popular brands were chosen. The most favo-

urite mobile phone brand used is Nokia (53.5%), fol-

lowed by Sony Ericsson (34%). Multitech, O2 and HTC

are very uncommon (Figure 5).

Among the males, 49.45% used Nokia, and 34.07%

used Sony Ericsson.

Among the females 48.82% used Nokia, and 29.13%

used Sony Ericsson (Figure 6).

Gender vs Brand.

4 most common locations for placements of mobile

phone were chosen in the research and placement of

mobile in the pocket was the most popular choice. How-

ever, none of our subjects put their phone around their

neck (Figure 7).

Out of the 200 samples, 199 responded to the question

“average calls per day including incoming and outgoing”.

Most of subject made 5 calls perday (20.1%) and 2 calls

perday (19.5%). The total average of incoming and

outgoing calls is 4.93 calls per day per person (Tab le 2,

Figure 8).

Most of the subjects have their mobile phone usage at

average 5 minutes per day (16.5%) and 30 minutes per

day (11.5%). The highest average call duration is 360

minutes per day and the lowest average call duration is 1

minutes per day. The total average call duration of the 200

subject is 32.245 minutes per day per person (Figur e 9).

From the graph, there is not much significant differ-

ence of the perception between males and females on the

same category (<10%).Most subjects agreed that mobile

phone usage can cause headache, loss of mental atten-

tion and sleeping disturbances and most disagree that

mobile phone usage can cause constipation and diarrhea

(Figur es 10-13).

Out of the 200 subj ects under the survey, 124 subjects

were aware of the side effects of mobile phone usage.

(78 females and 46 males were aware of the hazards)

(Figur es 14 and 15).

Out of the 124 subjects who were aware of the side

effects, 5% of the males and 10% of the females felt th at

there is no need to minimize the unwanted effects (Fig-

ur 16). e

L. R. Kumar et al. / Health 3 (2011) 406-415

408

Figure 1. Individual data was entered into this page, on Epi Info 2007.The following coding was done for data entry.

Figure 2. Figure 4. Distribution vs years of mobile phone usage.

Significant perception of mobile phone hazard was

observed in the age group of 22 years.

Our study disclosed 62 % of the student popu lation ar e

aware of the EMF health hazards produced by mobile

phone usage. Martha and Griffet [17] have reported that

adolescents appear to be concerned with perception of

Figure 3. Distribution of subje cts according to age.

Openly accessible at

L. R. Kumar et al. / Health 3 (2011) 406-415

409

Table 1. Distribution of number of students according to the number of mobile phone they use.

number of

mobile phone Number of

subjects % of

subjects Number of

Male Number of

Female % of Male % of Female % of all

Male % of all

Female

1 163 81.91 62 101 38.04 61.96 78.481 84.167

2 24 12.06 10 14 41.67 58.33 12.658 11.667

3 6 3.015 3 3 50 50 3.797 2.5

4 4 2.01 3 1 75 25 3.797 0.833

5 1 0.503 0 1 0 100 0 0.833

6 1 0.503 1 0 100 0 1.266 0

Table 2. Av er age calls made per day by the subjects.

Avg. calls per day Number of subjects % of subjects Total calls

0 2 1.005 0

1 26 13.065 26

2 39 19.598 78

3 31 15.578 93

4 14 7.035 56

5 40 20.101 200

6 10 5.025 60

7 2 1.005 14

8 4 2.01 32

10 23 11.558 230

13 1 0.503 13

15 1 0.503 15

20 3 1.508 60

25 1 0.503 25

30 1 0.503 30

50 1 0.503 50

Figure 5. Distribution of brand of mobile phone according

to number of subjects.

Figure 6. The usage of mobile phone is more among females

as compared to males.

L. R. Kumar et al. / Health 3 (2011) 406-415

410

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9. Duration per call (in minutes) according to number

of subjects.

Figure 10. Ear used in the subjects : Majority, 48% of the

subjects used their right ear and 18.5% used left ear.

Figure 11. Right ear is preferred more than left ear for

speaking on mobile phone. Both females and males prefer

using right ear than left ear.

Figure 12. Distribution of the overall mobile phone hazard

perception by gender.

hazard while driving was found to be 39.5%.A study had

conducted in Japan by Ichikawa and Nakahara [18] on

high school student on usage of mobile phone while cy-

cling has revealed higher bicycle crash. The risks of mo-

bile phone usage on visual attention, peripheral vision,

bronchial asthma, road accidents and living near base

stations have been reported [19-22]. A descriptive ana-

lytical study on mobile phone risks in University stu-

dents in Malaysia has been undertaken here (Table 3,

Figure 17).

A. Reasons for not responding to the questionnaire

I. During the survey, some of the student refused to

become the subject of our study. It is basically due to the

reasons below:

Laziness, felt irrelevant to their academic studies,

didn’t think they will make a difference in the study,

inade- quate ideas of details like number of SMS and

duration of calls

B. Semi-structured interview:

I.A. The brand used most by AIMST University stu-

dents is Nokia and it is followed by Sony Ericsson,

Samsung and Motorola. Semi-structured interviews were

conducted to get an idea for the rationale of choosing a

particular brand of mobile phone, not preferring hand

free and the reasons for not practicing reduced mobile

hone usage. p

L. R. Kumar et al. / Health 3 (2011) 406-415

411

Figure 13. Distribution of percentage of perception of side effects of mobile phone given by participants

sorted by male and female .

Figure 14. Association of factors of mobile phone hazard perce ption in male s (N = 79).

Openly accessible at

L. R. Kumar et al. / Health 3 (2011) 406-415

412

Figure 15. Association of factors of mobile phone hazard perception in females (N = 121).

Figure 16. Awareness of hazards depicted in percentage.

Table 3. Need to minimize mobile phone usage and percentage of males and females.

Male Male % Female Female %

No need minimize 3 5% 10 10%

Decrease talking duration 36 60% 57 51%

Increase hands free length 21 35% 44 39%

L. R. Kumar et al. / Health 3 (2011) 406-415

413

1 Headache destroys brain cells.

2 Hearing problems, radiation, Ca, tumor.

3 Mutation of genes.

4 Slight heat.

5 Infertility.

6 Pimples.

7 Earache.

8 Reactive waves.

9 Vasodilatation of blood vessels near the ear.

10 Mental retardation.

11 Nausea.

12 Impotence in man.

Figure 17. Radar graph show s the percentage of population

who did not feel there is a need to minimize and the pre-

ferred way to minimize the hazard (amongst those who felt

the need to minimize).

13 Prostate Carcinoma.

These are some of the opinion given on “By which

other method can you minimize the unwanted effect.”

1 Reduce by using infrared.

2 Put hand phon e away fr om body.

3 Use loud speaker mode.

 Design, style, uniqueness,

fashion, popularity, trend

 Cost

 Build Quality

 The brand advertisement

 Want to try out

 Special function for special

use – MP3, Java Games,

GPRS……

 Peer pressure ,Worth the

wallet

 Coverage

 Signal clarity

 Slim, light and smooth

 Camera with high megapixel

can replace the need for an

additional portable cam era

 Have better warranty cover-

age

 Trade in value

 Durability, long lasting

4 Switch phone off when not in use.

5 Put phone away in locker.

6 Use earphones.

7 Use public ph o nes.

8 Don’t use frequently.

These are some of the opinion given on “why are you

not practicing the method even though you are aware

of th e hazard.”

1 No hands free.

2 Laziness.

I.B. Gender preference: 3 Not realized.

Female prefer – Colorful, slim, lightweight, lasting, styl-

ish mobile phone 4 Difficult to practice.

5 Troublesome.

Male prefer – Stylish, trendy, good performance mobile

phone 6 Never bothered about it.

7 Have never experience any side effect.

II. Hands free are normally not preferred because of

the need to plug in and out when needed and this may

spoil the delicate port, not feel good to plug earpiece in

your ear while walking around, not comfortable to use

noisy, not good reception, dangling wires and controls

interfere, not too stylish and people may feel that they

are talking to themselves rather than talking to the phone

during calls.

There is a significant number of people take laziness

as their excuse to not practice any of the method mini-

mizing the hazard, despite they had know the side effects.

However, some are not bothered as the importance of the

hand phone usage as part of the daily life outweighs the

measu res to counter the side effect .

Limitations: We did not have a control population as

all our students possessed mobile phone.

III. Most of the student population gave a feedback

that their perception has increased after completing the

“perception questionnaire”. In spite of the increased

awareness of risk, they chose not to practice reduction in

mobile phone usage due to the following reasons: How

is possible to reduce a call if receiving call from some-

one important, Don’t have the idea of “Keep It Short and

Simple” and now mobile company offer – “the more you

talk, the cheaper it charges” and hence why not grab the

opportunity.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The perception of mobile phone hazards among

AIMST University students was found to be 62%. Our

hypothesis was proved wrong and we discovered a

higher percentage of perception of mobile phone hazards

among AIMST University students. Mobile phone has

added new dimensions after its invention. Among the

favorable outcomes is the use of mobile phone for seek-

ing help, reporting crime, reckless driving or emergency.

The increased perceived safety associated with it may

outweigh the unfavorable risk associated with mobile

C. Qualita ti ve analysis:

These are some of the opinion given on “What are

the unwanted effects.”

Openly accessible at

L. R. Kumar et al. / Health 3 (2011) 406-415

414

phone.

Future direction: Advantages and disadvantages of

mobile phones, Risk of using mobile while driving, Spe-

cific absorption rate and electric field measurements of

mobile phones and Perception of usefulness of mobile

phone shield are b eing considered for further studies.

REFERENCES

[1] Coggon, D. (2005) What are the health risks associated

with mobile phones and their base stations?

http://www.who.int/features/qa/30/en/

[2] Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mu-

kopadhyay, T. and Scherlis, W. (1998) Internet-paradox:

A social technology that reduces social involvement and

psychological well being? American Psychologist, 53,

1017-1031. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017

[3] Maier, M. (2000) The health hazards of mobile phones.

British Medical Journal, 320, 1288-1289.

doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7245.1288

[4] Hermann, D.A. and Hossmann, K.A. (1997) Neurologi-

cal effects of microwave exposure related to mobile

communication. Journal of the Neurological Sciences,

152, 1-14. doi:10.1016/S0022-510X(97)00140-8

[5] Braune, S., Wrocklage, C., Raczek, J., Gailus, T. and

Lucking, C.H. (1988) Resting blood pressure increase

during exposure to a radio-frequency electromagnetic

field. The Lancet, 351, 1857-1858.

[6] Koivisto, M., Revonsuo, A., Krause, C., Haarala, C.,

Sillanmaki, L., Laine, M. and Hamalainen, H. (2000) Ef-

fects of 902 MHz electromagnetic field emitted by cellu-

lar telephones on response times in humans. Neurore-

port, 11, 413-415.

doi:10.1097/00001756-200002070-00038

[7] Freude, G., Ullsperger, P., Eggert, S. and Ruppe, I. (1988)

Effects of microwaves emitted by cellular phones on hu-

man slow brain potentials. Bioelectromagnetics, 19,

384-387.

doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-186X(1998)19:6<384::AID-BE

M6>3.0.CO;2-Y

[8] Krause, C.M., Sillanmaki, L., Koivisto, M., Haggqvist,

A., Saarela, C. and Revonsuo, A. (2000) Effects of elec-

tromagnetic field emitted by cellular phones on the EEG

during a memory task. Neuroreport, 11, 761-764.

doi:10.1097/00001756-200003200-00021

[9] Hermann, D.A. and Hossmann, K.A. (2003) Effects of

electromagnetic radiation of mobile phones on the central

nervous system. Bioelectromagnetics, 24, 49-62.

doi:10.1002/bem.10068

[10] Siegrist, M., Earle, T.C., Gutscher, H. and Keller, C.,

(2006) Perception of mobile phone and base station risks.

Risk Analysis, 26, 1021-1029.

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00797.x

[11] Chapman, S. and Schofield, W.N. (1998) Emergency use

of cellular (mobile) telephones. The Lancet, 351, 650.

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)78435-X

[12] Hutter, H.P., Moshammer, H., Wallner, P. and Kundi, M.

(2006) Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and

cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile

phone base stations, Occupational and Environmental

Medicine, 63, 307-313. doi:10.1136/oem.2005.020784

[13] Hutter, H.P., Moshamme r, H., Wallner, P. and Kundi, M.

(2004) Public perception of risk concerning celltowers

and mobile phones. Soz Praventivmed, 49, 62-66.

doi:10.1007/s00038-003-2094-7

[14] Mallardi, V. (2005) The origin of informed consent. Acta

Otorhinolaryngol Ital, 25, 312-327.

[15] Appelbaum, P.S., Lidz, C.W. and Klitzman, R. (2009)

Voluntariness of consent to research: A conceptual model.

The Hastings Center Report, 39, 30-39.

doi:10.1353/hcr.0.0103

[16] Baum, N. (2006) Informed consent--more than a form.

Journal of Medical Practice Management, 22, 145-148.

[17] Martha, C. and Griffet, J. (2007) Brief report: How do

adolescents perceive the risks related to cell-phone use?

Journal of Adolescence, 3, 513-521.

doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.11.008

[18] Ichikawa, M. and Nakahara, S. (2008) Japanese high

school students’ usage of mobile phones while cycling.

Traffic Injury Prevention, 9, 42-47.

doi:10.1080/15389580701718389

[19] Krewski, D., Lemy re, L., Mic helle, C., et al. (2009) Pub-

lic perception of population health risks in “Canada:

Health hazards and health outcomes”. International

Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 11, 315-

334. doi:10.1504/IJRAM.2009.023158

[20] Maples, W.C., DeRosier, W., Hoenes, R., Bendure, R.

and Moore, S. (2008) The effects of cell phone use on pe-

ripheral vision. Optometry, 79, 36-42.

doi:10.1016/j.optm.2007.04.102

[21] Vanlaar, W. and Yannis, G. (2006) Perception of road

accident causes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38, 155.

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.08.007

[22] Bush, A., Karagiannis, G.E., Stamatopoulos, V.G. and

Kotis, T. (2006) Public perception of realtime informa-

tion services for environmental monitoring and manage-

ment of asthma. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare,

12, 11-13. doi:10.1258/135763306777978470

L. R. Kumar et al. / Health 3 (2011) 406-415

415

APPENDIX 1: PERCEPTION

QUESTIONNAIRE ON MOBILE PHONE

HAZARD STUDIES

1 Name :

2 Student ID :

3 Gender : male / female

4 Age :

5 Date of birt h :

6 Course :

7 Year joining AIMST (MM/YY) :

8 Do you use a cell phone : yes / no

9 How long have you been using a cell phone

(MM/YY) :__/__

10 How many cell phones you use currently :

11 Cell phone(s) brand that you’re using :

12 Where do you carry your cell phone:

pouch / pocket / around your neck / in the bag / any other

13 Average no. Of calls received/dialed daily :

14 The average duration you talk (both incoming and

outgoi ng) on the phone daily (in minutes):

14 Which ear that you normally use when you’re on

the phone:

right / left / both / not sure

16 Average no. of SMS received/sent daily:

17 Do you using any cell phone accessory(s):

Bluetooth: yes / no

Hands free: yes / no

18 Do you use cell phone while driving : yes / no

19 Each call in minutes received/called for 3 consecu-

tive days :

(1) (6)

(2) (7)

(3) (8)

(4) (9)

(5) (10)

1) Do you think the following health hazard are associ-

ated to cell phone usage

Health

hazards Strongly

disagree Disagree Slightly

agree Agree Strongly

agree

Fatigue

sleep

disturbance

Dizziness

loss of mental

attention

memory loss

Headache

tachycardia

(increased

heart rate)

Diarrhea

constipation

2) Are you aware of the several unwanted effects of

using the cell phone : yes/no

3) How do you think you can minimize the unwanted

effects :

a) Decrease the talking duration : yes/no

b) Increase the length of hands free: yes/no

c) Any other method(s): _______________________

4) Do you actually practice any of these measures: yes

/ no

5) If no, why?