Effects of personalised exposure on self-rated electromagnetic hypersensitivity and sensibility - A double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous provocation experiments with persons reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) have been criticised because EHS persons were obliged to travel to study locations (seen as stressful), and that they were unable to select the type of signal they reported reacting to. In our study we used mobile exposure units that allow double-blind exposure conditions with personalised exposure settings (signal type, strength, duration) at home. Our aim was to evaluate whether subjects were able to identify exposure conditions, and to assess if providing feedback on personal test results altered the level of self-reported EHS. METHODS: We used double-blind randomised controlled exposure testing with questionnaires at baseline, immediately before and after testing, and at two and four months post testing. Participants were eligible if they reported sensing either radiofrequency or extremely low frequency fields within minutes of exposure. Participants were visited at home or another location where they felt comfortable to undergo testing. Before double-blind testing, we verified together with participants in an unblinded exposure session that the exposure settings were selected were ones that the participant responded to. Double-blind testing consisted of a series of 10 exposure and sham exposures in random sequence, feedback on test results was provided directly after testing. RESULTS: 42 persons participated, mean age was 55years (range 29-78), 76% were women. During double-blind testing, no participant was able to correctly identify when they were being exposed better than chance. There were no statistically significant differences in the self-reported level of EHS at follow-up compared to baseline, but during follow-up participants reported reduced certainty in reacting within minutes to exposure and reported significantly fewer symptoms compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a subgroup of persons exist who profit from participation in a personalised testing procedure.

Patients with environment-related disorders: comprehensive results of interdisciplinary diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: Researchers dealing with environmental illnesses face complex diagnostic and methodological difficulties. Poor objective findings contrast with high subjective suffering and a firm belief that environmental exposure is the only source of complaints. The Basel pilot research project established a multi-modal assessment procedure and assessed complaints attributed to the environment. Medical, psychological and environmental findings were evaluated as to their pathogenic validity. Furthermore, patients were pooled into distinguishable subgroups in order to formulate more appropriate therapy strategies. METHODS: Sixty-three patients took part in the threefold diagnostic approach (medical examination, psychiatric exploration, environmental analysis) of a mixed qualitative/quantitative study. Interdisciplinary case conferences allowed a consensus rating of the aetiological relevance of the findings to be reached. The discrepancy between self-rating and experts' judgement was exploited for subgroup formation. RESULTS: About 50% of the patients' symptoms could be attributed to psychiatric causes. Based on self-rating and experts' judgement, four subgroups were distinguished with differing medical, psychiatric and environmental aetiologies, personality traits and interactional competencies. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with environment-related disorders form a heterogeneous group. An interdisciplinary assessment and a comparison between self- and experts' judgements enable a more differentiated psychotherapeutic procedure and may enhance future treatment success.

Interactional behaviour as a marker for screening patients with environment-related complaints.

BACKGROUND: Adequate assessment of symptoms of patients suffering from environmental illnesses requires appropriate procedures such as psychological and psychiatric diagnostics, medical screening and a thorough analysis of noxious environmental factors. The Basel pilot research project established a multi-methodological assessment procedure that meets these criteria. However, an exhaustive three-fold analysis is very costly in terms of both equipment and personnel, and hence the need for a heuristic approach and pre-screening persists. METHOD: The three-fold diagnostic approach was preceded by a structured psychodynamic interview; the findings were used to construct a new profile of the patient's interactional behaviour (IB) in conjunction with the interviewer's countertransference. The extent to which this new profile could predict the results of the multi-method assessment was then assessed. RESULTS: A low level of IB on the part of the patient significantly predicted the degree of stress and the extent of the psychiatric diagnosis, including personality disorders. A negative IB was associated with negative personality traits. Furthermore, a high level of IB implied more medical, but not more environmental, findings which could plausibly be related to the patient's complaints. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of patients' IB in conjunction with one's own countertransference is very helpful as a preliminary heuristic approach and may lead to consequences for treatment and therapy. Therefore, the training provided for experts who deal with patients suffering from environment-related complaints should place more specific emphasis on assessing patients' behaviour and on incorporating information gathered from countertransference. Nevertheless, an interdisciplinary assessment including medical, psychological/psychiatric, and environmental expertise remains mandatory for adequate and satisfactory diagnosis of patients with environment-related complaints.

[Psychiatric, medical and environmental factors in patients suffering from environment-related disorders]. / Psychiatrische, medizinische und umweltanalytische Faktoren bei Menschen mit umweltbezogenen Gesundheitsstörungen.

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary approach and a multi-modal methodology are needed to assess idiopathic environmental illnesses. SAMPLE: 61 patients took part in all diagnostic steps. METHOD: In the Basel pilot research project on environmental illness, a threefold diagnostic approach was established: patients had a medical and allergological examination, a psychiatric and psychological exploration and an environmental analysis of their homes. RESULTS: There is a clear psychological impact on environmental illness: 46 % of the symptoms could be traced back to psychological factors, and 18 % seemed to be influenced by them. Nevertheless, in 28 % more than one of the three dimensions was seen as important. Values within the self reporting questionnaires show high correspondence. Whereas patients and experts agree in many instances that there are psychological factors, they disagree in attributing clinical relevance to them. This discrepancy is helpful for explaining the difficulties therapists may encounter as to the patients' compliance. CONSEQUENCES: Environmental illness should be diagnosed and treated on an interdisciplinary basis including psychosomatic medicine.

[Quantitative and qualitative analyses in patients with environmentally related disorders]. / Quantitative und qualitative Analysen bei Menschen mit umweltbezogenen Gesundheitsstörungen.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostics and therapy of environmentally related disorders are hampered by one-sided assumptions and by discrepancies between therapists' and patients' assessments of the disease cause. OBJECTIVES: Discrepancies between patient and expert opinions are examined as to (1) whether the sample can be classified in subgroups according to the convergence or divergence between self and expert rating, (2) which features and (3) which disorder-related behaviour and concepts characterize these groups. METHODS: Medical, psychopathological and environmental symptoms were assessed and their relative influence evaluated. Four subgroups were defined by differentiating between high and low psychological stress according to self and expert judgment, and then compared using statistical and qualitative methods. RESULTS: 61 patients were assessed and assigned to four different subgroups according to the number of psychiatric diagnoses, psychological conflicts, personality structure, environmental exposure and psychosocial integration. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostics of environmentally related disorders must be based on interdisciplinary tools. Treatment should incorporate the individual patient's conception of his or her disorder.

Symptoms attributed to the environment--a systematic, interdisciplinary assessment.

PROBLEM: To assess symptoms attributed to the environment from an interdisciplinary perspective and to evaluate the plausibility of the participants' individual theory of a causal relationship between exposure and health impairment. METHOD: We assessed the medical, psychiatric and environmental background in every participant in an environmental medicine project and discussed the explanatory value of our findings for each reported symptom. RESULTS: Every second participant had at least one symptom that could be plausibly explained by simultaneously occurring medical, psychological or environmental findings. In 40% of the participants the research team rated the association between an environmental exposure and the health complaints to be 'plausible'. Psychiatric disorders were frequent, but did not exclude environmentally caused symptoms. CONCLUSION: Only an interdisciplinary structure including medical, psychiatric and environmental expertise is likely to adequately diagnose and advise persons with environmentally related symptoms.