A systematic review of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of physicians, health workers, and the general population about Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Saeede Saadatjoo, Maryam Miri, Soheil Hassanipour, Hosein Ameri, Morteza Arab-Zozani
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.04.20206094

Abstract

Background Understanding people, physicians, and healthcare workers’ knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAPs) can help to achieve the outcomes of planned behavior. The aim of this study was to investigate and synthesize the current evidence on KAPs regarding COVID-19.

Methods We conducted a systematic search on PubMed/LitCovid, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases for papers in the English language only, up to 1 Jul 2020. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist developed for cross-sectional studies to appraise the quality of the included studies. All stages of the review conducted by two independent reviewers and potential discrepancies solved with a consultation with a third reviewer. We reported the result as number and percentage. PROSPERO registration code: (CRD42020186755).

Results Fifty-two studies encompassing 49786 participants were included in this review. 45.76% of the participants were male. The mean age of the participants was 32.6 years. 44.2% of the included studies were scored as good quality, 46.2% as fair quality, and remaining (9.6%) as low quality. 30.76% examined all three components of the KAPs model. The knowledge component was reported as good, fair, and poor in 59%, 34%, and 7%, respectively. Of the studies that examined the attitude component, 82% reported a positive attitude, 11% a fairly positive attitude, and 7% a negative attitude. For the practice component, 52% reported good practice, 44% fair practice, and 4% poor practice.

Conclusion This systematic review showed that the overall KAP components in the included studies were at an acceptable level. In general, knowledge was at a good level, the attitude was positive and practice was at a fairly good level. Using an integrated international system can help better evaluate these components and compare them between countries.

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported on 31st December 2019 from Wuhan, China, and announced by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic on 11th March 2020 [1, 2]. To date, it was estimated that about 30 million people were infected with COVID-19 worldwide, of which about one million have died [3].

COVID-19 is characterized by a number of flu-like symptoms including fever, respiratory problems (dry cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, sore throat), chills, headache, and loss of taste. Also, this disease is much more severe with men, higher age groups, and patients with other pre-existing conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes, and hypertension [4, 5]. Based on existing evidence, about 81% of COVID-19 cased is mild, 14% are severe and 5 % is critical. The median time from symptoms onset to clinical recovery is approximately two weeks for mild cases and three to six weeks for severe or critical cases [6]. The incubation period for this disease was reported as 2-14 days based on WHO reports. The mortality rate for this disease if different among countries and was reported between two% and 5% [7, 8]. The most important ways to prevent this disease are to use a mask and maintain social distance [9-11]. So far, there have been several cases of infection in the general public, especially doctors and medical staff, some of which have led to death [12-14].

Considering the extent and progress of COVID-19 disease and it’s major effects on economic, social, political, and cultural dimensions of all countries [15, 16], it is essential that people with COVID-19 are provoked, informed, and engaged in all aspect of the disease. From the onset of the disease until now, various studies conducted worldwide have investigated on this disease and some of these studies have examined the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) of people with COVID-19. Having enough knowledge about a disease can always affect people’s attitudes and practices, and on the other hand, improper attitudes and practices can increase the risk of disease and death. Therefore, understanding people, physicians, and healthcare workers’ KAPs and knowing potential risk factors can help to achieve the outcomes of planned behavior [17, 18].

Given the importance of the issue, conducting a review of studies that have examined the KAPs of individuals and summarizing the results can provide solid evidence for decision-makers in all countries to better manage the disease. Thus, this study aimed at conducting a systematic review to synthesize current evidence on KAPs of people with COVID-19 worldwide.

Materials and Methods

Protocol and registration

We conducted a systematic review of the existing evidence related to KAPs of COVID-19 patients worldwide following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statements (Appendix Supplementary file 1) [19]. We also registered a protocol for this systematic review in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [20] (CRD42020186755).

Eligibility criteria

We included all studies which met the following inclusion criteria: 1) cross-sectional survey; 2) investigate at least one component of the KAPs model regarding COVID-19 patients worldwide; 3) published, in-press or preprint original paper; 4) in English; 5) with a sample of the general population, physicians or other healthcare workers. No restrictions were applied to the setting, time, or quality of the study.

Information sources, search and study selection

We search the PubMed/LitCovid, Scopus, and Web of Sciences for papers in the English language only, up to 1 Jul 2020 (MA-Z). We also conducted a search in Google Scholar for retrieving studies that were not cited in the above-mentioned databases. In addition, the reference lists to final articles were hand-searched. The keywords used in the search were: attitude, knowledge, practice, awareness, perception, action, COVID-19, coronavirus disease, SARS-CoV-2, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The full search strategy for the Scopus database is provided in Appendix Supplementary file 2. When the search was complete, all records were transferred to the Endnote software (V. X8; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA) and duplicates were removed. Then, studies based on the title, abstract, and full text were screened by two researchers independently by considering the pre-specified eligibility criteria (MM and SS). Disagreements were solved through consultation with a third researcher (MA-Z).

Data collection process and data item

Two researchers independently engaged in the data collection process and extracted data including author, year, journal name, location, study design, data collection tools, sample size, focusing group, mean age or range, gender percent, and result related to KAPs model components (MM and SS). Potential disagreements were solved through consultation with a third researcher (MA-Z).

Quality appraisal

Included studies were critically appraised by two researchers independently (MM and SS). We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist developed for cross-sectional studies to appraise the quality of the included studies [21]. This checklist contains eight simple and clear questions that cover topics such as inclusion criteria for sample; details about study subjects and setting; validity and reliability; criteria for measurement of the condition; confounding variables; and statistical analysis [22]. The answer to each questions is yes, no, unclear, and not applicable. Potential discrepancies were resolved by consultation with a third researcher (SH).

Synthesis of results

Due to potential heterogeneity between included studies the meta-analysis was not conducted. Therefore we carried out the descriptive analysis in most sections and report the pooled data as number or percentage for similar data items. We used Microsoft Excel software to design the charts. Also, we report the result of the included studies in a narrative manner.

Results

Study selection

A total of 4829 records were retrieved from our database search. After removing duplicate, 3085 records were screened by title, abstract, and full-text based on eligibility criteria, of which fifty-two studies were included in the final review [23-74]. The PRISMA flow diagram for the complete study selection process is presented in Fig 1.

Figure 1:
Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram

Study characteristics

Fifty-two studies encompassing 49786 participants were included. Also, 45.76% of the participants were male. The mean age of the participants was 32.6 years. Most studies were from Asia, Africa, South America, Europe, and multinational, respectively (Fig 2A). The most important method of data collection was online questionnaires (Fig 2B). Focusing groups were diverse between the studies and included health care workers, students, general population, adult population, patients groups, residents, and pregnant women (Fig 2C). Most studies examined all three components of the KAPs model, but some studies examined two components or one component. More details about the characteristics of included studies are presented in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1: Summary characteristics of the included studies
Figure 2:
Figure 2: The percentage of the included studies based on location (A), data collection methods (B), and focusing group (C).

Quality appraisal

The overall mean quality score of the included studies was 4.90. Of the included studies, 23 studies (44.2%) were scored as good quality (score ≥6), 24 (46.2%) as fair quality (score 3-5), and remaining (9.6%) as low quality (score <3) (Fig 3). The lowest and highest quality scores in the studies were two and six, respectively. None of the studies scored on questions 5 and 6, which were related to identification and deal with confounding variables in the studies (for more details about items see Appendix Supplementary file 3.

Figure 3:
Figure 3: The percentage of included studies based on quality score

Synthesis of results

Among the included studies, 30.76% examined all three components of the KAPs model simultaneously. The most studied component in the studies was the knowledge component with about 84.61%, followed by attitude and practice with 53.84% and 44.23%, respectively. Also, 34.61% and 17.3% of the articles have examined other components including perception and awareness, respectively (Table 2, Fig 4).

View this table:
Table 2: Results related to Coronavirus-related KAPs components of the included studies
Figure 4:
Figure 4: The number of investigated components in the included studies

Of the studies that examined the knowledge component, 59% reported good knowledge, 34% fair knowledge, and 7% poor knowledge. As well as, of the studies that examined the attitude component, 82% reported a positive attitude, 11% a fairly positive attitude, and 7% a negative attitude. For the practice component, 44% reported good practice, 52% fair practice, and 4% poor practice. Also, 39% of the perception component reported a high level of perception and for the awareness component, 44% reported good awareness (Table 2, Fig 5).

Figure 5:
Figure 5: The percentage of studies based on the knowledge (K), attitudes (A), and practices (P)

Discussion

COVID-19 has had serious, long-term, and sometimes irreparable effects on all aspects of the daily lives of individuals and society [75, 76]. Getting informed from the knowledge, attitude, and practice of different people can play a vital role in preventing diseases [77, 78], so the study of these components in different communities and between different groups seems necessary.

Strength and weakness

Meta-analysis was not possible due to the different questionnaires and their dimensions, the target group, and study setting, so we reported the results descriptively in the form of tables and figures. Also, a large number of the included studies did not report the validity and reliability of the questionnaires, and therefore, the overall quality of the included studies was moderate. The main reason for this is the rush to publish articles related to coronavirus disease. Also, due to the high volume of articles published in this field, some new articles that may not have been included in this article may have been published during the writing and reviewing process. One of the most important strengths of this study was that all stages of the study were conducted with two researchers and in all stages, in cases of disagreement, the third person and consensus were used. Also, registering the protocol of this study and reviewing and modifying it in the PROSPERO platform is the strength of this study.

Summary of study findings

We found that about 60% of the samples had good knowledge of COVID-19. Also, 82% of the samples were reported positive attitudes regarding COVID-19 and slightly more than 50% of samples performed good practices. About 80% of the studies used an online questionnaire to collect data, and the most used platforms included Google form, SurveyMonkey, and Qualtrics. The most important social media through which the questionnaires were distributed were Facebook, WhatsApp, and Telegram. The most important sources for learning and staying up to date about COVID-19 mentioned in the studies were television, social media, internet, radio, and friend and relatives.

The finding of our systematic review demonstrated fairly good knowledge about COVID-19. In most studies, more than 70% of the participants had a good knowledge of issues such as causes, symptoms, ways of transmission, and ways of prevention. Also, the majority of participants had a high level of knowledge about symptoms such as high fever and dry cough, breathing difficulty and a small number had sufficient knowledge about other symptoms such as chills, headache, muscle pain, sore throat, and loss of taste or smell [23, 25, 26, 34, 36-38, 41, 42, 64, 66]. More than 90% of the participants considered air droplets as a way to spread. This good level of knowledge can be due to widespread information through various means such as public media (television and radio), social media, and government announcements. In addition, preparing several guidelines and reports by WHO, CDC and local government in times of outbreak and easy access to them have increased the level of information and knowledge of individuals regarding COVID-19 [79, 80]. On the other hand, factors such as low literacy level, older age, and the presence of the rural population in the samples were among the factors that have reduced the level of knowledge in the studies [23, 27, 31, 33, 71].

In this review, participants showed a positive attitude regarding COVID-19. Almost all participants believed in the importance of handwashing, disinfecting surfaces, using masks to prevent the spread of infection, resting at home in the event of symptoms, and maintaining social distance and limited contact. Of course, in some cases, there was a negative belief that it could be due to differences in instructions and guidelines by different institutions, such as what was about wearing a face mask at the beginning of the pandemic, and then it was recommended that the whole population should use a mask [56, 60]. Such cases show the importance of integrated guidelines and the focus of decision-making in times of crisis [81, 82]. Although having a responsible organization can help make better and faster decisions, in such cases, political pressure is exerted by governments that such organizations should put the health of the people at the top and not refuse to make the right decisions due to political pressures [11, 83, 84].

In general, the level of practice of the participants in the studies was fair. However, despite the high knowledge and positive attitude of the participants, the level of practices was still sometimes lower than expected. Numerous reasons for a low level of practice have been cited in studies. Lack of availability (for example, masks and disinfectants), imposing financial costs on participants, ambiguity in instructions, not getting used to new conditions such as staying home and wearing a mask, exhaustion from existing conditions, and anxiety and stress of disease were among the causes mentioned in the studies [28, 34, 40, 44, 54, 58, 71]. In this regard, some countries have imposed strict laws and penalties on people who do not follow the guidelines to improve their performance, but in many countries under study, such laws do not exist and have not been applied [85, 86]. Another factor that affects the performance of individuals was the presence of decision-makers in public and social media. Seeing a person without a mask at the height of a pandemic can have a negative impact on a person’s good practices.

Given the diversity of settings and questionnaires, the authors of this paper recommend that there be a need to design an integrated online system to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the population about health-related crises. Designing such an integrated system can help better compare countries because integrated items are used for comparison. On the other hand, designing such a system and disseminating its results can accelerate integrated decision-making and improve crisis management. On the other hand, the existence of such an integrated system can lead to an increase in solidarity, which was emphasized by the World Health Organization during the corona pandemic [87, 88].

Limitations

The included studies were from both high and low-income countries and therefore generalization of results to all countries should be done with caution. Also, many of the questionnaires in the studies did not have sufficient validity and reliability or did not report it. Our review study also had some limitations. Due to differences in studies and the use of different questionnaires, conducting a meta-analysis was not possible in this study. We have only reviewed studies published in English. On the other hand, due to the high speed of publication of articles in this field, some other studies may be published at the time of writing the article and the review process, which has been missed. Of course, due to the high speed of publishing articles, this limitation is inevitable.

Conclusion

This systematic review showed that the KAP components in the participants are at an acceptable level. In general, knowledge was at a good level, the attitude was positive and practice was at a fairly good level. Providing accurate and up-to-date information in times of crises and disseminating them through responsible institutions and through the mass media and holding online training courses can help increase people’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

Data Availability

All relevant data exist in the manuscript.

Supporting Information

Supplementary file 1; PubMed search strategy

Supplementary file 2; quality appraisal of the included studies

Author Contributions

Conception and design: MA-Z. Screen the records, data extraction, and quality appraisal: MM, SS and SH. Data analysis: MA-Z and HA. Draft manuscript: MA-Z. Critical review: SH and HA. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.

Supporting information captions

Supplementary file 1: PRISMA 2009 checklist

Supplementary file 2: Complete search strategy

Supplementary file 3: Quality appraisal of the included studies

Acknowledgments

We thank the PROSPERO institute for accelerating the review process in the time of Coronavirus. We also thank Birjand University of Medical Sciences for approving our proposal and giving it a code of ethics (IR.BUMS.REC.1399.099).

Footnotes

  • ss.saadatjoo1360{at}gmail.com

  • mmiri1062{at}gmail.com

  • soheil.epid{at}gmail.com

  • hamery7{at}yahoo.com

  • arab.hta{at}gmail.com

  • Data availability statement: All relevant data are with the paper and the attached supplementary information.

  • Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

  • Competing Interest: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Cao Z, Li T, Liang L, Wang H, Wei F, Meng S, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 patients in Beijing, China. PloS one. 2020;15(6):e0234764.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Arab-Zozani M, Hassanipour S. Features and limitations of LitCovid hub for quick access to literature about COVID-19. Balkan Med J. 2020.
  3. 3.↵
  4. 4.↵
    Arab-Zozani M, Hassanipour S, Ghoddoosi-Nejad D. Favipiravir for treating patients with novel coronavirus (COVID-19): protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ open. 2020;10(7):e039730.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Struyf T, Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, Takwoingi Y, Davenport C, Leeflang MM, et al. Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19 disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020;(7).
  6. 6.↵
    Gaythorpe K, Imai N, Cuomo-Dannenburg G, Baguelin M, Bhatia S, Boonyasiri A, et al. Report 8: Symptom progression of COVID-19. 2020.
  7. 7.↵
    Organization WH. Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation report-7 (2020). URL https://www.whoint/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200127-sitrep-7-2019--ncovpdf. 2020.
  8. 8.↵
    Wang C, Horby PW, Hayden FG, Gao GF. A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern. The Lancet. 2020;395(10223):470–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    Feng S, Shen C, Xia N, Song W, Fan M, Cowling BJ. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2020;8(5):434–6.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.
    Siedner MJ, Harling G, Reynolds Z, Gilbert RF, Venkataramani A, Tsai AC. Social distancing to slow the US COVID-19 epidemic: an interrupted time-series analysis. MedRxiv. 2020.
  11. 11.↵
    Arab-Zozani M, Ghoddoosi-Nejad D. Covid-19 in Iran: the good, the bad and the ugly strategies for preparedness–A report from the field. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. 2020:1-6.
  12. 12.↵
    Dewey C, Hingle S, Goelz E, Linzer M. Supporting clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. American College of Physicians; 2020.
  13. 13.
    Zhan M, Qin Y, Xue X, Zhu S. Death from Covid-19 of 23 health care workers in China. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020.
  14. 14.↵
    Ing E, Xu Q, Salimi A, Torun N. Physician deaths from corona virus (COVID-19) disease. Occupational Medicine. 2020;70(5):370–4.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Yoosefi Lebni J, Abbas J, Moradi F, Salahshoor MR, Chaboksavar F, Irandoost SF, et al. How the COVID-19 pandemic effected economic, social, political, and cultural factors: A lesson from Iran. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 2020:0020764020939984.
  16. 16.↵
    Yezli S, Khan A. COVID-19 social distancing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Bold measures in the face of political, economic, social and religious challenges. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2020: 101692.
  17. 17.↵
    Wu ZMcGoogan J. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020;323:1239-42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    McEachan R, Taylor N, Harrison R, Lawton R, Gardner P, Conner M. Meta-Analysis of the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) to Understanding Health Behaviors. Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine. 2016;50(4):592-612. Epub 2016/05/14. doi: 10.1007/s12160-016-9798-4. PubMed PMID: 27169555; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4933736.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews. 2012;1(1):1–9.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Porritt K, Gomersall J, Lockwood C. JBI’s systematic reviews: study selection and critical appraisal. AJN The American Journal of Nursing. 2014;114(6):47–52.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Arab-Zozani M, Pezeshki MZ, Khodayari-Zarnaq R, Janati A. Inappropriate Rate of Admission and Hospitalization in the Iranian Hospitals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2020;21:105–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2019.07.011.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Abdelhafiz AS, Mohammed Z, Ibrahim ME, Ziady HH, Alorabi M, Ayyad M, et al. Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitude of Egyptians Towards the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Journal of Community Health. 2020. doi: 10.1007/s10900-020-00827-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.
    Al Nsour M, Khader Y, Al Serouri A, Bashier H, Osman S. Awareness and preparedness of Field Epidemiology Training Program graduates in the Eastern Mediterranean Region to respond to COVID-19: A cross-section study. JMIR Med Educ. 2020. doi: 10.2196/19047. PubMed PMID: 32406852.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Alhaj AK, Al-Saadi T, Mohammad F, Alabri S. Neurosurgery Residents Perspective on the COVID-19: Knowledge, Readiness, and Impact of this Pandemic. World Neurosurg. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.05.087. PubMed PMID: 32426064.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Alzoubi H, Alnawaiseh N, Al-Mnayyis A, Abu-Lubad M, Aqel A, Al-Shagahin H. Covid-19 - Knowledge, attitude and practice among medical and non-medical university students in Jordan. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology. 2020;14(1):17–24. doi: 10.22207/JPAM.14.1.04.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    Apaijitt P, Wiwanitkit V. Knowledge of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by medical personnel in a rural area of Thailand: An observation. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 2020. doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.159.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    Azlan AA, Hamzah MR, Sern TJ, Ayub SH, Mohamad E. Public knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19: A cross-sectional study in Malaysia. PloS one. 2020;15(5):e0233668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233668.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.
    Basheti IA, Nassar R, Barakat M, Alqudah R, Abufarha R, Muqatash T, et al. Pharmacists’ readiness to deal with the coronavirus pandemic: Assessing awareness and perception of roles. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.04.020.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.
    Bhagavathula AS, Aldhaleei WA, Rahmani J, Mahabadi MA, Bandari DK. Knowledge and Perceptions of COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers: Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020. doi: 10.2196/19160. PubMed PMID: 32320381.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Bragazzi NL, Ricco M, Pacifico A, Malagoli P, Kridin K, Pigatto P, et al. COVID-19 knowledge prevents biologics discontinuation: data from an Italian multi-center survey during RED-ZONE declaration. Dermatol Ther. 2020. doi: 10.1111/dth.13508. PubMed PMID: 32415727.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.
    Cai Y, Jiam NT, Wai KC, Shuman EA, Roland LT, Chang JL. Otolaryngology Resident Practices and Perceptions in the Initial Phase of the U.S. COVID-19 Pandemic. Laryngoscope. 2020. doi: 10.1002/lary.28733.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    Chesser A, Drassen Ham A, Keene Woods N. Assessment of COVID-19 Knowledge Among University Students: Implications for Future Risk Communication Strategies. Health Educ Behav. 2020. doi: 10.1177/1090198120931420. PubMed PMID: 32460566.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Clements JM. Knowledge and behaviors toward COVID-19 among us residents during the early days of the pandemic: Cross-sectional online questionnaire. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020;22(5). doi: 10.2196/19161.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.
    Erbas M, Dost B. Evaluation of knowledge and attitudes among intensive care physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey. Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 2020;(AHEAD).
  36. 36.↵
    Escalera-Antezana JP, Cerruto-Zelaya PE, Apaza-Huasco M, Miranda-Rojas SH, Flores-Cárdenas CA, Rivera-Zabala L, et al. Healthcare workers’ and students’ knowledge regarding the transmission, epidemiology and symptoms of COVID-19 in 41 cities of Bolivia and Colombia. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101702.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.
    Galle F, Sabella EA, Molin GD, Giglio OD, Caggiano G, Onofrio VD, et al. Understanding Knowledge and Behaviors Related to CoViD-19 Epidemic in Italian Undergraduate Students: The EPICO Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103481. PubMed PMID: 32429432.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Geldsetzer P. Knowledge and Perceptions of COVID-19 Among the General Public in the United States and the United Kingdom: A Cross-sectional Online Survey. Annals of internal medicine. 2020. doi: 10.7326/M20-0912.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.
    Giao H, Le An P, Khanh T.V, Ngan V.K, Tam V.V, Le An P. Knowledge and attitude toward COVID-19 among healthcare workers at District 2 Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine. 2020;13.
  40. 40.↵
    Jemal B, Ferede ZA, Mola S, Hailu S, Abiy S, Wolde GD, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practice of healthcare workers towards COVID-19 and its prevention in Ethiopia: a multicenter study. 2020.
  41. 41.↵
    Kakemam E, Ghoddoosi-Nejad D, Chegini Z, Momeni K, Salehinia H, Hassanipour S, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices among the general population during COVID-19 outbreak in Iran: A national cross-sectional survey. medRxiv. 2020.
  42. 42.↵
    Kamate SK, Sharma S, Thakar S, Srivastava D, Sengupta K, Hadi AJ, et al. Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of dental practitioners regarding the COVID-19 pandemic: A multinational study. Dent Med Probl 2020;57(1):11–7.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.
    Karasneh R, Al-Azzam S, Muflih S, Soudah O, Hawamdeh S, Khader Y. Media’s effect on shaping knowledge, awareness risk perceptions and communication practices of pandemic COVID-19 among pharmacists. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.04.027.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    Kebede Y, Yitayih Y, Birhanu Z, Mekonen S, Ambelu A. Knowledge, perceptions and preventive practices towards COVID-19 early in the outbreak among Jimma university medical center visitors, Southwest Ethiopia. PloS one. 2020;15(5):e0233744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233744.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.
    Khader Y, Al Nsour M, Al-Batayneh O.B, Saadeh R, Bashier H, Alfaqih M, et al. Dentists’ Awareness, Perception, and Attitude Regarding COVID-19 and Infection Control: Cross-Sectional Study Among Jordanian Dentists. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(2).
  46. 46.
    Khan MA, Sivalingam A, Haller JA. Perceptions of Occupational Risk and Changes in Clinical Practice of U.S. Vitreoretinal Surgery Fellows during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ophthalmol Retina. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2020.05.011. PubMed PMID: 32450265.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.
    Khasawneh AI, Abu Humeidan A, Alsulaiman JW, Bloukh S, Ramadan M, Al-Shatanawi TN, et al. Medical Students and COVID-19: Knowledge, Attitudes and Precautionary Measures. A Descriptive Study from Jordan. Frontiers in Public Health. 2020;8:253.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.
    Kumar J, Katto MS, Siddiqui AA, Sahito B, Jamil M, Rasheed N, et al. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices of Healthcare Workers Regarding the Use of Face Mask to Limit the Spread of the New Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Cureus. 2020;12(4). doi: 10.7759/cureus.7737. PubMed PMID: WOS:000526848800001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.
    Lau LL, Hung N, Go DJ, Ferma J, Choi M, Dodd W, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of COVID-19 among income-poor households in the Philippines: A cross-sectional study. Journal of global health. 2020;10(1).
  50. 50.
    Liu H, Li X, Chen Q, Li Y, Xie C, Ye M, et al. Illness perception, mood state and disease-related knowledge level of COVID-19 family clusters, Hunan, China. Brain Behav Immun. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.045. PubMed PMID: pmcid:32425333.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.
    McFadden SM, Malik AA, Aguolu OG, Willebrand KS, Omer SB. Perceptions of the adult US population regarding the novel coronavirus outbreak. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231808.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.
    Modi PD, Nair G, Uppe A, Modi J, Tuppekar B, Gharpure AS, et al. COVID-19 Awareness Among Healthcare Students and Professionals in Mumbai Metropolitan Region: A Questionnaire-Based Survey. Cureus. 2020;12(4). doi: 10.7759/cureus.7514. PubMed PMID: pmcid:WOS:000523461700009.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.
    Moro M, Vigezzi GP, Capraro M, Biancardi A, Nizzero P, Signorelli C, et al. 2019-novel coronavirus survey: Knowledge and attitudes of hospital staff of a large Italian teaching hospital. Acta Biomedica. 2020;91:29–34. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i3-S.9419.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.↵
    Nwafor JI, Aniukwu JK, Anozie BO, Ikeotuonye AC, Okedo-Alex IN. Pregnant women’s knowledge and practice of preventive measures against COVID-19 in a low-resource African setting. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2020. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13186.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.
    Olapegba PO, Iorfa SK, Kolawole SO, Oguntayo R, Gandi JC, Ottu IFA, et al. Survey data of COVID-19-related Knowledge, Risk Perceptions and Precautionary Behavior among Nigerians. Data in Brief. 2020;30. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.105685.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. 56.↵
    Olum R, Chekwech G, Wekha G D.A N, Bongomin F. Coronavirus Disease-2019: Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices of Health Care Workers at Makerere University Teaching Hospitals,Uganda. Front Public Health. 2020;8.
  57. 57.
    Parikh PA, Shah BV, Phatak AG, Vadnerkar AC, Uttekar S, Thacker N, et al. COVID-19 Pandemic: Knowledge and Perceptions of the Public and Healthcare Professionals. Cureus. 2020;12(5). doi: 10.7759/cureus.8144. PubMed PMID: pmcid:WOS:000533196100017.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.↵
    Raza A. Public Awareness Towards COVID-19: A Cross Sectional Survey Among Patients of Pakistan Homeopathic Trust Hospital Lahore, Pakistan. International Journal of Homeopathy, Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2020:7-.
  59. 59.
    Reuben RC, Danladi MM, Saleh DA, Ejembi PE. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Towards COVID-19: An Epidemiological Survey in North-Central Nigeria. Journal of Community Health. 2020:1-14.
  60. 60.↵
    Riccò M, Ferraro P, Gualerzi G, Ranzieri S, Bragazzi NL, Balzarini F, et al. Point-of-Care diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2: knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions (KAP) of medical workforce in Italy. Acta biomedica : Atenei Parmensis. 2020;91(2):57–67. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i2.9573.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.
    Roy D, Tripathy S, Kar SK, Sharma N, Verma SK, Kaushal V. Study of knowledge, attitude, anxiety & perceived mental healthcare need in Indian population during COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Journal of Psychiatry. 2020;51. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102083.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.
    Sahraian MA, Gheini MR, Rezaeimanesh N, Ghajarzadeh M, Naser Moghadasi A. Knowledge regarding COVID-19 pandemic in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS): A report from Iran. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. 2020;42. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102193.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.
    Salman M, Mustafa ZU, Asif N, Zaidi HA, Hussain K, Shehzadi N, et al. Knowledge, attitude and preventive practices related to COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in two Pakistani university populations. Drugs and Therapy Perspectives. 2020. doi: 10.1007/s40267-020-00737-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.↵
    61. Saqlain M, Munir MM, Rehman SU, Gulzar A, Naz S, Ahmed Z, et al. Knowledge, attitude, practice and perceived barriers among healthcare professionals regarding COVID-19: A Cross-sectional survey from Pakistan. J Hosp Infect. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.05.007. PubMed PMID: pmcid:32437822.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.
    Sari DK, Amelia R, Dharmajaya R, Sari LM, Fitri NK. Positive Correlation Between General Public Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding COVID-19 Outbreak 1 Month After First Cases Reported in Indonesia. Journal of community health. 2020:1–8.
  66. 66.↵
    Shi Y, Wang J, Yang Y, Wang Z, Wang G, Hashimoto K, et al. Knowledge and attitudes of medical staff in Chinese psychiatric hospitals regarding COVID-19. Brain Behav Immun Health. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100064. PubMed PMID: pmcid:32289123.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.
    Singh DR, Sunuwar DR, Karki K, Ghimire S, Shrestha N. Knowledge and Perception Towards Universal Safety Precautions During Early Phase of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Nepal. Journal of Community Health. 2020. doi: 10.1007/s10900-020-00839-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. 68.
    Siniscalchi M, Zingone F, Savarino EV, D’Odorico A, Ciacci C. COVID-19 pandemic perception in adults with celiac disease: an impulse to implement the use of telemedicine: COVID-19 and CeD. Dig Liver Dis. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2020.05.014. PubMed PMID: pmcid:32425731.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. 69.
    Taghrir MH, Borazjani R, Shiraly R. COVID-19 and iranian medical students; A survey on their related-knowledge, preventive behaviors and risk perception. Archives of Iranian Medicine. 2020;23(4):249–54. doi: 10.34172/aim.2020.06.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.
    Wahed WYA, Hefzy EM, Ahmed MI, Hamed NS. Assessment of knowledge, attitudes, and perception of health care workers regarding COVID-19, a cross-sectional study from Egypt. Journal of community health. 2020:1–10.
  71. 71.↵
    Wolf MS, Serper M, Opsasnick L, O’Conor RM, Curtis LM, Benavente JY, et al. Awareness, Attitudes, and Actions Related to COVID-19 Among Adults With Chronic Conditions at the Onset of the U.S. Outbreak: A Cross-sectional Survey. Ann Intern Med. 2020. doi: 10.7326/M20-1239. PubMed PMID: pmcid:32271861.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. 72.
    Yassa M, Birol P, Yirmibes C, Usta C, Haydar A, Yassa A, et al. Near-term pregnant women’s attitude toward, concern about and knowledge of the COVID-19 pandemic. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1763947. PubMed PMID: pmcid:32429780.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. 73.
    Zhang M, Zhou M, Tang F, Wang Y, Nie H, Zhang L, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding COVID-19 among healthcare workers in Henan, China. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2020;105(2):183–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.04.012.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. 74.↵
    Zhong B.L, Luo W, Li H.M, Zhang Q.Q, Liu X.G, Li W.T, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among Chinese residents during the rapid rise period of the COVID-19 outbreak: a quick online cross-sectional survey. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16(10).
  75. 75.↵
    Tull MT, Edmonds KA, Scamaldo K, Richmond JR, Rose JP, Gratz KL. Psychological Outcomes Associated with Stay-at-Home Orders and the Perceived Impact of COVID-19 on Daily Life. Psychiatry research. 2020:113098.
  76. 76.↵
    Haleem A, Javaid M, Vaishya R. Effects of COVID 19 pandemic in daily life. Current Medicine Research and Practice. 2020.
  77. 77.↵
    Ghazanfari Z, Azattalab F. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (Kap) Study Regarding Prevention of Breast Cancer in Working Women of Chaloos City. SSU_Journals. 2006;14(2):51–5.
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    Namikawa K, Kikuchi H, Kato S, Takizawa Y, Konta A, Iida T, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Japanese travelers towards malaria prevention during overseas travel. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2008;6(3):137–41.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    Organization WH. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): situation report, 82. 2020.
  80. 80.↵
    Organization WH. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): situation report, 72. 2020.
  81. 81.↵
    Hong KH, Lee SW, Kim TS, Huh HJ, Lee J, Kim SY, et al. Guidelines for laboratory diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Korea. Ann Lab Med. 2020;40(5):351–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    Jin Y-H, Cai L, Cheng Z-S, Cheng H, Deng T, Fan Y-P, et al. A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version). Military Medical Research. 2020;7(1):4.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    Flinders M. Democracy and the Politics of Coronavirus: Trust, Blame and Understanding. Parliamentary Affairs. 2020.
  84. 84.↵
    Davies S. The politics of staying behind the frontline of coronavirus. Wellcome Open Research. 2020;5(131):131.
    OpenUrl
  85. 85.↵
    Parmet WE, Sinha MS. Covid-19—the law and limits of quarantine. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382(15):e28.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. 86.↵
    Griffith R. Using public health law to contain the spread of COVID-19. British Journal of Nursing. 2020;29(5):326–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    Arab-Zozani M, Hassanipour S. Sharing Solidarity Experiences to Overcome COVID-19. Annals of Global Health. 2020;86(1).
  88. 88.↵
    Arora G, Kroumpouzos G, Kassir M, Jafferany M, Lotti T, Sadoughifar R, et al. Solidarity and transparency against the COVID-19 pandemic. Dermatologic Therapy. 2020.
Back to top
Posted October 06, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
A systematic review of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of physicians, health workers, and the general population about Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Saeede Saadatjoo, Maryam Miri, Soheil Hassanipour, Hosein Ameri, Morteza Arab-Zozani
medRxiv 2020.10.04.20206094; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.04.20206094
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area