Knowledge of novel coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) among a Georgian population

  1. Maia Butsashvili
  2. Lasha Gulbiani
  3. George Kanchelashvili
  4. Marika Kochlamazashvili
  5. George Nioradze
  6. George kamkamidze

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

Georgia confirmed its first case of SARS-COV-2 infection on February 26, 2020. Despite the government’s proactive measures during the early stages of the epidemic, number of new infections of SARS-COV-2 is increasing and by March 31, a total of 110 cases have been reported. Limited understanding about epidemics can lead to panic and disrupt public health efforts to contain transmission. Thus, it is very important to understand the perceptions of the population regarding the disease and perceived level of government preparedness to fight against the spread of infection. This study reports results of a survey designed to understand attitudes and knowledge regarding SARS-COV-2 virus among Georgian population, including health care workers (HCWs).

Materials and methods

The online survey was conducted using a Facebook advertisement. The target was the whole country and the language used was Georgian. We collected information on demographic data, knowledge of symptoms and transmission modes of coronavirus, perceived differences between coronavirus and influenza, availability of antiviral medication and vaccination. We also included questions to capture the Georgian population’s perceptions about government preparedness to combat the new coronavirus.

Results

The survey was open for three days (March 2–4, 2020). 5228 participants completed the survey. Of these, 40.3% were 25–45 years old and 58.2% were female. 20.7% of respondents had university degree and 10.3% were HCWs. For 25.8% of respondents, COVID-19 and influenza are the same diseases; 10.9% did not know if they are different. The majority correctly identified the transmission route and symptoms (96.9% and 98.0%, respectively). Regarding physical distancing, 13.2% indicated they would attend public events if needed even if they had COVID-19 symptoms. 19.1% think that Georgia is ready for COVID 19 epidemic, while according to 55% the county is not ready, but HCWs are trying hard to respond to this challenge properly. For 18% response is inadequate. There was no difference in knowledge between HCWs, non-HCWs and unemployed. 20% of HCWs as well as other study subjects believe that SARS-COV-2 vaccine and medications do exist but are simply not available in Georgia.

Conclusion

One in five Georgians believe that there is a vaccine and medication to treat coronavirus, but that it is not available in the country. Given that information regarding coronavirus is changing very rapidly, the need to reach people with time-sensitive educational messages as well as prevention strategies is vital.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.14.20101642: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Health Research Union.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The major limitation of this method is that internet access is differentially apportioned throughout the population. The Georgian Statistics Department estimated internet coverage in 2019 to be 79.3%, with 86% coverage in urban areas and 69.9% in rural areas [9]. We anticipate that Facebook accounts are more prevalent among the younger, educated population, as is reflected in our respondent demographics. The level of knowledge was higher among older individuals, which is consistent with previous studies. An online survey about COVID-19 conducted in the United Kingdom during March 17–18 similarly demonstrated that older adults consider COVID-19 to be life-threatening [10]. However, overall awareness and appreciation of the risks appears to be higher among the UK respondents, 77% of whom worried about a coronavirus outbreak, compared to 44% of Georgian respondents. According to our study, the media plays important role in disseminating information regarding the coronavirus pandemic, including among HCWs. This appears to be a similar trend found during previous outbreaks. For instance, in a study conducted during the SARS epidemic, 92% of participants in a KAP survey conducted in China reported that their primary source of information about the disease was television [11]. In conclusion, educational attainment and age are correlated with correct information about COVID-19. However, misinformation persists. One in five Georgians believe that there is a vaccine and medication to t...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.14.20101642v1 on medRxiv