Knowledge, Attitude, Perceptions and Practice towards COVID-19: A systematic review and Meta-analysis

  1. Akshaya Srikanth Bhagavathula
  2. Wafa Ali Aldhaleei
  3. Jamal Rahmani
  4. Jagdish Khubchandani

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Several studies among various population groups have been conducted to investigate the level of knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and risk reduction practices (KAP) related to COVID-19. A comprehensive review on this topic is important to highlight the areas for improvement and interventions to prevent COVID-19. Thus, the purpose of this study was to summarize the level of KAP about COVID-19 via a systematic review

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using a combination of selected keywords in four scientific databases to identify relevant literature published from January 1 to May 31, 2020. Nineteen articles were included in the systematic review, and sixteen studies in the meta-analysis. The data was analyzed using a random-effects model due to the heterogeneity between the studies.

Results

Lack of COVID-19-related knowledge, positive perceptions, and preventive practices were detected and seems widespread. In particular, 56.6% (95%CI: 45.9-67%) of the health care workers (HCWs) and medical students had poor knowledge about COVID-19 and only 46% (95%CI: 15-77) of the total study sample had positive perceptions towards COVID-19. Besides, 81.7% of the sample prioritized practicing hand hygiene to prevent COVID-19, but wearing a face mask to prevent COVID-19 transmission was suboptimal (73.4%). Finally, around eighty percent of the subjects had good knowledge about COVID-19 symptoms (79%) and its transmission (82%) and reported that they avoided crowded places to prevent getting COVID-19 (89%).

Conclusion

Evidence-based practices on risk communication and raising awareness should be planned by local governments in collaboration with healthcare organizations. Specifically, educational initiatives for HCWs to prioritize wearing a face mask and practicing hand hygiene should be considered a priority.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.24.20138891: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Literature Search: A literature search was conducted using MeSH keywords in four databases of peer-reviewed publications (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google scholar).
    MeSH
    suggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Google scholar
    suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)
    We limited our review to the studies that used a structured questionnaire administered among different population assessing the following: No published or in-progress systematic review on this topic was recognized in the Cochrane Library and PROSPERO before this review.
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    Statistical analysis: Meta-analysis was performed using STATA version 16 software.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)
    The random-effects model was used to combine the studies showing heterogeneity of Cochrane Q p<0.10 and I2 >50%.
    Cochrane Q
    suggested: None

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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 10.1101/2020.06.24.20138891v1 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.24.20138891v2 on medRxiv