COVID 19 Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of the Healthcare Providers in United Arab Emirates

  1. Aljazia Khalfan Alghfeli
  2. Amal Abdul Rahim Al Zarouni
  3. Hamda Musabbah Alremeithi
  4. Roqayah Abdulla Almadhaani
  5. Latifa Baynouna Alketbi

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Health care providers at increased risk of COVID-19 infection, inadequate knowledge and practice about COVID-19, and infection control may lead to increased risk of disease transmission. Early diagnosis and appropriate management of COVID 19 cases is important in preventing transmission and improving patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge, altitude, and practice of healthcare providers in the United Arab Emirates toward COVID-19 and to examine its determinants.

Method

A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practice (KAP) of Healthcare providers regarding COVID-19. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic from of April 11 to July 23, using an online anonymous self-administered questionnaire.

Results

A total of 2371 healthcare providers responded to the survey. A total of 1091 worked in inpatient hospitals, 494 in primary health care, and 388 in emergency and ICU care. The overall performance score for all healthcare providers was as follows: 49.1%, poor score; 41.8 %, intermediate score; and 9.2%, good score with a mean result of 17.14. Factors leading to better overall performance scores were years of experience, pediatricians’ specialty, and specialist’s occupation. A total of 55.7% received good direct knowledge from all healthcare providers. In practice, 48% had good practices toward COVID-19. The overall attitude mean was 2.8, from a maximum score of 7, indicating a positive attitude toward COVID-19.

Conclusions

The study-demonstrated gaps in specific aspects of knowledge and practice that should be focused on in future education and HCP awareness. A structured training program targeting all HCPs is needed to have good clinical knowledge and practice about COVID-19.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.05.21252719: (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

    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: 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 found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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 10.1101/2021.03.05.21252719v1 on medRxiv