Risk perceptions and preventive practices of COVID-19 among healthcare professionals in public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Healthcare professionals are at higher risk of contracting the new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although appropriate preventive measures are the most important interventions to prevent coronavirus infection among healthcare workers, they are also highly concerned about the consequences of the pandemic. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess preventive practices, perceived risk and worry about COVID-19 crisis among healthcare professionals at six public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A systematic random sampling technique was used to select 1,134 respondents (52.6% females). Data were collected between 9 th and 20 th June 2020 using self-administered questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with worry about COVID-19 crisis. The highest percentage of respondents were nurses (39.3%) and physicians (22.2%), followed by interns (10.8%) and midwives (10.3%). Wearing facemask (93%) and frequent hand washing (93%) were the commonly reported preventive practices. Perceived risk of becoming infected with coronavirus (88%) and the potential risk of infection to their family (91%) were very high. The mean (median) worry score about COVID-19 crisis was 2.37 (3.0), on 1 to 3 scale, with 1 (not worried) and 3 (highly worried). The majority worried a lot about the health system being overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients (92%), the health of their loved ones (90%) and losing someone due to COVID-19 (89%). Respondents who had previously provided clinical care to Ebola, SARS and cholera patients had significantly lower levels of worry about COVID-19 crisis than participants who had not (β = -1.38, P <0.001). Our findings reveal respondents’ widespread practice of preventive measures, highest levels of perceived risk and worry about the COVID-19 crisis. Increased perceived risk and worry about COVID-19 might enable healthcare workers to adopt appropriate preventive measures more effectively against the disease.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.30.20223180: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: After explaining the purpose of the study and obtaining written or oral informed consent, study participants were given a paper-based questionnaire at their workplace and they filled out their own questionnaires.
IRB: Ethical considerations: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the College of Health Sciences at Addis Ababa University (AAU).Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data analysis: Data were entered into the Census Surveys Professional (CSPro) Version 7.2 … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.30.20223180: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: After explaining the purpose of the study and obtaining written or oral informed consent, study participants were given a paper-based questionnaire at their workplace and they filled out their own questionnaires.
IRB: Ethical considerations: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the College of Health Sciences at Addis Ababa University (AAU).Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data analysis: Data were entered into the Census Surveys Professional (CSPro) Version 7.2 statistical software package and subsequently exported to SPSS version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., SPSSsuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)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:Finally, this study had several limitations. First, the study had a potential to be affected by selection bias and eligible participants might be excluded. Second, this study was conducted in six public hospitals in Addis Ababa, and may possibly limit the generalization of the results and findings to other public and private hospitals. Third, the study focused on more general populations of healthcare professionals similar to other studies [32,40] rather than healthcare workers who might have direct contact with COVID-19 patients [41]. At last, the results of this study are based on self-reported data, and the respondents may overestimate or underestimate the responses in a way that they believe is socially acceptable rather than reporting actual or genuine answers. Despite these limitations, the results obtained provide important information to guide health communication efforts that can support prevention efforts of COVID-19 among healthcare professionals.
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.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.04.367896: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: After explaining the purpose of the study and obtaining written or oral informed consent, study participants were given a paper-based questionnaire at their workplace and they filled out their own questionnaires.
IRB: Ethical considerations: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the College of Health Sciences at Addis Ababa University (AAU).Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources A sum of scores (ranged 12-36) was made and the level was classified into two groups using the Visual … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.04.367896: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: After explaining the purpose of the study and obtaining written or oral informed consent, study participants were given a paper-based questionnaire at their workplace and they filled out their own questionnaires.
IRB: Ethical considerations: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the College of Health Sciences at Addis Ababa University (AAU).Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources A sum of scores (ranged 12-36) was made and the level was classified into two groups using the Visual Binning in SPSS (low fear/worry ≤29 and high fear/worry >29 score). SPSSsuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)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:Finally, this study had several limitations. First, the study had a potential to be affected by selection bias and eligible participants might be excluded. Second, this study was conducted in six public hospitals in Addis Ababa, and may possibly limit the generalization of the results and findings to other public and private hospitals. Third, the study focused on more general populations of healthcare professionals similar to other studies [32,40] rather than healthcare workers who might have direct contact with COVID-19 patients [41]. Finally, the results of this study are based on self-reported data, and the respondents may overestimate or underestimate the responses in a way that they believe is socially acceptable rather than reporting actual or genuine answers. Despite these limitations, the results obtained provide important information to guide health communication efforts that can support prevention efforts of COVID-19 among healthcare professionals.
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.
-
-
