Health professionals practice and associated factors towards precautionary measures for COVID-19 pandemic in public health facilities of Gamo zone, southern Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious acute respiratory disease, which caused by a novel coronavirus. The disease disrupts health systems and resulting in social, political, and economic crises. Health professionals are in front of this pandemic and always work in a high-risk environment. The best prevention for COVID-19 is avoiding exposure to the virus. Some studies reported health professional’s practice of precautionary measures for COVID-19. Nevertheless, a few have identified factors affecting. As such, this study aimed to fill those research gaps in the study setting.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 428 health professionals involved from the public health facilities of the Gamo zone, southern Ethiopia. A simple random sampling method employed, and the data collected by the interviewer-administered Open Data Kit survey tool and observational checklist. The data analyzed in Stata version 15, and a binary logistic regression model used to identify factors. In this study, a statistically significant association declared at P< 0.05.

Results

In this study, 35.3% (95%CI: 30.7%, 39.8%) of health professionals’ had a good practice on precautionary measures for the COVID-19 pandemic. Use hand sanitizer or wash hands continuously with soap and water (68.9%), cover nose and mouth with a tissue during sneezing or coughing (67.3%), and use facemask in crowds (56.8%) were the most common practice reported by study participants. Marital status, being married (AOR = 1.84, 95%CI: 1.06, 3.18), good knowledge on the COVID-19 pandemic (AOR = 2.02, 95%CI: 1.02, 3.18), and positive attitude towards precautionary measures for the COVID-19 were factors showed significant association with the practice.

Conclusions

The magnitude of good practice of precautionary measures for the COVID-19 pandemic among health professionals was low. As such, different interventions to improve the knowledge and attitude of health professionals in the health care system are highly needed to boost the practice and to advance service delivery.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.05.20188805: (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 variableThere are 2570 (1096 male and 1474 female) health professionals who are working in those institutions [44].

    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 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.