ArticleJournal of epidemiology and global health2021
Assessment of Knowledge, Perceptions and Perceived Risk Concerning COVID-19 in Pakistan.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An examination of the relationship between risk perceptions, cultural-religious beliefs and coping during COVID-19 pandemic control in South Asian countries: a systematic review.BMC psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Consumers' purchase intention of wild freshwater fish during the COVID-19 pandemic.Agribusiness (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Perceived Benefits Matter the Most in COVID-19 Preventive Behaviors: Empirical Evidence from Okara District, Pakistan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of unmatched scale and severity. A continued state of crisis has been met with poor public adherence to preventive measures and difficulty implementing public health policy. This study aims to identify and evaluate the factors underlying such a response. Thus, it assesses the knowledge, perceived risk, and trust in the sources of information in relation to the novel coronavirus disease at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. An online questionnaire was completed between March 20 and 27, 2020. Knowledge, perceptions, and perceived risk (Likert scale) were assessed for 737 literate participants of a representative sample in an urban setting. We found that respondents' risk perception for novel coronavirus disease was high. The perceived risk score for both cognitive and affective domains was raised at 2.24 ± 1.3 (eight items) and 3.01 ± 1 (seven items) respectively. Misconceptions and gaps in knowledge regarding COVID-19 were noted. Religious leadership was the least trusted (10%) while health authorities were the most trusted (35%) sources of information. Our findings suggest that there was a deficiency in knowledge and high concern about the pandemic, leading to a higher risk perception, especially in the affective domain. Thus, we recommend comprehensive education programs, planned intensive risk communication, and a concerted effort by all stakeholders to mitigate the spread of disease. The first of its kind in the region, this study will be critical to response efforts against current and future outbreaks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.