ArticleSAGE open medicine2021
Preparedness level and associated factors of health professionals regarding COVID-19.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge as a Predictor for Preparedness in Managing COVID-19 Among General Practitioners in Malaysia.Cureus · 2024Article
- Personal protective equipment utilization practice and psychological preparedness of health care workers against COVID-19 pandemic in Eastern Ethiopia.SAGE open medicine · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the level of preparedness of health professionals working in South Gondar Zone public hospital, Debre Tabor Comprehensive specialized Hospital for coronavirus.
methodsAn institutional-based cross-sectional survey was conducted with a self-administered questionnaire from April 20 to May 20. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test, bivariable, and multivariable logistic analysis were done. Bivariable and multivariable regression was held to determine significant predictors for preparedness. For all statistical analyses, a p value ⩽ 0.05 was considered as significant.
resultsFrom a total health professionals, 301 health professionals with a response rate of 86% participated in the study. Among these, 206 were males while 95 participants were females with a mean age of 29.71 ± 5.84 years. To determine the preparedness level, we use the mean preparedness score of the respondents. Around 64.1% of health professionals were well prepared. Among 20 respondents who had a chronic illness, 80% of them think their illness is risky for the pandemic. The majority of the respondents (229/76.1%) responded as they were working without protective equipment. From the multivariable analysis male sex (adjusted odds ratio = 2.07, 95% confidence interval = 1.193-3.590), family living with them (adjusted odds ratio = 4.507, 95% confidence interval = 1.863-10.90), and involvement of other previous outbreak (adjusted odds ratio = 2.245, 95% confidence interval = 1.176-4.286) were the predictors for good preparedness.
conclusionMost of the health professionals were well prepared. Being male, living within a family, and involvement of other outbreaks leads to good preparation. Governmental bodies and hospital managers have to help health professionals to be prepared enough to combat the pandemic.
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.