ArticleSaudi medical journal2021
Evaluation of COVID-19 myths in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): An evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2023Article
- The Impact of COVID-19 on Members of the Saudi Community: Perceptions and Expectations From the Pandemic.Cureus · 2023Article
- Article
- Analysis of forensic autopsy cases associated with epilepsy: Comparison between sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) and not-SUDEP groups.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the awareness level of COVID-19 and to highlight the frequency of myths and misconceptions among Saudi Arabia's population.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study from June 13 to 20, 2020 by distributing a 16-item online Google forms questionnaire among adults (18-65 years old) living in Saudi Arabia. We utilized the convenience sampling. Data analysis was performed using Chi-square and multiple regression analysis on Jamovi.
resultsA total of 1436 responses were analyzed with 43.5% males and 56.5% females. Most respondents (89.1%) thought that only the elderly above 60 years old are considered at high risk of contracting COVID-19. Most respondents (86.5%) agreed that people with other health conditions could be more affected by COVID-19. Approximately 97.2% agreed that wearing a mask and avoiding touching eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands was the leading preventive action. Most participants (99.4%) chose fever as an associated symptom. Respondents from the healthcare sector presented statistically higher scores than those in non-healthcare sectors (
conclusionPublic health officials need to increase awareness measures on COVID-19 to limit myths and misconceptions and reduce psychological distress associated with it.
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.