Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33962095›Full record

SynthesisPublic health2021

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the general population about Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis with policy recommendations.

S Saadatjoo, M Miri, S Hassanipour, H Ameri, M Arab-Zozani

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

S SaadatjooSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran. Electronic address: ss.saadatjoo1360@gmail.com.
M MiriSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran. Electronic address: mmiri1062@gmail.com.
S HassanipourCardiovascular Diseases Research Center, Department of Cardiology, Heshmat Hospital, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. Electronic address: soheil.epid@gmail.com.
H AmeriHealth Policy and Management Research Center, Department of Health Services Management, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran. Electronic address: hamery7@yahoo.com.
M Arab-ZozaniSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran. Electronic address: arab.hta@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to investigate and synthesize the current evidence on knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) of the general population regarding COVID-19. STUDY

designThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search on PubMed/LitCovid, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases for papers in the English language only, up to 1 January 2021. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist developed for cross-sectional studies to appraise the quality of the included studies. All stages of the review conducted by two independent reviewers and potential discrepancies were solved with a consultation with a third reviewer. We reported the result as number and percentage. A meta-analysis conducted using a random effect model with a 95% confidence interval.

resultsForty-eight studies encompassing 76,848 participants were included in this review. 56.53% of the participants were female. The mean age of the participants was 33.7 years. 85.42% of the included studies were scored as good quality, 12.50% as fair quality, and the remaining (2.08%) as low quality. About 87.5% examined all three components of the KAPs model. The knowledge component was reported as good and poor in 89.5% and 10.5% of the included studies, respectively. Of the studies that examined the attitude component, 100% reported a positive attitude. For the practice component, 93.2% reported satisfactory practice, and 6.8% poor practice. The result of the meta-analysis showed that the overall score of KAPs components about COVID-19 were 78.9, 79.8, and 74.1, respectively.

conclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the overall KAP components in the included studies were at an acceptable level. In general, knowledge was at a good level, the attitude was positive and practice was at a satisfactory level. Using an integrated international system can help better evaluate these components and compare them between countries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION CODE: (CRD42020186755).

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesGlobal HealthHumansPolicyAttitudeCOVID-19KnowledgePolicy recommendationsPracticeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33962095
PMCPMC7988473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.