Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34521674›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Global epidemiology of COVID-19 knowledge, attitude and practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bodrun Naher Siddiquea, Aishwarya Shetty, Oashe Bhattacharya, Afsana Afroz, Baki Billah

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

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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.

Bodrun Naher SiddiqueaDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia bodrun.naher@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9224-113X
Aishwarya ShettyDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Oashe BhattacharyaDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Afsana AfrozDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Baki BillahDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of the global general population regarding COVID-19.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were used to identify articles published between 1 January and 30 June 2021 assessing KAP regarding COVID-19 in the global general population. The quality of eligible studies was assessed. Random effects model was used to obtain the pooled proportion of each component of KAP of COVID-19. Heterogeneity (I

resultsOut of 3099 records, 84 studies from 45 countries across all continents assessing 215 731 participants' COVID-19 KAP were included in this study. The estimated overall correct answers for knowledge, good attitude and good practice in this review were 75% (95% CI 72% to 77%), 74% (95% CI 71% to 77%) and 70% (95% CI 66% to 74%), respectively. Low-income countries, men, people aged below 30 years and people with 12 years of education or less had the lowest practice scores. Practice scores were below 60% in Africa and Europe/Oceania. Overall heterogeneity was high (I

conclusionsThis study's findings call for community-based awareness programmes to provide a simple, clear and understandable message to reinforce knowledge especially regarding efficacy of the preventive measures in low and lower middle-income countries, and in Africa and Europe/Oceania, which will translate into good practice. Targeted intervention for men, people with low education, unemployed people and people aged below 30 years should be recommended. As most of the included studies were online surveys, underprivileged and remote rural people may have been missed out. Additional studies are needed to cover heterogeneous populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020203476.

Indexed as

COVID-19AgedHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansKnowledgeMaleSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19epidemiologyinfection controlpublic health

Identifiers

PMID34521674
PMCPMC8441223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.