ArticlePloS one2022
Factors associated with prevention practices against COVID-19 in the Peruvian population: Disparities between rural and urban areas.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice assessment toward COVID-19 among communities in East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia: A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Hospitalization and mortality during the pandemic in chronic hemodialysis patients and the general population in Peru.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the factors associated with prevention practices against COVID-19 in the Peruvian population according to rural vs. urban locations.
methodsAnalytical cross-sectional study, secondary analysis based on a previously collected database. A sample of individuals over 18 years of age, residing in Peru and with no history of COVID-19was evaluated. Factors associated with prevention practices were evaluated using Poisson regressions with variance adjustment by region cluster and stratified by rurality.
resultsOf 3231 participants included, 2741 (84.8%) were from urban areas and 490 (15.2%) from rural areas. The frequency of good prevention practices against COVID-19 was 27.8% in our total sample. In urban areas the frequency of good prevention practices was 28.8% and in rural areas it was 22.5%. Factors associated with prevention practices against COVID-19 in both urban and rural areas were male sex (urban: aPR 0.64, 95%CI 0.55-0.75; rural: aPR 0.66, 95%CI 0.54-0.80) and self-considering adequately carrying out prevention practices (urban: aPR 2.48, 95%CI 2.13-2.89; rural: aPR 2.70, 95%CI 2.27-3.19).
conclusionThe frequency of good prevention practices against COVID-19 was less than 30% in both urban and rural areas. There are differences in the factors associated with good preventive practice against COVID-19. Only sex and considering that preventive measures were adequately carried out were associated with good prevention practices in both areas. In view of this, prevention measures should be promoted taking into account cultural principles and considering geographical location in the face of present and future outbreaks or pandemics.
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.