ArticlePloS one2022
A mixed-methods study on health learning materials utilization for COVID-19 risk communication and community engagement among health workers in Arsi Zone, Ethiopia: Implication for response to pandemic.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Waterborne diseases burden, determinants and health system gaps in Eastern Uganda: a mixed-methods baseline study in the Busoga region.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk communication and community engagement are among the key strategies used in response to pandemics. Effective risk communication and community engagement can be achieved when assisted by health learning materials. However, their utilization was not known in Ethiopia. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the utilization of COVID-19 health learning materials (HLMs), and explore barriers and facilitating factors.
methodsA sequential explanatory mixed-methods study consisting of two phases was carried out. The first phase was a cross-sectional survey to assess the utilization of COVID-19 HLMs and their predictors. In this phase, a multistage sampling technique was used to select 530 health workers. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Epi-data manager version 4.6.0.2 and STATA version 16 were used for data entry and analyses, respectively. Descriptive analyses were carried out as necessary. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were done to identify the predictors of COVID-19 HLMs utilization. Phase two is a qualitative study to explore enablers and barriers to COVID-19 HLMs utilization. A judgmental sampling technique was used and 14 key informants were recruited. The collected data were uploaded into Atlas ti version 7.0.71. An inductive process of thematic analysis was employed and the data were coded, categorized, and thematized.
resultsFindings showed that out of the total 530 respondents, 210(39.6%), 117(22.1%), and 203(38.3%) of them never use COVID-19 HLMs, use sometimes, and always, respectively. Health workers' perceived quality of COVID-19 HLMs [AOR = 6.44 (95% CI: 4.18-9.94)], health workers' perceived usefulness of COVID-19 HLMs [AOR = 2.82 (95% CI: 1.88-4.22)], working facility [AOR = 1.83 (95% CI: 1.07-3.14)], educational level of the respondents [AOR = 1.73 (95% CI: 1.11-2.72)] and availability of COVID-19 HLMs [AOR = 1.45(95% CI: 1.01-2.08)] had statistically significant association with the utilization status of COVID-19 HLMs. Findings from the qualitative study showed that materials-related factors, and structure and health workers-related factors had influence on HLMs utilization.
conclusionsIn this study, we found that only a few of the respondents were regularly utilizing COVID-19 HLMs. Perceived quality, usefulness, and availability of HLMs, and health workers' educational status and working facility determined the level of COVID-19 HLMs utilization. There is a need for giving due attention to HLMs, evaluating their quality, availing them to health facilities, and providing training for health workers.
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.