ArticleFlorence Nightingale journal of nursing2022
Traditional Methods and Practices Used in Society to Prevent COVID-19.
Article in Florence Nightingale journal of nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to determine the traditional methods and practices used during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
methodThis descriptive study was conducted between July 11 and 25, 2020, with volunteers above 18 years of age registered in the population of a district located in a rural district in Turkey. For the implementation of the study, permission was obtained from the Selçuk University Ethics Committee of Non-Interventional Scientific Research. The data collection form consisted of two parts. In the first part of the data collection form, there are seven questions concerning about characteristics of the participants. In the second part of the form, there are 13 questions concerning about characteristics of the participants. During the research application, data were collected from 500 participants. Data of the study were summarized in numbers, percentage, mean, and standard deviation and Fisher's exact and Chi-square tests were performed.
resultsParticipants mostly used disinfectant (2.97 ± 1.18) and cologne (2.87 ± 1.09) in their personal hygiene for protection against coronavirus disease 2019 infection, in addition to home ventilation (3.77 ± 0.54) and use of bleach (2.78 ± 1.36) for home/environmental hygiene. Around 80.4% of those who did not take precautions did not work in healthcare and the status of taking precautions against coronavirus disease 2019 varied according to the field of employment (p = .000). The traditional method total score changed between the age groups 18-45 and 46-76 years, and the use of traditional methods increased with age (p = .000).
conclusionIt was determined that the rate of using protective measures recommended by experts during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was high in the research group, while the scores of using traditional methods were also high. In addition, the rate of using protective measures was high among health sector workers. Results from this study may suggest further research to reveal the traditional methods and practices used during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in order to take precautions for methods and practices known to be detrimental to human health and to increase the use of those known to be useful, in line with the results obtained.
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.