ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Assessment of COVID-19 prevention practice and associated factors in Jimma town, Ethiopia: A mixed study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 has affected the mental and physical wellbeing, social structure, countries' economy as well as individuals and community resilience, trust, and inequalities among societies. However, now almost all of the activities have been returned to the pre-corona era, despite the emergence of new strains and the spread of the disease. Hence, this study was conducted to assess COVID-19 prevention practice and the associated factors. Materials and methods: A community-based cross-sectional study triangulated with the qualitative findings was conducted in Jimma town, Oromia, Ethiopia. A total of 422 sample households were involved in the quantitative study. The quantitative data were collected using a structured questionnaire and 12 key informants were also interviewed for the qualitative part. The quantitative data were processed and entered into the Epi Data version 4.6 (software) and analyzed using SPSS 26.0. Similarly, the qualitative data were analyzed using ATLASti.7.1.04 software package. Descriptive statistics and binary logistics regression ( Results: Interviews were conducted with a total of 422 participants, yielding a response rate of 100%. Good preventive practices were found to be adopted by 13.3% of the respondents. People aged ≥ 50 years, [AOR = 2.85, 95%, CI = 1.246-0.53] who recovered from COVID-19, [AOR = 2.41, 95%, CI = 1.184-0.92], had chronic diseases [AOR = 3.70, 95%, CI = 1.887-0.25], and living with COVID-19 high risk [AOR = 2.96, 95%, CI = 1.475-0.991 were independently associated with good preventive practices. Conclusion: In this study, it was understood that there were poor COVID-19 preventive practices among the study participants. There was a disparity in adherence to the preventive practices in relation to (i.e., 50 and above years) the experience of contracting COVID-19 and people aged above 65 years old living with the high-risk group. In addition, the community had different misconceptions or risk perceptions related to COVID-19 infection and preventive practices. This highlights the need to design health education programs and implement risk and/or social and behavior change communication interventions to change perceptions or misconceptions of people or community members to bring about the desired behavioral change and prevent the spread of COVID-19.
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.