ArticleHealth security
COVID-19 Pandemic Response Preparedness and Risk Perceptions Among Peruvian Veterinarians and Animal Care Workers.
Article in Health security. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Peruvian veterinarians and animal care workers (VACW) are primary responders in the event of disasters or emergencies, yet they face unique concerns that could impede or block their essential functions in public health preparedness in comparison with VACWs in other countries. In this study, we used the Ready, Willing, and Able model via electronic survey to evaluate the perception of risks and barriers that Peruvian VACWs faced when deciding whether to continue working during the COVID-19 pandemic between July and December 2020. We used logistic regression models to evaluate associations between demographic characteristics, perceived role, and contact scores with 8 outcomes: knowledge of COVID-19; confidence in safety protocols; perceived threat; perceived job efficacy; perceived barriers; and readiness, willingness, and ability to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Less than 50% of respondents reported barriers to report to work during the pandemic. Respondents who reported higher contact with coworkers had an increased confidence in safety protocols (OR 5.16; 95% CI, 1.36 to 19.61) and willingness (OR 3.76; 95% CI, 1.14 to 12.47) to respond to the pandemic. Close contacts with essential workers and higher economic income were associated with higher reported knowledge of COVID-19. Respondents with higher perceived job efficacy had higher odds of reporting being ready, willing, and able to respond to COVID-19, while those who identified more barriers to report to work had lower odds of being ready, willing, and able to respond. The findings from this study, which showed differences from VACWs in the United States, can be used by individuals designing programs to improve pandemic and disaster preparedness in this essential, yet understudied and vulnerable, workforce.
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.