ArticlePloS one2024
Assessment of knowledge and practices regarding taeniasis and cysticercosis in Pak Chong, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTaeniasis and cysticercosis are parasitic infections caused by Taenia spp., mainly transmitted through the consumption of undercooked pork. Prevention requires increasing knowledge and awareness, improving meat inspection and hygiene, and promoting safe food handling and sanitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge and practice (KP) of residents in Pak Chong District, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand, regarding taeniasis and cysticercosis.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Pak Chong District, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand, and its 11 subdistrict municipalities. Study participants were selected using a stratified random sampling design. A validated questionnaire (Cronbach's alpha = 0.70) was used to collect socio-demographic information and assess knowledge and practices related to taeniasis and cysticercosis. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were used for the analysis.
resultsOf the 360 survey respondents, 65.0% (n = 234) were women, 82.2% (n = 296) were aged under 60 years, 99.2% (n = 357) identified as Buddhist, 87.5% (n = 315) had less than a bachelor's degree education level, 54.2% (n = 195) had monthly family income ≥10,000 Thai baht, 10.6% (n = 38) were unemployed, and 26.1% (n = 93) lived in a town municipality. The survey revealed that 98.3% (n = 354) of participants were categorized as having less accurate knowledge and 83.6% (n = 301) were classified as more frequently engaging in correct prevention practices. Our study revealed that pig farmers (1.7%) occasionally permitted the pigs to forage freely. The results of multiple linear regression analysis revealed that knowledge scores were positively associated with household income ≥10,000 Thai baht (βadj = 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.36). Practice scores were negatively associated with age over 60 years (βadj = -1.77, 95% CI -3.14 to -0.40) and living in a subdistrict municipality (βadj = -2.58, 95% CI -3.77 to -1.39). There was no association between KP regarding taeniasis and cysticercosis in the population of Pak Chong.
conclusionsOverall, participants' knowledge was lacking. Public education interventions are recommended to improve knowledge among residents with low socioeconomic status. These findings can inform the development of targeted interventions and educational programs in Pak Chong District, especially among elderly people in subdistrict municipalities, to improve practices for the prevention and control of these parasitic infections.
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.