7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association Between Self-Reported Adherence to Preventive Practices and Probability of Turning COVID-19 Positive: A Cross-Sectional Analytical Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Preventive practices are the mainstay to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. We tried to assess the self-reported adherence of our participants to the already known preventive practices. Furthermore, we tried to determine whether the non-compliance to specific preventive practices was associated with the acquisition of the infection or not.

          Methods

          We enrolled 379 healthcare workers, hospital staff, and their family members who were tested for COVID-19 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in an outpatient clinic. Socio-demography and the infection prevention practices of the individuals were recorded in a preformed questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed to find out the statistical association between these factors and the RT-PCR results. Adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios were determined to find out the degree of protection provided by each of the preventive practices concerning the development of the disease.

          Results

          Social distancing (p<0.001), hand hygiene (p<0.001), ensuring N-95 mask fit check (p<0.001), and the use of alternative medications (p=0.002) were found to be protective. Resident doctors were at a lower risk of developing the disease as compared to the other healthcare workers (odds ratio: 0.39).

          Conclusion

          The failure to practice the already known preventive practices is probably one of the most important factors in the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic. Adherence to these practices is the intervention of choice to reduce disease transmission in the current scenario.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Knowledge and Perceptions of COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers: Cross-Sectional Study

          Background During the first week of March, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak reached more than 100 countries with over 100,000 cases. Health care authorities have already initiated awareness and preparedness activities worldwide. A poor understanding of the disease among health care workers (HCWs) may result in delayed treatment and result in the rapid spread of the infection. Objective This study aimed to investigate the knowledge and perceptions of HCWs about COVID-19. Methods A cross-sectional, web-based study was conducted among HCWs about COVID-19 during the first week of March 2020. A 23-item survey instrument was developed and distributed randomly to HCWs using social media; it required 5 minutes to complete. A chi-square test was used to investigate the level of association among variables, with significance set to P<.05. Results Of 529 participants, a total of 453 HCWs completed the survey (response rate: 85.6%); 51.6% (n=234) were male, 32.1% (n=147) were aged 25-34 years, and most were doctors (n=137, 30.2%) and medical students (n=134, 29.6%). Most participants (n=276, 61.0%) used social media to obtain information on COVID-19. A significant proportion of HCWs had poor knowledge of its transmission (n=276, 61.0%) and symptom onset (n=288, 63.6%) and showed positive perceptions of COVID-19. Factors such as age and profession were associated with inadequate knowledge and a poor perception of COVID-19. Conclusions As the global threat of COVID-19 continues to emerge, it is critical to improve the knowledge and perceptions of HCWs. Educational interventions are urgently needed to reach HCWs worldwide, and further studies are warranted.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-to-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

            Study design Systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 standard World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific sources through May 3, 2020. Key findings In a review of 25,697 patients, transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 meter or more compared with less than 1 meter. Protection was increased as distance was lengthened (absolute risk, 3% with longer distance vs 13% with shorter distance). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of interaction (adjusted risk, 3% with face masks vs 17% without). There was a stronger association with protection using N95 masks compared with disposable surgical masks or reusable cotton masks. Eye protection also was associated with less infection. Conclusion These findings support physical distancing of 1 meter or more. Optimum use of face masks and eye protection in public and health care settings should be informed by these findings. Commentary Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person to person through close contact. With no effective pharmacologic interventions or vaccine expected in the near future, reducing the rate of infection (flattening the curve) is a priority. Added benefits are likely with even larger physical distances, such as 2 meters (6 feet, which we keep hearing about) or more. The use of face masks, including N95 and surgical or similar masks (12- to 16-layer cotton or gauze masks), and eye protection is clearly beneficial. For the general public, this report confirms previous recommendations that physical distancing of more than 1 meter is highly effective and that face masks are associated with protection. Other basic measures, such as hand hygiene, are still needed. I am growing more disheartened by my fellow man (and woman) as things open up during the pandemic. This past weekend, I went to a barbecue outside of Philadelphia, which was attended by many physicians, and to my older brother’s outdoor 70th birthday party in northern New Jersey, which was especially hard-hit by the virus. At both events, none of the guests wore masks but would sidle up to my wife, my son, and me as if everything were normal. I can think of four reasons that people would not follow recommendations such as maintaining at least 3- to 6-foot distancing and wearing face masks: (1) they know they don’t have the virus (even without being tested); (2) they know they won’t get sick because they’re young, or they’re older but otherwise healthy; (3) they don’t believe the science (I don’t have patience for these people); or (4) they believe we are all going to get the virus anyway, so get it over with and let’s move on (I know very intelligent people who support this last reason). I don’t want to tread political waters, but I wish these individuals would acknowledge there may be others who don’t agree with this laissez-faire reasoning. Some people may want to maintain social distancing at an outdoor event—and maybe even wear a face mask.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Cross-Country Comparison of Public Awareness, Rumors, and Behavioral Responses to the COVID-19 Epidemic: Infodemiology Study

              Background Understanding public behavioral responses to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic and the accompanying infodemic is crucial to controlling the epidemic. Objective The aim of this study was to assess real-time public awareness and behavioral responses to the COVID-19 epidemic across 12 selected countries. Methods Internet surveillance was used to collect real-time data from the general public to assess public awareness and rumors (China: Baidu; worldwide: Google Trends) and behavior responses (China: Ali Index; worldwide: Google Shopping). These indices measured the daily number of searches or purchases and were compared with the numbers of daily COVID-19 cases. The trend comparisons across selected countries were observed from December 1, 2019 (prepandemic baseline) to April 11, 2020 (at least one month after the governments of selected countries took actions for the pandemic). Results We identified missed windows of opportunity for early epidemic control in 12 countries, when public awareness was very low despite the emerging epidemic. China's epidemic and the declaration of a public health emergency of international concern did not prompt a worldwide public reaction to adopt health-protective measures; instead, most countries and regions only responded to the epidemic after their own case counts increased. Rumors and misinformation led to a surge of sales in herbal remedies in China and antimalarial drugs worldwide, and timely clarification of rumors mitigated the rush to purchase unproven remedies. Conclusions Our comparative study highlights the urgent need for international coordination to promote mutual learning about epidemic characteristics and effective control measures as well as to trigger early and timely responses in individual countries. Early release of official guidelines and timely clarification of rumors led by governments are necessary to guide the public to take rational action.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cureus
                Cureus
                2168-8184
                Cureus
                Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )
                2168-8184
                1 December 2020
                December 2020
                : 12
                : 12
                : e11815
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, IND
                [2 ] Infectious Diseases, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, IND
                [3 ] Geriatric Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, IND
                [4 ] Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, IND
                [5 ] Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, IND
                [6 ] Internal Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, IND
                Author notes
                Article
                10.7759/cureus.11815
                7781500
                33409060
                80523057-9fad-4386-aca5-489440b60865
                Copyright © 2020, Ranjan et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 29 November 2020
                Categories
                Preventive Medicine
                Infectious Disease
                Epidemiology/Public Health

                covid-19,preventive practices,odds ratio,pandemic,risk factors

                Comments

                Comment on this article