4.4 Article

Public Awareness, Individual Prevention Practice, and Psychological Effect at the Beginning of the COVID-19 Outbreak in China

Journal

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 474-482

Publisher

JAPAN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2188/jea.JE20200148

Keywords

COVID-19; awareness; prevention practice; psychology

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and Peking University Health Science Center [BMU20170607]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The COVID-19 has spread to more than 200 countries and territories. But less is known about the knowledge, protection behavior and anxiety regarding the outbreak among the general population. Methods: A cross-sectional, population-based online survey was conducted in China and abroad from January 28 to February 1, 2020. Socio-demographic information was collected and knowledge scores, practice scores, anxiety scores and perceived risk were calculated. General linear model and binary logistic regression were used to identify possible associations. Results: We included 9,764 individuals in this study, and 156 (1.6%) were from Hubei Province. The average knowledge score was 4.7 (standard deviation, 1.0) (scored on a 6-point scale); 96.1% maintained hand hygiene, and 90.3% of participants had varying levels of anxiety. People in Hubei Province were the most anxious, followed by those in Beijing and Shanghai. People who had experienced risk behaviors did not pay more attention to wearing masks and hand hygiene. Conclusions: The public had high awareness on knowledge of COVID-19 outbreak, and a high proportion of people practiced good hand hygiene behavior. Many people claimed anxiety, especially in heavily affected areas during pandemic, suggesting the importance of closing the gap between risk awareness and good practice and conduct psychological counseling to public and patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available