Knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward the novel coronavirus among Bangladeshis: Implications for mitigation measures.

The current novel coronavirus (nCoV) pandemic, COVID-19, was first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has spread globally, causing startling loss of life, stalling the global economy, and disrupting social life. One of the challenges to contain COVID-19 is convincing people to adopt personal hygiene, social distancing, and self-quarantine practices that are related to knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of the residents of respective countries. Bangladesh, a densely populated country with a fast-growing economy and moderate literacy rate, has shown many hiccups in its efforts to implement COVID-19 policies. Understanding KAP may help policy makers produce informed decisions. This study assessed KAP in relation to COVID-19 in Bangladesh. An online survey using a pre-tested questionnaire conducted in late March 2020 attained 1,837 responses across Bangladesh. Ultimately, 1,589 completed responses were included in a statistical analysis to calculate KAP scores and their interrelations with sociodemographic variables. The overall KAP was poor, with only 33% of the participants demonstrating good knowledge, whereas 52.4% and 44.8% of the subjects showed good attitudes and practices, respectively. Sociodemographic factors had strong bearings on the KAP scores. Significantly higher KAP scores were evident in females over males, among aged 45 years and older over younger participants, and among retired workers and homemakers over students and public service employees. This study indicated a panic fuelled by poor understanding of COVID-19 associated facts and the need for the government to ensure more granular and targeted awareness campaigns in a transparent and factual manner to foster public confidence and ensure more meaningful public participation in mitigation measures. This study provides a KAP baseline regarding COVID-19 among Bangladeshis.

Introduction

The rapidly unfolding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted life globally. The novel coronavirus (nCOV, later called SARS-CoV-2) originated from an unknown source in Wuhan, China [1-3]. Unlike previous coronavirus outbreaks [4], this highly contagious [5-9] zoonotic virus from an as-yet-unconfirmed animal origin [10,11] evolved from a local flu-related severe acute respiratory syndrome [4,8,12,13] to a pandemic threatening the lives of millions within a few weeks. COVID-19 has thrown global public health into turmoil by severely straining many nations’ healthcare systems. The epicenter rapidly moved from China to Iran and then through Europe and the US over a span of nine weeks [14]. As it spread through social contact [15,16], billions were forced into lockdown to minimize the transmission rate [4]. Lockdowns were necessary since researchers need time to develop a vaccine or effective treatment as in preceding pandemics including SARS and MARS [4,17,18]. No imminent solution for COVID-19 is likely in the immediate future [19].

The first-world healthcare system has failed to provide medical care for the rapidly increasing number of infected patients, let alone developing or underdeveloped nations [20,21]. In the majority of the cases, the leadership and bureaucracy in different countries seemed indecisive, inefficient, unprepared, and unable to contain the contagion. For the first time in history, the active participation of every single person on earth, in the form of testing, isolation, contact tracing, social distancing, staying at home, self-quarantining, improving personal hygiene, and using personal protective equipment such as masks and gloves, has become critical to contain COVID-19, prevent healthcare workers from becoming overwhelmed, and give researchers time to develop treatment strategies [22,23]. Hundreds of millions have sacrificed their autonomy, health, job, business, recreation, and education. However, ensuring voluntary participation in COVID-19 prevention strategies has posed challenges in different countries due to varying levels of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP). Accordingly, the design and success of anti-contagion initiatives depend on macro- and micro-level understanding of KAP in respective regions and within each country.

In Bangladesh, similar to many nations in the SAARC region, COVID-19 seems grave [24,25] mainly due to cases imported by expatriates [26]. Following its first positive COVID-19 case on March 8, 2020 [27], Bangladesh shuttered its educational institutions on March 17, saw its first COVID-19 death on March 18 [28], and instituted a nationwide lockdown on March 26. Law enforcement and the army were mobilized to strengthen the lockdown’s implementation as Bangladesh is densely populated and depends on labor-oriented industries [29], and a vast majority of its residents subsist on daily earnings through informal occupations [30]. However, the lack of a coordinated response to the threat of COVID-19 is evident [27], indicating that the design and implementation of these initiatives was based on a poor understanding of various sociodemographic groups’ KAP. Hence, this study assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Bangladeshis on nCOV using netizens as a representative sample. We hope that the outcomes will assist authorities and other stakeholders to improve the planning and execution of different measures and provide a reference for countries with similar sociodemographic characteristics.

Methods

Conceptual framework

This study followed the KAP approach because this is a representative tool used for specific populations to collect information on what is known, believed, and done in relation to a specific field, for example, health [31]. Historically, the KAP model was developed for family planning and population studies in the 1950s. KAP was used to measure the extent to which any clear opposition to family planning existed among different populations, so specific family planning practices could be used for different programs worldwide [31]. KAP surveys are now the most widely used studies for demonstrating societal context in public health research [32-34]. These surveys are easy to design, data output is quantifiable, interpretation is robust, and their utility is generalizable for context-specific problems [35]. The information generated through KAP studies can be used to develop strategies with a focus on improving the behavioral and attitudinal changes driven by the level of knowledge and perceptions toward preventive practices [36]. In a recent KAP study conducted in China, Zhong et al. [37] reported that to facilitate outbreak management, it is urgently necessary to understand the public’s awareness of COVID-19. They asserted that success against COVID-19 requires peoples’ adherence to control measures that is largely affected by their knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

Instruments and participants

This KAP study was conducted across Bangladesh using an online survey. Because of the contagious nature of COVID-19, we avoided physical interviews. Following Zhong et al. [37], who studied KAP in COVID-19 infected areas in China, we prepared a structured questionnaire with 50 multiple-choice questions. It was tested in a pilot study with 10 participants. Based on feedback from the pilot study, we revised the questionnaire and finalized it with 40 questions (S1 Table). The questionnaire had four parts: A) basic participants’ information (5 questions), B) COVID-19 knowledge (16 questions), C) attitudes (10 questions), and D) practices (9 questions). Using Microsoft Office 365, a form was created and a link to the form was shared through Facebook and email with a brief introduction and the survey objectives. Prospective participants were asked to share the form widely to collect a snowball sample of representatives of Bangladeshi netizens aged 18 and older. The survey anticipated responses from participants with university-level education as the questions were written in English, and the participants were the authors’ Facebook friends and friends of friends who were mostly university graduates and students. As such, this study’s population was unknown and therefore it was not possible to estimate the response rate and sample size before data collection. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and the subjects could withdraw from the survey at any time. Before participating in the survey, prospective participants had to answer a yes/no question to confirm their consent to participate voluntarily. By answering the yes question, the participants provided informed consent prior to complete the survey. After providing their consent, the participants were directed to complete the questionnaire. The form was posted on March 22, 2020, at 22:00, and the survey was closed on March 28, 2020, at 00:15.

To contextualize the participants’ views with the public sectors’ preparedness for COVID-19, mitigation-relevant policy documents, press releases, and newspaper reports were reviewed, synthesized, and described following content analysis [38]. The ethical review committee of Dhaka Medical College, Bangladesh, approved this survey (memo no. ERC-DMC/ECC/2020/88).

Data cleaning

The participants input their opinions and information using the shared online survey form. Their responses were automatically stored in Microsoft Excel. A total of 1,837 subjects participated in this study. However, some did not fully complete the survey questionnaire. Incomplete responses were discarded, leaving 1,589 complete responses.

Scoring method

Respective knowledge, attitudes, and practices’ scores for each respondent were obtained from their responses respectively on 13 knowledge questions, 10 attitude questions, and 8 practice questions. The percentage of correct answers on knowledge, attitudes, and practices questions yielded the scores of the respective categories. A cut point of 80% correct answers was used for all of the categories to differentiate between good and poor knowledge, attitudes, and practices (S2 Table).

Software

The online survey was conducted by distributing the KAP questionnaire as a Microsoft Office form through Facebook and email. After importing the online survey results through Microsoft Excel, R version 3.5.2 was used for raw data management and statistical analysis. Some statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 16.

Statistical analysis

Scores of questions on knowledge (13 questions), attitudes (10 questions), and practices (8 questions) were estimated using a score of 1 for each right answer, 0.5 for each maybe answer, and 0 for each incorrect answer. The percentage of correct/maybe answers on knowledge, attitudes, and practices were those categories’ scores. Based on the different knowledge, attitudes, and practices’ variables scores, the mean difference between/among the categories of different sociodemographic characteristics was compared using the independent sample t-test (for two categories of variables) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)/F-test (for more than two categories of variables). The associations between different knowledge, attitudes, and practices’ variables with different sociodemographic variables were shown using the chi-squared test. Logistic regressions were run on the significant variables in the bivariate analyses/chi-squared test. Some attitude and practice variables with more than two categories were grouped into two categories, “yes” for all “yes” responses and “others” for all “no” and “maybe” responses to several questions (S3 Table). The “yes” and “others” categories were used for regression analysis of these variables.

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants

The study participants’ characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The majority were males (60.48%) and 18–25 years old (46.5%), indicating that the online survey disproportionately reached a younger population. As expected, most of the participants (95.78%) had a university-level education. By occupation, 44.5% of the participants were students, followed by professionals (40.3%).

Table 1

Sociodemographic profile of the participants.

Categories	Groups	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
	Male	961	60.5
	Female	628	39.5
Age (years)
	18–25	739	46.5
	26–35	533	33.5
	36–45	184	11.6
	Over 45	133	8.4
Education
	Secondary & Below	67	4.2
	University	1522	95.8
Occupation
	Government staff	73	4.6
	Homemakers	43	2.7
	Professionals	640	40.3
	Retired	11	0.7
	Student	707	44.5
	Unemployed	115	7.2

Bangladeshi netizens’ COVID-19 KAP scores

As we considered a cut point of 80%, the participants’ overall knowledge score was poor, with a mean score of 9.60±1.45 on a scale of 13.0 (Table 2). There was no statistically significant difference in knowledge scores between males (9.65±1.49) and females (9.52±1.38), a good outcome due to the wide range of educational support for females in Bangladesh. Surprisingly, the difference in knowledge scores was also insignificant between educational groups. Conversely, age and occupation had statistically significant (p<0.01) effect on knowledge scores. Among the age groups, older participants were more knowledgeable on COVID-19 than younger participants. Retirees had significantly higher knowledge scores (10.55±1.37) than the other occupation groups. Contrary to expectations, students had poor knowledge scores (9.35±1.45), second only to homemakers, who had the lowest scores (9.29±1.39).

Table 2

Sociodemographic distribution of the participants and their KAP scores.

Demographic variables		Knowledge score in 13.00 (x¯±s)	t/F test	Attitude score in 9.00 (x¯±s)	t/F test	Practice score in 9.00 (x¯±s)	t/F test
Gender
	Male	9.65±1.49	1.79	8.04±1.11	-5.48***	6.03±1.27	-6.43***
	Female	9.52±1.38		8.34±1.00		6.44±1.16
Age (years)
	18–25	9.34±1.47	18.66***	8.13±1.11	1.33	6.21±1.25	0.927
	26–35	9.76±1.37		8.23±1.04		6.21±1.22
	36–45	9.77±1.47		8.10±1.11		6.18±1.29
	Over 45	10.17±1.33		8.12±0.97		6.03±1.18
Education
	≤12 years	9.38±1.41	-1.26	8.01±1.12	-1.13	5.93±1.20	-1.76
	>12 years	9.61±1.45		8.17±1.07		6.21±1.24
Occupation
	Govt. Staff	9.72±1.42	10.37***	7.94±1.31	3.049***	5.70±1.23	4.12***
	Homemakers	9.29±1.39		8.42±0.76		6.55±1.12
	Professional	9.87±1.36		8.25±0.97		6.16±1.24
	Retired	10.55±1.37		8.50±0.94		6.82±1.17
	Student	9.35±1.45		8.11±1.14		6.22±1.25
	Unemployed	9.54±1.65		7.99±1.11		6.33±1.18

***Significant at 0.01 level

The mean attitude scores of 8.16±1.07 on a scale of 10 indicated that the participants had the desired attitude toward COVID-19 (Table 2). This score varied significantly between genders (p<0.01) and among occupation groups (p<0.05). The females’ attitude score (8.34±1.00) was higher than the males’ score (8.04±1.11), although both had comparable knowledge scores. This observation is positive as females are more responsible for maintaining family hygiene and teaching their children. The retirees’ highest attitude score (8.50±0.94) might be a reflection of their highest knowledge score. However, for professional groups, their knowledge score mismatched their attitude score. Surprisingly, the attitude scores of government staff (7.94±1.31) were the lowest. Homemakers had a better attitude score (8.42±0.76) than the unemployed, governments staff, professionals, and students.

The participants’ mean practice score was poor (6.19±1.24 on a scale of 8.00) across all of the sociodemographic groups (Table 2). There was a significant difference between males and females (p<0.01) and occupational groups (p<0.01) with respect to the practice scores. Females (6.44±1.16), homemakers (6.55±1.12), and retirees (6.82±1.17) had higher practice scores than the other participants. Overall, statistically significant and positive linear correlations were observed between knowledge and attitude (r = 0.249, p<0.01) and attitude and practice (r = 0.148, p<0.01) (S4 Table).

Assessment of KAP responses

The participants’ frequency distribution on the KAP questions (Tables 3–5) demonstrated that 54.8% had factual knowledge of COVID-19 and identified it as a deadly disease, curable, and with a low mortality rate, which revealed that almost half were poorly informed about the disease, and 36.2% identified COVID-19 as a deadly disease with the certainty of death. A staggering 82.8% of the participants did not understand the cause of the COVID-19’s emergence. Similarly, nCOV’s contagiousness was unclear to one-fifth of the participants. Approximately 50% of the subjects believed that wearing surgical masks was effective for preventing infection, while 25% thought that masks were inadequate, and the rest demonstrated confusion. The participants demonstrated sound knowledge on COVID-19’s symptoms (~99%), the need for every person to adopt preventive measures (~90%), the quarantine duration (95%), the methods of reducing the spread of COVID-19 (98%), and understanding the treatment (~98%), demonstrating the positive outcomes of awareness campaigns. The concept of quarantine was satisfactory in 86% of the participants while one-tenth wrongly considered that staying at home with family members equates quarantine. However, the participants’ opinions varied markedly on the meaning of quarantine. The participants’ knowledge on the risk of the spread of nCOV in Bangladesh compared to other countries was alarming, as the majority (75%) chose the wrong options while almost all (99%) were wrong in selecting the priority measures that the government needs to adopt to stop the spread. They also demonstrated a poor understanding of factors associated with the spread of nCOV as almost half (47%) chose the wrong options.

Table 3

Frequency distribution of the responses to knowledge questions.

Questions	Responses	Frequency	Percentage
Perceptions about COVID-19
	A curse from the God	122	7.68
	A deadly disease with certainty of death	575	36.19
	A deadly disease, curable, with a low mortality rate	870	54.75
	A rumor that is being spread through public or media	22	1.38
COVID-19 emerged due to following reasons. Multiple answers are allowed
	Right answers	273	17.18
	Wrong answers	1316	82.82
The main clinical symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, fatigue, dry cough, and difficulty breathing
	Maybe	176	11.08
	No	4	0.25
	Yes	1409	88.67
Currently there is no effective cure for COVID-2019, but early diagnoses and supportive treatment can help most patients recover
	Maybe	293	18.44
	No	32	2.01
	Yes	1264	79.55
Only seniors with chronic illnesses and other health complications are more likely to be seriously affected.
	Maybe	349	21.96
	No	425	26.75
	Yes	815	51.29
People with COVID-2019 with no fever cannot infect others
	Maybe	171	10.76
	No	1262	79.42
	Yes	156	9.82
COVID-19 spreads via respiratory droplets (from coughing and sneezing) of infected people
	Maybe	82	5.16
	No	25	1.57
	Yes	1482	93.27
The general public can wear routine medical masks to prevent COVID-19 infection
	Maybe	397	24.98
	No	392	24.67
	Yes	800	50.35
It is unnecessary for children and young adults to take measures to prevent COVID-19
	Maybe	31	1.95
	No	1425	89.68
	Yes	133	8.37
What do you understand about quarantine?
	No clear understanding	19	1.20
	Stay in a separate room and have no contact with family members	1368	86.09
	Stay at home but can go outside	23	1.45
	Stay at home with family members	180	11.33
When should we quarantine? Multiple answers are allowed
	Right answer	102	6.42
	Wrong answer	1487	93.58
Quarantine period
	Right answer	1516	95.41
	Wrong answer	73	4.59
Isolating and treating COVID-19 patients are effective methods of reducing the spread of the virus
	Maybe	130	8.18
	No	28	1.76
	Yes	1431	90.06
Compared with other affected nations, what is the possibility of COVID-19 spreading in Bangladesh? (Multiple answers)
	Right answers	399	25.11
	Wrong answers	1190	74.89
What could be the possible reasons for COVID-19’s spread in Bangladesh if it happens? (Multiple answers)
	Right answers	842	52.99
	Wrong answers	747	47.01
What should be the government’s priorities to control the spread of COVID-19? (Multiple answers)
	Right answers	9	0.57
	Wrong answers	1580	99.43

Table 5

Frequency distribution of the responses to practices questions.

Questions	Responses	Frequency	Percentage
Do you presently go to crowded areas?
	Every day	14	0.88
	No	1279	80.49
	Sometimes	268	16.87
	Yes	28	1.76
Do you allow your children to engage in outdoor activities?
	No	1498	94.27
	Sometimes	78	4.91
	Yes	13	0.82
Do you and family members use masks when outside?
	No	90	5.66
	Sometimes	240	15.10
	Yes	1259	79.23
Have you started working from home in the last few weeks due the COVID-19 outbreak?
	No	420	26.43
	Sometimes	229	14.41
	Yes	940	59.16
How would you rate the awareness level of those living around you regarding COVID-19?
	Awareness level is increasing	265	16.68
	Low awareness but increasing	724	45.56
	No precautionary measures undertaken at all	176	11.07
	People around me are highly aware and careful	70	4.41
	Some precautionary measures have been taken	354	22.28
How would you rate the medical facilities in Bangladesh to manage COVID-19?
	Gradual advancement in healthcare is noticeable to manage COVID-19	77	4.85
	Health facilities are available for a limited number of people	381	23.98
	Medical facilities are highly appropriate and can prevent the spread of COVID-19	11	0.69
	Bangladesh has good facilities to prevent COVID-19	9	0.57
	Very poor facilities are available thus far	1111	69.92
Are those in your area/district already panicking about COVID-19?
	Maybe	338	21.27
	No	302	19.01
	Yes	949	59.70
Are you feeling anxious/stressed/depressed/helpless thinking about the COVID-19 outbreak?
	Maybe	117	7.36
	No	129	8.12
	Yes	1343	84.52
If above answer is YES, then please rate your level of feelings.
	Extreme	276	20.55
	High	612	45.57
	Little	66	4.91
	Moderate	389	28.97

Table 4 shows the frequency distribution of the participants’ attitudes toward COVID-19. As the majority (96%) were anxious about widespread COVID-19 fatalities in Bangladesh, most (95%) were willing to stay at home for two weeks upon government order. The attitude toward social distancing showed mixed outcomes as ~24% of the participants doubted its efficacy. The participants had a positive attitude toward stopping business and recreational trips (96.6%) and working from home (98.4%). Their attitudes regarding the government initiatives demonstrated pessimism, as 91.5% felt that adopting preventive measures was inadequate and 86% believed that public officials lagged in pre-emptive preparations after learning about the spread of the novel coronavirus from Wuhan.

Table 4

Frequency distribution of the responses to attitude questions.

Questions	Responses	Frequency	Percentage
Will you stay at home for a certain period (14 days) to prevent the spread of COVID-19 if government orders?
	Yes	1512	95.15
	No	18	1.13
	Not possible due to work	59	3.71
Do you think that social distancing (for example, staying 1–2 m apart, avoiding crowds, etc.) can prevent the spread of COVID-19?
	Maybe	300	18.88
	No	74	4.66
	Yes	1215	76.46
Do you agree that we should cancel business/recreational trips at this time?
	Maybe	33	2.08
	No	21	1.32
	Yes	1535	96.60
Do you believe that working from home can help control COVID-19?
	Maybe	162	10.20
	No	25	1.57
	Yes	1402	88.23
Do you agree that the government has taken sufficient preventive measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19?
	No	823	51.79
	Not enough	631	39.71
	Yes	135	8.50
Do you agree that the government should have taken preventive measures when COVID-19 was first reported in China?
	Maybe	92	5.79
	No	222	13.97
	Yes	1275	80.24
Do you think that COVID-19 can cause widespread fatalities in Bangladesh?
	Maybe	295	18.57
	No	59	3.71
	Yes	1235	77.72
Do you believe that COVID-19 will not be an epidemic in Bangladesh due to following reasons? (Multiple answers)
	Right answers	1081	68.03
	Wrong answers	508	31.97
Do you agree that our healthcare providers (for example, doctors, nurses, and support staff) are under serious threat when they treat infected people?
	Maybe	102	6.42
	No	89	5.60
	Yes	1398	87.98
Do you think that the government has ensured enough protective measures for healthcare providers?
	Maybe	119	7.49
	No	1396	87.85
	Yes	74	4.66

The majority (~88%) of the participants thought that measures to protect healthcare professionals were inadequate as they (~88%) understood the elevated risks of COVID-19 among healthcare professionals. However, almost one-third of the participants (32%) were skeptical that the novel coronavirus would be widespread in Bangladesh. Overall, in stark contrast to their dissenting attitude toward the public sectors’ readiness related to the adequacy of preventive measures (91.5%), need for pre-emptive measures (~80%), or safeguarding healthcare providers (~88%), the participants showed a positive attitude toward healthcare providers in perceiving their risks and the need to protect them (~88%).

On the practice side (Table 5), as the majority of the participants (~92%) were somewhat stressed about COVID-19 in Bangladesh, leading to a high to extreme feeling about the risk (65%), 80.5% reported that they avoided crowded areas and 94% did not allow their children to engage in outdoor activities and preferred wearing masks (~84%) when going out. Overall, ~60% of the participants were working from home full-time while ~14% occasionally worked from home. This may not reflect reality in Bangladesh since the Internet-based survey excluded responses from lower-income people for whom working from home is not an option. Approximately 61% of the participants thought that the public awareness level was low or increasing, which may explain their mixed opinions regarding COVID-19-related panic in their respective areas.

Analysis of attitudes and practices in relation to knowledge and sociodemographic variables.

As shown in Table 6, 34.8% of the participants belonged to the “poor knowledge with poor attitude” group and 37.1% to the “poor knowledge with poor practice” group. Only 33% of the participants demonstrated good knowledge while 52.4% had good attitudes and 44.8% showed good practices. Among the participants with good knowledge, 38.7% exhibited poor attitudes and 55.2% demonstrated poor practices.

Table 6

Cross tabulation of good and poor attitudes and practices with respect to the participants’ COVID-19 knowledge status.

			Knowledge
			Good (%)	Poor (%)
Attitudes	Good (n)	n (column%) (% of total)	321 (61.3) (20.2)	512(48.1) (32.2)
	Poor (n)	n (column%) (% of total)	203 (38.7) (12.8)	553 (51.9) (34.8)
Practices	Good (n)	n (column%) (% of total)	235 (44.8) (14.8)	476 (44.7) (30.0)
	Poor (n)	n (column%) (% of total)	289 (55.2) (18.2)	589 (55.3) (37.1)

The logistic regression analysis also showed that the participants with a better understanding of COVID-19 favored social distancing (odds ratio [OR] 1.65; 95% confidence interval (CI):1.26–2.15; p<0.01) or working from home (OR 1.71; 95% CI:1.20–2.44; p<0.01) (Table 7). They had a better attitude toward the seriousness of the threat to healthcare providers (OR 1.83; 95% CI:1.28–2.63; p<0.01) but demonstrated a general dissatisfaction toward the government’s early response to COVID-19 (OR 1.46; 95% CI:1.10–1.90; p<0.01) and provision of protection for healthcare workers (OR 1.46; 95% CI:1.04–2.06; p<0.05).

Table 7

Multiple logistic regressions of different variables of attitudes with socio-demographic variable and knowledge status.

(Values are odds ratio followed by 95% confidence interval in parenthesis).

Variables in for multiple logistic regression		Social distancing	Cancel business / recreational trips	Working from home	Sufficient preventive measures by Govt.	Response from Govt. after reports from Wuhan	Massive fatality or not	Seriousness of threat to healthcare providers	Protection for healthcare providers
Gender
	Male	1.00	1.00	1.00		1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	Female	1.45 (1.12–1.87)***	1.42 (1.11–1.82)***	2.10 (1.49–2.97)***		2.00 (1.52–2.63)***	0.77 (0.58–1.02)	1.56 (1.12–2.18)***	0.91 (0.67–1.23)
Age (years)
	18–25	1.00	1.00		1.00		1.00	1.00
	26–35	0.97 (0.67–1.41)	1.39 (1.06–1.81)**		0.72 (0.40–1.28)		1.29 (0.84–1.97)	1.27 (0.89–1.83)
	36–45	0.96 (0.57–1.65)	1.64 (1.09–2.45)**		0.35 (0.16–0.76)***		1.72 (1.00–2.98)	0.90 (0.56–1.47)
	Over 45	1.20 (0.65–2.24)	2.20 (1.34–3.63)***		0.62 (0.25–1.57)		1.77 (0.98–3.22)	0.75 (0.44–1.27)
Occupation
	Govt. staff	1.00			1.00		1.00
	Home makers	0.75 (0.24–2.29)			2.56 (0.68–9.64)		0.66 (0.22–2.02)
	Professionals	0.60 (0.30–1.21)			2.92 (1.48–5.77)***		1.12 (0.61–2.04)
	Retired	λ 1.21 (0.13–10.97)			λ 3.12E8 (0.00–3.1E8)		0.71 (0.13–3.76)
	Student	0.38 (0.18–0.81)**			1.22 (0.53–2.80)		1.19 (0.59–2.40)
	Unemployed	0.38 (0.17–0.85)**			1.85 (0.72–4.79)		0.75 (0.33–1.68)
Knowledge
	Poor	1.00		1.00		1.00		1.00	1.00
	Good	1.65 (1.26–2.15)***		1.71 (1.20–2.44)***		1.45 (1.10–1.90)***		1.83 (1.28–2.63)***	1.46 (1.04–2.06)**
Constant		5.09***	2.29***	5.02***	8.187***	2.85***	0.19***	5.07***	6.72***

***Significant at 0.01 level

**Significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed); λ Higher OR values were due to small sample size and similar responses; Blank cells reveal that these variables were excluded from logistic regression analysis because these were not significant in chi-squared test.

Women were more willing than men to maintain social distance (OR 1.45; 95% CI:1.12–1.87; p<0.01), cancel trips (OR 1.42; 95% CI:1.11–1.82; p<0.01), and work from home (OR 2.10; 95% CI:1.49–2.97; p<0.01). They also expected better pre-emptive responses from the government (OR 2.00; 95% CI:1.52–2.63; p<0.01) and perceived a disproportionate threat of COVID-19 to healthcare workers (OR 1.56; 95% CI:1.12–2.18; p<0.01). Among the age groups, in reference to the 18–25 age group, remaining three groups 26–35 (OR 1.39; 95% CI:1.06–1.81; p<0.05), 36–45 (OR 1.64; 95% CI:1.09–2.45; p<0.05), and older than 45 (OR 2.20; 95% CI:1.34–3.63; p<0.01) were willing to cancel business/recreational trips due to COVID-19. As expected, in reference to government staff, professionals showed a higher reluctance toward the government’s measures (OR 2.92; 95% CI:1.48–5.77; p<0.01). Interestingly, students (OR 0.38; 95% CI:0.18–0.81; p<0.05) and unemployed (OR 0.38; 95% CI:0.17–0.85; p<0.05) participants were less willing to engage in social distancing.

As evident from the logistic regression analysis, the participants’ knowledge was reflected in some of the practices. The participants with good knowledge did not allow their children to engage in outdoor activities during COVID-19 (OR 1.75; 95% CI:1.06–2.89; p<0.05) (Table 8). The female participants were more concerned than the males about visiting crowded areas (OR 2.96; 95% CI:2.16–4.05; p<0.01), allowing their children to engage in outdoor activities (OR 2.06; 95% CI:1.27–3.34; p<0.01), and wearing a face mask when going outside (OR 1.31; 95% CI:1.00–1.71; p<0.05). They were also more anxious than males (OR 2.19; 95% CI:1.60–3.00; p<0.01) and perceived fewer signs of panic among their neighbors (OR 0.76; 95% CI:0.59–0.99; p<0.05). The participants in the 36–45 age group were more aware of existing medical facilities for treating COVID-19 patients compared to the 18–25 age group (OR 1.79; 95% CI:1.19–2.70; p<0.01). In reference to government staff, students (OR 2.15; 95% CI:1.15–4.05; p<0.05) and unemployed (OR 3.05; 95% CI:1.43–6.48; p<0.01) participants were more willing to avoid crowded areas, and both professionals (OR 1.85; 95% CI:1.09–3.12; p<0.05) and the unemployed (OR 1.91; 95% CI:1.02–3.56; p<0.05) had a higher level of anxiety due to COVID-19.

Table 8

Multiple logistic regressions of different variables of practices with socio-demographic variable and knowledge status.

(Values are odds ratio followed by 95% confidence interval in parenthesis).

Variables in for multiple logistic regression		Presently do not visit crowded areas	Do not allow children to engage in outdoor activities	Do not wear a face mask when going outside	Level of awareness among the neighbors	Rating the medical facilities	Panic among neighbors	Anxious/ stressed/ due to COVID-19	Stress level/anxiety due to COVID-19
Gender
	Male	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00		1.00	1.00	1.00
	Female	2.96 (2.16–4.05)***	2.06 (1.27–3.34)***	1.31 (1.00–1.71)**	0.82 (0.66–1.02)		0.76 (0.59–0.99)**	2.19 (1.60–3.00)***	1.01 (0.82–1.25)
Age (years)
	18–25	1.00		1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	26–35	0.91 (0.60–1.37)		1.28 (0.86–1.90)	1.12 (0.80–1.56)	1.15 (0.89–1.49)	1.01 (0.68–1.50)	1.33 (0.96–1.83)
	36–45	1.14 (0.66–1.98)		1.06 (0.62–1.81)	1.09 (0.70–1.71)	1.79 (1.19–2.70)***	1.20 (0.68–2.12)	1.62 (0.99–2.65)
	Over 45	1.14 (0.63–2.07)		0.847 (0.48–1.50)	1.13 (0.69–1.85)	1.37 (0.88–2.13)	2.41 (1.13–5.12)	0.71 (0.46–1.12)
Occupation
	Govt. staff	1.00		1.00	1.00		1.00		1.00
	Home makers	2.87 (0.78–10.58)		0.53 (0.21–1.36)	1.01 (0.46–2.23)		1.04 (0.35–3.05)		1.36 (0.60–3.08)
	Professionals	1.52 (0.90–2.57)		0.90 (0.49–1.67)	1.00 (0.60–1.64)		0.84 (0.42–1.69)		1.85 (1.09–3.12)**
	Retired	λ5.11 (0.60–43.83)		λ 4.9E8 (0.00–4.9E8).	0.50 (0.13–1.85)		0.86 (0.09–8.00)		λ 2.78 (0.77–10.09)
	Student	2.15 (1.15–4.05)**		0.87 (0.43–1.75)	1.20 (0.68–2.13)		0.73 (0.34–1.57)		1.35 (0.80–2.29)
	Unemployed	3.05 (1.43–6.48)***		0.90 (0.42–1.94)	1.67 (0.88–3.16)		0.71 (0.31–1.61)		1.91 (1.02–3.56)**
Knowledge
	Poor		1.00			1.00
	Good		1.75 (1.06–2.89)**			0.83 (0.65–1.05)
Constant		1.62	11.17***	3.63***	1.51	2.76***	5.66***	3.78***	0.43***

***Significant at 0.01 level

**Significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed); λ Higher OR values were due to small sample size and similar responses; Blank cells reveal that these variables were excluded from logistic regression analysis because these were not significant in chi-squared test.

Discussion

In this section, we discuss the overall KAP scores followed by responses to KAP questions and the relationships among attitudes, practices, and knowledge.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices’ scores

Overall, this study’s participants demonstrated poor knowledge scores toward COVID-19. Only 33% had good knowledge of COVID-19 whereas the older subjects, specifically retirees, were more knowledgeable on COVID-19 than the younger participants, particularly students who had a lower knowledge score. Studies in countries with similar sociodemographics reported higher knowledge scores. For example, in Nepal, 84.25% of respondents demonstrated good knowledge [39] whereas in India, Iran, and Pakistan this was 80.64%, 85%, and 64.8%, respectively [40-42]. However, research in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia reported that seniors had higher knowledge than younger people, similar to our study [43,44]. There might be several reasons for poor COVID-19 knowledge among this study’s participants. There were only a few COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh when this study was conducted, so many were unfamiliar with this disease, and awareness campaigns also likely fell short in reaching all groups equally.

The average attitude score indicated the desired attitude toward COVID-19 among the participants, and females had a better attitude than males. Similar results were also reported in Saudi Arabia [43], India [41], and Sudan [45]. Surprisingly, the attitude scores of government staff and students were the lowest rather than homemakers.

In comparison to attitude, the mean practice score was poor across all of the sociodemographic groups, inconsistent with COVID-19 related KAP studies elsewhere [40-41,46]. The low practice score in this study strongly indicates the gap in the translation of knowledge and attitudes into practices. Poor knowledge, attitudes, and practices among the students and public service professionals are concerning since young people constitute a substantial percentage of the population while public service professionals execute public policies and mitigation responses. Hence, special preference should be given to increase these two groups’ knowledge while focusing on improving their attitudes and practices. The observed differences may be due to disproportionate exposure of different groups to media and information-gathering networks, among other factors. For example, while students and young adults are more engaged in social media, the seniors and homemakers have more time to spend watching television and gather better information to convert it into better practices. This indicates avenues of improvement in an awareness campaign to target appropriate age groups and professional groups through appropriate media.

Responses to KAP questions

Regarding COVID-19 and its causes, many of the participants (36.2%) considered it a deadly disease with a certainty of death and had wrong perceptions about the cause of the emergence (82.8%) of COVID-19. These observations indicate the effect of misinformation from the Internet and media on their understanding of the cause of the emergence of COVID-19. Also, disagreement among the participants regarding the risk of seniors with comorbid diseases is indicative of an inadequate understanding of the outcomes of COVID-19. Many of the participants were confused about wearing surgical masks, which is linked to policymakers’ indecision and mixed messages regarding the use of masks. These results were commensurate with observations from instances of harsh treatment of those who are either diagnosed with COVID-19 or showing symptoms [36,47]. The results demonstrate that disease symptoms, preventive measures, quarantine duration, treatment understanding were well answered by the participants, although there were some doubts about how and where to quarantine. But most of the participants (99.43%) disagreed about priority and preventive measures that the government has implemented to stop the spread of nCOV, especially preparations lacking for healthcare workers’ safety (87.85%). These observations are explained by newspaper reports [24,48] related to peoples’ behavior contradicting the measures needed to control COVID-19 and overwhelming doubts on measures taken by the government. This indicates that it is necessary to better communicate information to educate the public so that they can better understand government policies and respond positively by conforming to the right attitudes and practices.

The results clearly indicated high to extremely high social anxiety (66.12%) due to the high fear dying of coronavirus but the participants were confused about staying home and maintaining social distancing. However, the actual situation differs. The government has deployed law enforcement to implement lockdown and social distancing [49]. The attitude scores and related responses clearly indicated a bleak perception toward the government’s readiness and ability to manage COVID-19. Experts also opined that there was a lack of coordination toward the management of COVID-19 in Bangladesh although we had adequate time to implement appropriate measures [27]. As the majority of the participants anticipated a high possibility of the spread of COVID-19 with a high fatality rate, the situation likely created moderate to extreme stress or anxiety among most of the subjects. Policy makers need to take heed of this to address the psychological aspects of the pandemic.

Relations among attitudes, practices, and knowledge

The practice of any population regarding a particular issue depends on their understanding of the issue and attitude toward it. Interestingly, among the participants with poor knowledge scores, one-third had good practice scores. These results indicate the challenges of managing the pandemic on the part of the government both in policy making and implementing mitigation measures since even those with good knowledge may not behave accordingly. This is also reflected in participants’ expectations of high fatality and contagion while showing poor awareness of the reasons for contagion. Unfortunately, most of the participants could not understand the priorities of the government’s actions to prevent COVID-19 while dissenting on its preparedness. The government of Bangladesh implemented necessary measures and ordered at-home quarantines of expatriates returning from COVID-19 infected countries [24,50-51]. However, violations and even protests against the government’s orders were evident in many cases [37], with the excuse of inappropriate institutional quarantine facilities [52]. Gender, age, occupation, and knowledge scores had a strong effect on the participants’ opinions on both attitude and practice responses in logistic regression analysis. A similar observation was reported in Sudan and Peru [45,53]. This clearly indicates that policy makers must better educate the public through awareness campaigns as knowledge creates a more positive attitude to harness better practice and encourage constructive criticism.

Limitations of this study

This study is one of the first in Bangladesh assessing peoples’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward COVID-19 and thus provides a useful baseline for future research. Further research can address some of its methodological limitations. One of this study’s key limitations is that the number of participants from whom the samples were collected is unknown. As a result, we could not estimate the response rate or determine the sample size prior to data collection. We used an English version of the questionnaire and so those did not understand English could not participate in the online survey. A Bengali (national language) questionnaire would increase the responses and represent a wider sociodemographic distribution. This study mainly targeted participants with a university-level education and so the findings cannot represent the KAP of Bangladeshi general public. This is one of the major limitations of online research [40,43,44,53]. A wider study comprising participants from wider sociodemographics helps overcome this limitation.

Conclusion

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the general public are crucial to contain COVID-19 and implement mitigation measures. An understanding of the public’s KAP helps policy makers and public health managers design and implement policies and mitigation measures by providing them with insights into pertinent crucial factors. This study demonstrated poor COVID-19 KAP among the participants, with some significant effects of the sociodemographic factors on the scores. This study indicated a need for more curated awareness programs with differential targeting and messages for varying sociodemographic groups, especially students and public service professionals. As 99% of the participants failed to identify the government’s priorities to combat the disease, policy makers must communicate more transparently to improve public confidence regarding factual information on preventive measures and their effectiveness so that people do not panic and spontaneously follow measures. This study suggests that routine KAP analysis can be an effective monitoring tool to measure the performance of mitigation measures in COVID-19. In any such application, the results of this study can be used as a baseline in Bangladesh.

KAP questionnaire for the COVID-19 online survey in Bangladesh.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Cut point of knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Categories of responses to attitudes and practices used for logistic regression.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Pearson’s correlation coefficients for knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

KAP-COVID-19-Raw Data.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

22 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-12138

Knowledge, attitude and practice towards the novel corona virus among Bangladeshi people: Implications for mitigation measures

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nath,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kannan Navaneetham, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"The study has been financed by the team of researchers involved in the work, and no external funding was available."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The author(s) recieved no specific funding for this work"

3. We note that Figure 'S1 Fig' in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

3.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 'S1 Fig' to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. The authors should go throughout the manuscript and carefully scrutinize many grammatical errors and punctuations. The authors should ask a native speaker of English to improve the manuscript and abstract.

2. This manuscript reports knowledge, attitude and practice toward COVID-19 among general population of Bangladesh. Under COVID-19 outbreak all over the world, the topic is really important. However, design of this study and structure have some issues and limitations. The authors should separate the results from the discussion section for better understanding of the manuscript.

3. Although COVID-19 outbreak is a recent global issue, the authors should support the discussion of their study by recent articles regarding KAP towards COVID-19 in other areas. articles concerning KAP towards COVID-19 have been recently published both in neighboring countries and other parts of the world. The authors should revise their discussion section and add more comparison to similar studies in other areas. (e.g: Erfani A, Knowledge, Attitude and Practice toward the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak: A Population-Based Survey in Iran.2020 / Zhong B-L et al Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among Chinese residents during the rapid rise period of the COVID-19 outbreak: a quick online cross-sectional survey. Int J Biol Sci. 2020 / Srichan P, et al. Knowledge, Attitude and Preparedness to Respond to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Among the Bordered Population of Northern Thailand in the Early Period of the Outbreak: A Cross-Sectional Study. 2020)

4. The authors should revise the conclusion to a shorter and clearer version. as much of the information in this section are more appropriate for the discussion section.

5. The authors should add a section regarding their limitation in their study, e.g. the selection bios which particularly consists of higher educated individuals, etc.

6. One of the big drawbacks of this study is the method of sample collection. The authors used a web-based survey; however, the details of recruitment were unclear. To call participants, the authors seemed to provide the questionnaire via email and Facebook, but if so, who saw the link? What is the response rate? In other words, what is the “mother population” of this survey? This study had a serious selection bias problem along with small sample size. The aim of this study was to understand the status of knowledge regarding COVID-19. The sampling method in this study is not suitable for this purpose under the unclear mother population.

7. The authors allocated the same scoring for incorrect and “Maybe”. What is the reason and validity of these allocations? Since the Likert scale scoring system differentiates “don’t know” from “incorrect” answer. In other words, does incorrect knowledge and no knowledge have the same impact on disease control and transmission among the population? If the authors allocated different scoring for “incorrect answers” and “don’t know” would there be any difference in results?

8. The authors failed to provide a framework for the analyzing section of the data. The work requires an extremely detailed use of language throughout the paper to ensure that shared meaning is held among the readers and the authors. The authors tended to rely on vague terms and need more stringent attention to detail in language to better support the authors’ suppositions.

9. The authors need to explain in the method section how the sample size was determined prior to data gathering. In other words, what was the estimated sample size?

10. The authors mention in their ethical statement that the participants provided informed consents. Please clarify how these consents where obtained (oral or written).

Reviewer #2: This paper addressed the KAP about COVID-19 among Bangladeshi people. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study and received complete response from 1589 participants. Considering socioeconomic and literacy in Bangladesh, the findings of this study is very significant. However, I have some major concerns.

- This study may not be representative of Bangladeshi population as only 4.2% of the participants were recruited from the cohort with education level secondary or below and 95% from university graduate. However, the prevalence of university graduate in the country is may be less than 10%. Thus the findings of this study may not represent Bangladeshi population, instead it may represent Bangladeshi people who have completed university degree. Since, English is not a mother language, the English version of the questionnaire further increases selection/participation bias in the study.

- I would recommend to report the actual distribution of education as well as occupation level in Bangladesh,

- The reported data in line 253 do not match with the data provided in the Table 2.

- The multiple logistic regression analysis results in Table 7A and 7B are confusing. Clearly, the analysis has not been done for attitude or practice score; instead it has been done for various component of attitude and practice. This should be reflected from the title of the table. Some of the outcome variables in these table have more than two categories. I am wondering how the logistic regression analysis was performed for these outcomes.

- In the above table, I notice some reported ORs are exceptionally very high (e.g., Table 7A, OR related to Age>65yrs is 3.211E7). How do you interpret this OR. This arises because there was not enough participants in this age group. The authors may combine this age group with the preceding group.

- I would recommend to report 95% CI for reported OR in Table 7A & B.

- I am concern that the authors choose to present results and discussion in the same section.

- I find the conclusion section very long. I would recommend to summarise the findings in a short section.

- What are the limitation of this study; this need to be stated.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Reza Shahriarirad

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

22 Jul 2020

Response to Reviewers

PONE-D-20-12138

Knowledge, attitude and practice towards the novel corona virus among Bangladeshi people: Implications for mitigation measures

We thank the academic editor and the reviewers for their feedback. We found all the reviewers’ comments to be usefully constructive, and we appreciate the time taken to provide such thoughtful and thorough feedback. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their positive comments. Both reviewers, however, made some suggestions around ways to improve the manuscript which we found useful and have addressed.

In the following sections, we provide more detail on these changes, addressing the reviewers’ comments one by one.

Editor’s Comments

Comments 1: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

Response: We addressed all comments raised by the editor and reviewers and uploaded a file labeled “Response to Reviewers”.

Comments 2: A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

Response: We have done so accordingly.

Comments 3: An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Response: We have done so accordingly.

Comments 4: If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

Response: We have not made any changes to financial disclosure.

Comments 5: Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

Response: We followed the guidelines

Comments 6: If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Response: Our study does not have any laboratory protocol to deposit.

Comments 7: When submitting your revision, please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We followed PLOS ONE style in this revision.

Comments 8: Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"The study has been financed by the team of researchers involved in the work, and no external funding was available."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work"

Response: We removed funding statement from the revised manuscript

Comments 9: We note that Figure 'S1 Fig' in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

Response: We removed “Figure S1” from revised manuscript

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

Comments 1: The authors should go throughout the manuscript and carefully scrutinize many grammatical errors and punctuations. The authors should ask a native speaker of English to improve the manuscript and abstract.

Response: This revised paper was edited by Elsevier English Editing Service (a certificate is attached)

Comments 2: This manuscript reports knowledge, attitude and practice toward COVID-19 among general population of Bangladesh. Under COVID-19 outbreak all over the world, the topic is really important. However, design of this study and structure have some issues and limitations. The authors should separate the results from the discussion section for better understanding of the manuscript.

Response: We understand that submitted manuscript has some issues to be improved. We tried our best to improve this paper based on reviewers’ comments, added a section on Limitations of this Study. We also separated Results and Discussion sections.

Comments 3: Although COVID-19 outbreak is a recent global issue, the authors should support the discussion of their study by recent articles regarding KAP towards COVID-19 in other areas. articles concerning KAP towards COVID-19 have been recently published both in neighboring countries and other parts of the world. The authors should revise their discussion section and add more comparison to similar studies in other areas. (e.g: Erfani A, Knowledge, Attitude and Practice toward the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak: A Population-Based Survey in Iran.2020 / Zhong B-L et al Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among Chinese residents during the rapid rise period of the COVID-19 outbreak: a quick online cross-sectional survey. Int J Biol Sci. 2020 / Srichan P, et al. Knowledge, Attitude and Preparedness to Respond to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Among the Bordered Population of Northern Thailand in the Early Period of the Outbreak: A Cross-Sectional Study. 2020).

Response: Thanks a lot for helping us with important references. We discussed our results with above and additional references.

Comment 4: The authors should revise the conclusion to a shorter and clearer version. as much of the information in this section are more appropriate for the discussion section.

Response: We revised Conclusions in a shorter form.

Comments 5: The authors should add a section regarding their limitation in their study, e.g. the selection bios which particularly consists of higher educated individuals, etc.

Response: We have added a section on Limitations of this Study where we described all of our shortcomings of the study.

Comments 6: One of the big drawbacks of this study is the method of sample collection. The authors used a web-based survey; however, the details of recruitment were unclear. To call participants, the authors seemed to provide the questionnaire via email and Facebook, but if so, who saw the link? What is the response rate? In other words, what is the “mother population” of this survey? This study had a serious selection bias problem along with small sample size. The aim of this study was to understand the status of knowledge regarding COVID-19. The sampling method in this study is not suitable for this purpose under the unclear mother population.

Response: We do agree that sampling was one of the limitations of this study. Mother population was unknown. The survey link was circulated to Facebook friends and emailed to people known to authors of this paper. As population was unknown, it was not possible to estimate the response rate. We addressed this in Methods section.

Comments 7: The authors allocated the same scoring for incorrect and “Maybe”. What is the reason and validity of these allocations? Since the Likert scale scoring system differentiates “don’t know” from “incorrect” answer. In other words, does incorrect knowledge and no knowledge have the same impact on disease control and transmission among the population? If the authors allocated different scoring for “incorrect answers” and “don’t know” would there be any difference in results?

Response: In this revision, we changed the scoring approach. We used score 1 for each correct answer, 0.5 for maybe answer and 0 for each incorrect answer. With this new scoring approach we revised Table 2.

Comments 8: The authors failed to provide a framework for the analyzing section of the data. The work requires an extremely detailed use of language throughout the paper to ensure that shared meaning is held among the readers and the authors. The authors tended to rely on vague terms and need more stringent attention to detail in language to better support the authors’ suppositions.

Response: Our apology. We do not understand the comment “The authors failed to provide a framework for the analyzing section of the data”. However, we elaborated Methods and Data Analysis. As stated above, the revised paper was checked by a professional English editor.

Comments 9: The authors need to explain in the method section how the sample size was determined prior to data gathering. In other words, what was the estimated sample size?

Response: As our “mother population” was unknown, we could not determine sample size prior to data gathering. In fact, we stopped receiving responses when there were very low survey participation.

Comments 10: The authors mention in their ethical statement that the participants provided informed consents. Please clarify how these consents where obtained (oral or written).

Response: We stated following statement to clarify this: “Before participating in the survey, respondents had to answer a Yes/No question to confirm their consent to participate voluntarily. After conformation of this question, the respondents were directed to the complete the questionnaire”.

Reviewer #2

Comments 1: This paper addressed the KAP about COVID-19 among Bangladeshi people. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study and received complete response from 1589 participants. Considering socioeconomic and literacy in Bangladesh, the findings of this study is very significant. However, I have some major concerns.

Response: Thanks for your kind notes.

Comments 2: This study may not be representative of Bangladeshi population as only 4.2% of the participants were recruited from the cohort with education level secondary or below and 95% from university graduate. However, the prevalence of university graduate in the country is may be less than 10%. Thus the findings of this study may not represent Bangladeshi population, instead it may represent Bangladeshi people who have completed university degree.

Response: We completely agree with this comment. As the respondents were authors’ Facebook friends and friends of friends’, they were mostly educated. This was one of the limitations of this study, and researcher addressed this as one of the limitations of online study.

Comments 3: Since, English is not a mother language, the English version of the questionnaire further increases selection/participation bias in the study.

Response: This was true, and one of our study limitations.

Comments 4: I would recommend to report the actual distribution of education as well as occupation level in Bangladesh,

Response: From Bangladesh Statistical data, we have current distribution of education and occupation level in Bangladesh as follow:

Education: Primary (67.89%), Secondary (30.95%) and post-secondary (1.16%). In case of occupation, the distribution is Agriculture (38.58%), Industry (21.26%) and Service sector (40.16%) (Source: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2017)

Comments 5: The reported data in line 253 do not match with the data provided in the Table 2.

Response: We have corrected this.

Comments 6: The multiple logistic regression analysis results in Table 7A and 7B are confusing. Clearly, the analysis has not been done for attitude or practice score; instead it has been done for various component of attitude and practice. This should be reflected from the title of the table. Some of the outcome variables in these table have more than two categories. I am wondering how the logistic regression analysis was performed for these outcomes.

Response: Absolutely right. The analysis was not done for attitudes/practices’ scores, but for various attributes of attitudes and practices. We have revised the Table caption to avoid the confusion.

For Logistic regression, variable were categorized into two categories. All “Yes” responses as YES, and all “No and Maybe” responses as OTHERS for a number of questions. These YES and OTHERS categories were used for regression analysis.

Comments 7: In the above table, I notice some reported ORs are exceptionally very high (e.g., Table 7A, OR related to Age>65yrs is 3.211E7). How do you interpret this OR. This arises because there was not enough participants in this age group. The authors may combine this age group with the preceding group.

Response: This is absolutely valid comment. In this revision, we have combined the suggested age groups.

Comments 8: I would recommend to report 95% CI for reported OR in Table 7A & B.

Response: We have provided 95% CI in Table 7A & 7B.

Comments 9: I am concern that the authors choose to present results and discussion in the same section.

Response: We have separated Results and Discussion

Comments 10: I find the conclusion section very long. I would recommend to summarise the findings in a short section.

Response: We have shorten Conclusion

Comments 11: What are the limitation of this study; this need to be stated.

Response: We have added a section on Limitations of this Study

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-12138R1

Knowledge, attitudes and practices toward the novel coronavirus among Bangladeshis: Implications for mitigation measures

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nath,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 18 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kannan Navaneetham, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have done a great job in addressing the concerns and comments and have significantly improved the manuscript. However, a few concerns still remain which can help improve the manuscript before considering it for publication.

1. In “table 2” and “supplementary table 4” please report <0.001 instead of 0.000

2. I recommend adjusting the design of the tables, particularly the borders, since there is no consistency and seems that the borders are inserted randomly. An option can be using three-line tables.

3. In table 7 what do the numbers represent? They seem to be OR and 95%CI, if so, please state in the table.

4. The conclusion section of the manuscript still needs improvement and can be shortened and improved, as it should demonstrate the final result and what the authors have achieved and how it can be used or implanted.

5. I recommend reporting the “cumulative percentage” in the first table of the “supplementary 2” file as it is more valuable to the readers. The authors could even express the table as a cumulative frequency/percentage graph if they choose.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Reza Shahriarirad

Reviewer #2: Yes: Md Billah

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

7 Aug 2020

Response to Reviewers

PONE-D-20-12138R1

Knowledge, attitudes and practices toward the novel coronavirus among Bangladeshis: Implications for mitigation measures

We thank the academic editor and the reviewers for their further feedback. We found all the reviewers’ comments to be usefully constructive, and we appreciate the time taken to provide such thoughtful and thorough feedback. Reviewers made some more suggestions to improve the manuscript which we found useful and have addressed.

In the following sections, we provide more detail on these changes, addressing the reviewers’ comments one by one.

Editor’s Comments

Comments: Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Response: Thanks for considering our revised paper for further revision. We have addressed all comments of reviewers.

Comments: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

Response: We have addressed all comments and uploaded a file named “Response to Reviewers”.

Comments: A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

Response: We have uploaded a marked-up copy named “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”.

Comments: An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Response: We have uploaded revised paper named “Manuscript”.

Reviewers' comments

Reviewer #1:

Comments: The authors have done a great job in addressing the concerns and comments and have significantly improved the manuscript. However, a few concerns still remain which can help improve the manuscript before considering it for publication.

Response: Thanks for your kind comments. We have addressed all concerns in this revision (R2).

Comments: In “table 2” and “supplementary table 4” please report <0.001 instead of 0.000.

Response: We have corrected accordingly.

Comments: I recommend adjusting the design of the tables, particularly the borders, since there is no consistency and seems that the borders are inserted randomly. An option can be using three-line tables.

Response: We re-designed all Tables following your comments.

Comments: In table 7 what do the numbers represent? They seem to be OR and 95%CI, if so, please state in the table.

Response: The numbers represent odds ratio (OR) followed by 95% CI in parenthesis.

Comments: The conclusion section of the manuscript still needs improvement and can be shortened and improved, as it should demonstrate the final result and what the authors have achieved and how it can be used or implanted.

Response: We have tried to shortened conclusion.

Comments: I recommend reporting the “cumulative percentage” in the first table of the “supplementary 2” file as it is more valuable to the readers. The authors could even express the table as a cumulative frequency/percentage graph if they choose.

Response: We provided cumulative percentage in Table S2.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-12138R2

Knowledge, attitudes and practices toward the novel coronavirus among Bangladeshis: Implications for mitigation measures

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nath,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kannan Navaneetham, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Table 2: footnote- should be *** Significant at 0.01 level; Remove Less than or equal to. Also change in other tables 7A and 7B also.

Pages 17-21: 95%CI is missing in the interpretation of results for all covariates. CI should be included. For example, Page 17, 3rd line of the last paragraph: "working from home (OR 1.708, 95% CI, p<0.01)"- This should be written as "working from home (OR=1.708, 95%CI:1.198-2.437, p<0.01). Include CI in all places. Follow the PLOS ONE guidelines or refer previously published articles in PLOS ONE.

Table 7A and 7B: Include in the Table Title at the end within a bracket- Values are Adjusted Odds Ratios followed by 95% Confidence Interval in parenthesis, instead of in the footnote.

Table 7A and 7B: For all reference category, include OR is 1.00 (NO CI) instead of leaving it blank.

Table 7B and 7B still needs proper formatting. All are mixed. For example, Table 7A: Gender and Age are mixed. Check other places also. They are not formatted properly. I would also appreciate, if Odd ratios are given at two decimal places both in the table and in the text.

Table 7A: Var-sufficient preventive measures by govt. Odd ratios for Retired category is too high. Could be due small sample issues. Check it and give foot note on the inappropriate result.

Table 7B: same problem- Odd ratio too high for retired for outcome variable- wear a face mask when going outside.

Table 7A and &B: Several Cells are missing. Give a footnote why there is no OR for those variables.

Table 7B: Clearly define the outcome variables. The interpretations and the definition of outcomes are not consistent. For example, page 20, para 2, "The participants with good knowledge did not allow their children to

engage in outdoor activities during COVID-19 (OR 1.751, 95% CI, p<0.05) (Table 7B). According to the table 7B column heading (Presently visit crowded areas, if this is coded as 1), having good knowledge is greater odds to visit crowded areas than those with poor knowledge (reference category). Similarly check other interpretations on page 20 and 21.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

16 Aug 2020

Response to Reviewers

PONE-D-20-12138R2

Knowledge, attitudes and practices toward the novel coronavirus among Bangladeshis: Implications for mitigation measures

We thank the academic editor for further feedback. We found all comments to be usefully constructive, and we appreciate the time taken to provide such thoughtful and thorough feedback. We have addressed all suggestions to improve the manuscript.

In the following sections, we provide more detail on these changes, addressing the comments one by one.

Editor’s Comments

Comments: Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Response: Thanks for considering our revised paper for further revision. We have addressed all comments in this revision.

Comments: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

Response: We have addressed all comments and uploaded a file named “Response to Reviewers”.

Comments: A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

Response: We have uploaded a marked-up copy named “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”.

Comments: An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Response: We have uploaded revised paper named “Manuscript”.

Comments: Table 2: footnote- should be *** Significant at 0.01 level; Remove Less than or equal to. Also change in other tables 7A and 7B also.

Response: We have changed accordingly in Table 2, Table 7, and Table 8

Comments: Pages 17-21: 95%CI is missing in the interpretation of results for all covariates. CI should be included. For example, Page 17, 3rd line of the last paragraph: "working from home (OR 1.708, 95% CI, p<0.01)"- This should be written as "working from home (OR=1.708, 95%CI:1.198-2.437, p<0.01). Include CI in all places. Follow the PLOS ONE guidelines or refer previously published articles in PLOS ONE.

Response: We have added values of 95% Confidence Interval in results following a recent PLOS ONE paper.

Comments: Table 7A and 7B: Include in the Table Title at the end within a bracket- Values are Adjusted Odds Ratios followed by 95% Confidence Interval in parenthesis, instead of in the footnote.

Response: We have split Table 7A and 7B into Table 7 and Table 8, and moved ‘values are adjusted odds ratios followed by 95% Confidence Interval in parenthesis at the end of Table title.

Comments: Table 7A and 7B: For all reference category, include OR is 1.00 (NO CI) instead of leaving it blank.

Response: We provided OR 1.00 accordingly.

Comments: Table 7B and 7B still needs proper formatting. All are mixed. For example, Table 7A: Gender and Age are mixed. Check other places also. They are not formatted properly. I would also appreciate, if Odd ratios are given at two decimal places both in the table and in the text.

Response: We have re-formatted Table 7 & 8, and odd ratios are given up to two decimal places.

Comments: Table 7A: Var-sufficient preventive measures by govt. Odd ratios for Retired category is too high. Could be due small sample issues. Check it and give foot note on the inappropriate result.

Table 7B: same problem- Odd ratio too high for retired for outcome variable- wear a face mask when going outside.

Response: We provided a reason for these higher OR values “higher OR values were due to small sample size and their responses were similar).

Comments: Table 7A and &B: Several Cells are missing. Give a footnote why there is no OR for those variables.

Response: We provided following foot note “Blank cells reveal that these variables were excluded from logistic regression analysis because these were not significant in chi-squared test.”.

Comments: Table 7B: Clearly define the outcome variables. The interpretations and the definition of outcomes are not consistent. For example, page 20, para 2, "The participants with good knowledge did not allow their children to engage in outdoor activities during COVID-19 (OR 1.751, 95% CI, p<0.05) (Table 7B). According to the table 7B column heading (Presently visit crowded areas, if this is coded as 1), having good knowledge is greater odds to visit crowded areas than those with poor knowledge (reference category). Similarly check other interpretations on page 20 and 21.

Response: We have re-worded the outcomes variables in Table 8. Now the interpretations are consistent with outcomes variables.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Aug 2020

Knowledge, attitudes and practices toward the novel coronavirus among Bangladeshis: Implications for mitigation measures

PONE-D-20-12138R3

Dear Dr. Nath,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kannan Navaneetham, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

24 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-12138R3

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward the novel coronavirus among Bangladeshis: Implications for mitigation measures

Dear Dr. Nath:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Kannan Navaneetham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE