Healthcare workers' knowledge, attitude and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic response in a tertiary care hospital of Nepal.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is an ongoing pandemic, for which appropriate infection prevention and control measures need to be adopted. Healthcare workers' adherence to prevention and control measures is affected by their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards COVID-19. In this study, we assessed the KAP among healthcare workers towards the COVID-19 during the ongoing pandemic.
METHOD: A self-developed piloted KAP questionnaire was administered to the recruited healthcare workers involved in the COVID-19 response at the Universal College of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital (UCMSTH), in Bhairahawa, Nepal. The knowledge questionnaire consisted of questions regarding the clinical characteristics, prevention, and management of COVID-19. Assessment on attitudes and practices towards COVID-19 included questions on behaviour and change in practices made towards COVID-19 response. Knowledge scores were calculated and compared by demographic characteristics and their attitude and practices towards COVID-19. Data were analysed using bivariate statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 103 healthcare workers participated in the study. The mean age of the participants was 28.24±6.11 years (range: 20-56); 60.2% were females; 61.2% were unmarried; 60.2% had a medical degree, and 39.8% were the nursing staff. The mean knowledge score was 10.59±1.12 (range: 7-13), and it did not vary significantly when adjusted for demographic characteristics. The attitude was positive for 53.4% of the participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.35±1.19 and negative for 46.6% participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.88±0.98 (p = 0.02). The practice was good (≥3 score) for 81.5% participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.73±1.12 and poor for 18.5% participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.46±1.13 (p = 0.24). The attitude of the participants improved with increasing age (29.55±7.17, p = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: There is comparably better knowledge regarding COVID-19 among healthcare workers. Appropriate practice correlates with better knowledge and positive attitude towards COVID-19 infection is seen with increasing age. Hence, training on protection and protective measures for having a positive attitude among healthcare workers is necessary against the fight with COVID-19 infection.

Introduction

COVID-19 is a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, first identified in the city of Wuhan, in China's Hubei province in December 2019 [1]. COVID-19 was previously known as the 2019 novel Corona virus (2019-nCoV) respiratory disease before the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the official name as COVID-19 in February 2020 [2]. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic [3]. This ongoing pandemic has been spreading very rapidly, with more than 8.5 million confirmed infections and more than 0.47 million deaths worldwide as of June 22 2020 (GMT 01.18) [4].

Countries worldwide have used various control measures such as social distancing, hand washing, shutting public transportation and public places, and finally testing and tracing affected communities [5]. Like many governments around the world, Nepal has also called for lockdown since 24th March, 2020, allowing only essential services like hospitals, groceries, and medical supplies and frontline emergency services [6]. In Nepal, the total number of confirmed infections stood at 9561 as of June 22, 2020 [7].

Profound knowledge supports an optimistic attitude and appropriate practices at work, which helps deter the risk of infection [8]. Healthcare workers' adherence to control measures is affected by their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards COVID-19. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the knowledge of the medical providers and determine the factors that affect their attitudes and practices to have adequate practices and protection. Thus, this study aimed to assess the KAP among healthcare workers towards COVID-19 infections during the ongoing pandemic.

Method

Study design and setting

A cross-sectional study was conducted from April 7, 2020 to May 7, 2020 at Universal College of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital (UCMSTH), Bhairahawa, Nepal. The hospital has recently stepped up its efforts to support the government in its fight towards COVID 19. UCMSTH is a teaching hospital serving as a tertiary care centre located in the southwest border of Nepal. All the healthcare providers working in the hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic response were included in the study.

Data collection and management

Data were collected from healthcare workers using a self-administered questionnaire to assess KAP towards COVID-19. This questionnaire consisted of two parts: the demographic information and a self-developed piloted and pretested KAP questionnaire. The KAP questionnaire assessed knowledge, attitude and practices of COVID-19 response. Knowledge was measured using 13 true and false questions. These questions assessed the provider’s knowledge on clinical manifestations, mode of transmission, prevention and control of COVID-19. The reliability analysis of the knowledge questionnaire with Cronbach's alpha coefficient was accep with an internal consistency of 0.76. Attitude and practice were assessed using 5 questions with a yes/no/don't know option. (Table 1)

Table 1

Correct responses on KAP questionnaire (n = 103).

Knowledge Questions	Correct response (%)
1. Fever, dry cough, difficulty in breathing, tiredness are the common clinical symptoms of COVID-19.	103 (100%)
2. Sneezing, runny nose, stuffy nose and headache are less common in persons infected with COVID-19.	80 (77.7%)
3. Loss of taste and smell are also the feature of COVID 19 infection.	52 (50.5%)
4. Currently there is no treatment of COVID-19 infection, but early symptomatic and supportive treatment can help most patient recover from infection.	101 (98.1%)
5. Majority of COVID-19 infective patient will not develop severe illness but elderly, patient having chronic illness, DM, COPD are likely to develop severe illness.	86 (83.5%)
6. COVID-19 infected person with fever can infect to other people.	28 (27.2%)
7. COVID-19 virus spread via respiratory droplets.	99 (96.1%)
8. Ordinary people should wear general mask.	85 (82.5%)
9. People maintain 2-meter distance in the public places.	94 (91.3%)
10. Lockdown is effective measure to slow the spread of infection.	102 (99.0%)
11. People infected with COVID-19 should immediately place in proper isolation.	102 (99.0%)
12. Suspected COVID19 patient should be sent to a quarantine centre or home quarantine.	99 (96.1%)
13. Health care professional with direct contact should take tablet hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis.	60 (58.3%)
Attitude Questions	Correct response (%)
1. Can Nepal win the battle against COVID-19?	52 (50.5%)
2. Are you confident to work in hospital during COVID-19 pandemic?	47 (45.6%)
3. Does your family support you to work in hospital during pandemic?	58 (56.3%)
4. Do you experience anxiety and fear while working with suspected COVID-19 patient?	81 (78.6%)
5. Have all the doctors from various department actively involved in COVID-19 Pandemic response?	38 (36.9%)
Practice Questions	Correct response (%)
1. Are you being trained to work for COVID-19 patient?	18 (17.5%)
2. Have you following social distancing?	78 (75.5%)
3. Have you been wearing mask and gloves during hospital practice?	99 (96.1%)
4. Do you regularly follow infection protection measures?	87 (84.5%)
5. Are you attending patient suspected with COVID-19?	71 (68.9%)

Collected data was then entered into an MS Excel sheet and coded for anonymity. The entered data was exported into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23 for analysis.

Study variables

included age as a continuous variable; gender as male and female; marital status as married and unmarried. For education, Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM), Proficiency Certificate Level (PCL) Nursing and Community Medical Assistant (CMA) were included as certificate level; Bachelor in Nursing Science (BNS) as graduate level in nursing; Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) as graduate medical education; Doctor of Medicine (MD), Master in Dental Surgery (MDS) and Doctorate of Medicine (DM) as post-graduate medical education. Designation were included as Nursing staff, Medical Intern, Medical Officer, Post Graduate (PG) Resident, and Consultant.

were calculated by assigning 1 point to each correct answer, and a 0 to an incorrect/unknown answer. The total knowledge score ranged from 0 to 13, with higher scores signifying better knowledge.

was assessed as positive and negative. The average score on the attitude questionnaire was calculated and used as a cut off for positive and negative. The average score was 3 and scores below 3 was labelled negative.

was assessed as good and poor. The average score on the practice questionnaire was calculated and used as a cut off for good and poor. The average score was 3 and scores below 3 was labelled poor.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated as frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation (SD). Data were analysed using Pearson chi-square test, Pearson correlation, independent t-test, and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. At 95% Confidence Interval, p-value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Ethical approval

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Review Committee (IRC) of Universal College of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital (UCMSTH). Informed written consents were taken from the participant before inclusion in the study, and confidentiality was maintained throughout.

Result

The correct responses to KAP are mentioned in Table 1. A total of 103 healthcare workers participated in the study with a male to female ratio of 1:1.5. The mean age of the participants was 28.24±6.11 years (range: 20–56), 62 (60.2%) were females, 63 (61.2%) were unmarried, 62 (60.2%) had a medical degree and 41 (39.8%) were the nursing staff. The mean knowledge score was 10.59±1.12 (range: 7–13) with 81.5% correct answer rate. There was no significant correlation in the participants’ knowledge score and their mean age (p = 0.13). The mean knowledge scores for male participants was 10.76±1.16, while for female participants was 10.48±1.10, with no statistical significance (p = 0.24). Married participants had a mean knowledge score of 10.78±1.00, while for unmarried participants, it was 10.48±1.19, suggesting no statistically significant difference (p = 0.19). By education, the mean knowledge score was highest for MBBS education with 10.85±1.28 (p = 0.06), and by designation; it was highest for Resident with 11.00±0.86 (p = 0.05) with no statistical significance. (Table 2)

Table 2

Knowledge scores of COVID-19 by demographic variables (n = 103).

Characteristics	Category	N (%)	Knowledge score (Mean ± SD)	p-value
Age (years)	28.24±6.11	103(100)	10.59±1.12	0.13a
Gender	Male	41(39.8)	10.76±1.16	0.24b
	Female	62(60.2)	10.48±1.10
Marital status	Unmarried	63(61.2)	10.48±1.19	0.19b
	Married	40(38.8)	10.78±1.00
Education	ANM/PCL/CMA	34(33.0)	10.18±1.03	0.06c
	BNS	7(6.8)	10.57±0.96
	MBBS	47(45.6)	10.85±1.28
	MD/MDS/DM	15(14.6)	10.73±1.12
Designation	Nursing staff	41(39.8)	10.24±1.18	0.05c
	Medical Intern	23(22.3)	10.87±0.92
	Medical Officer	4(3.9)	10.00±1.41
	Resident	20(19.4)	11.00±0.86
	Consultant	15(14.6)	10.73±1.28
Attitude	Positive (≥3)	55(53.4)	10.35±1.19	0.02d
	Negative (<3)	48(46.6)	10.88±0.98
Practice	Good (≥3)	84(81.5)	10.73±1.12	0.24d
	Poor (<3)	19(18.5)	10.46±1.13

aPearson correlation

bIndependent t-test

cone way ANOVA test

dPearson chi-square test.

The mean knowledge score varied significantly with the attitude of the participants (p = 0.02) but it did not vary with their practice (p = 0.24). Attitude was positive (≥3 score) for 55(53.4%) participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.35±1.19 and negative (<3 score) for 48(46.6%) participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.88±0.98. Similarly, practice was good (≥3 score) for 84(81.5%) participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.73±1.12 and practice was poor (<3 score) for 19(18.5%) participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.46±1.13. There was a negative correlation between knowledge and attitude (r = -0.313, p = 0.001), however, knowledge didn’t correlate with practice (r = 0.093, p = 0.35). There was a significant correlation between attitude and practice (r = 0.298, p = 0.002). (Tables 2 & 3)

Table 3

Correlation between the knowledge, attitude and practice scores (n = 103).

Variable (Mean ± SD)		Knowledge	Attitude	Practice
Knowledge (10.59±1.12)	Correlation Coefficient (r)	1	-0.313	0.093
	p-value		0.001*	0.350*
Attitude (2.68±1.16)	Correlation Coefficient (r)	-0.313	1	0.298
	p-value	0.001*		0.002*
Practice (3.43±1.03)	Correlation Coefficient (r)	0.093	0.298	1
	p-value	0.350*	0.002*

*Pearson correlation.

Association of attitude and practice of the participants towards COVID-19 with their characteristics were assessed. There was no significant difference in the attitude of the participants by their gender (p = 0.66), marital status (p = 0.51), education (p = 0.42) or designation (p = 0.28); however, the attitude varied significantly with the increasing age of the participants (p = 0.02). The practice of the participants was mostly good and did not differ by age (p = 0.64), gender (p = 0.82), marital status (p = 0.47), education (p = 0.78) or designation (p = 0.09). (Table 4)

Table 4

Attitude and practice towards COVID-19 by demographic variables (n = 103).

Characteristics	Category	Positive attitude N (%)	p-value	Good Practice N (%)	p-value
Age (years)		29.55±7.17	0.02*	28.38±6.10	0.64*
Gender	Male	23(41.8)	0.66	33(39.3)	0.82
	Female	32(58.2)		51(60.7)
Marital status	Unmarried	32(58.2)	0.51	50(59.5)	0.47
	Married	23(41.8)		34(40.5)
Education	ANM/PCL/CMA	18(32.7)	0.42	26(31.0)	0.78
	BNS	2(3.6)		6(7.1)
	MBBS	25(45.5)		40(47.6)
	MD/MDS/DM	10(18.2)		12(14.3)
Designation	Nursing	20(36.4)	0.28	32(38.1)	0.09
	Medical Intern	9(16.4)		16(19.0)
	Medical Officer	3(5.5)		4(4.8)
	Resident	13(23.6)		20(23.8)
	Consultant	10(18.2)		12(14.3)

*Independent t-test.

Discussion

This is a cross-sectional study conducted with the objective to assess the KAP among healthcare workers toward the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The findings of this study with relation to 81.5% providers answering correctly on the knowledge questionnaire is comparable with a similar study conducted in China, which reported that 89% healthcare workers surveyed demonstrated sufficient knowledge on COVID-19 [9]. As this study was conducted during the national lockdown period in Nepal, healthcare workers were quite aware of most of the information related to COVID-19 as part of being prepared to respond to the ongoing pandemic. Despite the differences in healthcare workers’ demographic characteristics, the knowledge seemed to be on par with all of them. This is in contrast with other studies suggesting differences in knowledge with differing types of healthcare workers [10].

Overall, 53.4% of the healthcare workers had a positive attitude towards the COVID-19. This finding is lower compared to that in other studies conducted in China. This attitude could probably be due to only half of medical providers (50.5%) belief that Nepal could win the fight against COVID-19. Even with having family support (56.3%), they were less confident (45.6%) while at work because of increased anxiety and fear (78.6%). The attitude of the healthcare workers was found to be similar across different demographic characteristics. This suggests that the notion was the same for all in this pandemic situation, defying the reports from other studies of varying attitudes by the healthcare workers’ demographics [11].

Having better knowledge of COVID-19 among the healthcare workers did not correlate with their attitude towards the disease while at work in this study. This finding is in contrast with other studies reporting that knowledge directly affected their attitude and increased their confidence [9, 10]. Knowledge is a prerequisite for promoting preventive measures and forming positive attitudes towards the fight against the disease [8]. However, studies have reported that protective measures not being in place could increase the chances of infection, while well-protected emergency and other departments in the hospital had lower chances of infection [12]. Healthcare workers with higher age elicited positive attitudes in this study. Similar was the case among healthcare workers in other studies. The higher age, the longer is the experience in dealing with emergencies, ultimately demonstrating confidence and optimism. Hence, increasing age could be the reason for a positive attitude [13].

In this study, healthcare workers’ practices were found to be mostly appropriate, and it did not differ by their demographic characteristics or knowledge scores. However, the practice significantly correlated with their attitude. Thus, poor practices can be linked to poor attitude, and it resulted so because very few (17.5%) were trained to work for COVID-19 patient, despite many following practices such as social distancing (75.5%), wearing mask and gloves during hospital practice (96.1%), infection protection measures (84.5%) and attending patient suspected with COVID-19 (68.9%). This finding is comparable to a similar study in China, which found 89.7% of the healthcare workers followed correct practices regarding COVID-19 [9]. Moreover, they cannot neglect their protection by engaging in best practices at work as they are the most vulnerable to infection [14].

Limitations

The findings of this study should be cautiously used for generalization since it depicts one hospital in Nepal. Additionally, practices being self-reported may not be actual; hence further study is warranted.

Conclusion

This study found out that there is a positive correlation between knowledge regarding COVID-19 among healthcare workers and appropriate clinical practices. However, their attitude was less optimistic even with better knowledge. Higher optimism was seen with healthcare workers’ higher age. Healthcare workers practice is directly correlated with their attitude. Hence, despite better knowledge, there is a need for a more positive attitude at the place of practice. Also, education and training on protection and protective measures are required to improve positive attitude and better practices at work during the COVID-19 pandemic response.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

2 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-25614

Healthcare workers’ knowledge, attitude and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic response in a tertiary care hospital of Nepal

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sunny,

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 Nov 16 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,

Amit Sapra

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

●      The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

●      A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

●      A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript is very interesting and pertinent to current times. Please view the reviewer's comments to make the recommended changes before the publication is approved.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Yes

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: Please see attached Document for recommended changes. There were many Grammar and Syntax errors that I corrected. It is a well done study and very appropriate in today's times. I enjoyed reading it. Great job!

Reviewer #2: Please review my edits. Too many grammatical errors. Data is presented in a very complex way and too many running sentences. Please view the document with enabling the edits so you can see the revisions requested. Read my questions in () sentences to elaborate.

**********

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: Priyanka Bhandari

Reviewer #2: Yes: Waiz A Wasey

[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.

Submitted filename: PLOS-ONE REVISED PRIYANKA.docx

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: Edits on Paper Requested.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Oct 2020

Reviewer #1: Please see attached Document for recommended changes. There were many Grammar and Syntax errors that I corrected. It is a well done study and very appropriate in today's times. I enjoyed reading it. Great job!

Response: Thank you so much for appreciation and corrections as well. I have revised the corrections accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Please review my edits. Too many grammatical errors. Data is presented in a very complex way and too many running sentences. Please view the document with enabling the edits so you can see the revisions requested. Read my questions in () sentences to elaborate.

Response: Thank you so much for the review and suggestions. I have constructed simpler sentences as suggested and elaborated at the mentioned places.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Oct 2020

Healthcare workers’ knowledge, attitude and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic response in a tertiary care hospital of Nepal

PONE-D-20-25614R1

Dear Dr. Sunny

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,

Amit Sapra

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

29 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-25614R1

Healthcare workers’ knowledge, attitude and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic response in a tertiary care hospital of Nepal

Dear Dr. Sunny:

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

Dr. Amit Sapra

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE