COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, and practices in Indian Population: An online national cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION: This highly contagious zoonotic corona virus (SARS-CoV-2) spread to most parts of the world (200 countries) and created a public health emergency. Due to its novel nature and indistinctness, different sources of information and suggestions were developed to guide the individuals about its transmission and prevent its infection. Responses to the active intervention efforts have posed some relevant questions on population understanding and attitudes toward COVID-19. The present study is aims to assess the COVID-19 related knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) in a heterogeneous Indian population.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 501 respondents across India participated in a questionnaire-based online survey from April 2020 to May 2020. The questionnaire incorporated 56 questions about demographic characteristics and KAP dimensions. The mixed (quantitative and qualitative) methods were employed to evaluate KAP dimensions. Descriptive analysis was estimated as means, SD, and proportion. The bivariate (χ2), correlation, and regression analysis were utilized for the response analysis. In addition, qualitative analysis, including content and thematic analysis were done for open-ended questions. RESULT: High knowledge and positive attitude were reported in more than half of the study population, with a proportion of 58.6% and 62.1%, respectively. Education shows a significant difference in the knowledge and attitude dimensions. The good practice (50.5% of the total population) reported a significant difference in age and gender categories with the test of independence (χ2). Prevention (56.89%) in knowledge domain and risk (17.56%), information-seeking (45.51%), prevention (51.50%), and treatment-seeking (54.29%) in attitude domains recorded low proportion. KAP variables were found in association in Pearson correlation analysis. In logistic regression analysis, knowledge was the strongest predictor for the positive attitude, whereas attitude was reported as the best predictor for good practice outcome.
CONCLUSION: The study presents a moderate level of covid related knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices in Indian population.

Introduction

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a severe acute respiratory disease that emerged in a patient with viral pneumonia-like symptoms in Wuhan, Hubei Province of China in December 2019 [1]. The pathogen responsible for the infection is termed as acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) which is a new form of coronavirus, initially provisionally labelled as novel coronavirus (nCoV) [2]. This highly contagious, zoonotic virus started infections from a small city and spread rapidly to most parts of the world and created a global health emergency. The World Health Organization (WHO) called for a collaborative effort to tackle the situation and declared it a global pandemic on March 12, 2020 [3]. The regularly updated COVID-19 situation dashboard has reported 40, 49,10,528 confirmed cases and 57, 83,776 deaths globally by this deadly virus as of February 12, 2022 [4].

In India, the first case of COVID-19 got reported in Trissur, Kerala, on 27th January in a 20-year lady with a travel history to China [5]. The rapid movement of people from the global epicenters and between the cities facilitated COVID-19 transmission in India, and infection started spreading to the major cities of India. In response to the increase in cases and to break the transmission chain, active government intervention like international travel suspension, contact tracing, containment, and mitigation strategies were initiated. However, despite the proactive measures, the infection continued to rise in different parts of the country and confirmed cases reached to 4,25,86,544as of February 12, 2022 [6].

To prevent the spread, the application of evidence based NPIs, mainly social distancing, personal & respiratory hygiene with sustained public cooperation in the different communities is warranted [7]. The WHO has also issued specific recommendations for the prevention and control of infection in population and healthcare facilities. It includes maintaining hand cleanliness with hand wash using alcohol-based hand sanitizers, face masks, social distancing, crowd avoidance, self-isolation, and medical attention for a person with mild symptoms (Fever, Cough and headache) [8].

The exponential rise in the number of cases has impended and added severe strain on the healthcare system of all the nations, including the developed and developing countries. Initial attempts also suggested that alone the Medicare effort would not be substantial enough to tackle the situation. The developing or underdeveloped countries have faced the additional challenge of inefficient, unprepared health systems to accommodate active patients in medical facilities. The immediate lockdown step was believed as a vital attempt to control the virus transmission and was followed by different countries. The Indian government also planned a strict nationwide lockdown to minimize social contacts and to reduce the virus community spread. This measure added the additional benefit of reducing the burden of the country’s health system and provided the time needed for health system preparedness. The measure included a complete restriction on the movement, non-essential activities, and travel. The constantly updated government guidelines regulated these sudden restrictions and generated public reactions in panic and confusion that promoted long distance travel of migrant workers to their hometown, which potentially increased the infection risk in other cities.

The effectiveness of any anti-contagion measure is grounded upon the understanding of knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) at the macro and micro-level, which will drive the intended participation of individuals in these interventions [9]. So, for implementing these interventions effectively, public education is considered one of the most significant efforts that can vastly help, as has been the case regarding MERS [10] or SARS [11]. Therefore, some vigorous actions were taken by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) and state health authorities to educate the general public and provide accurate, and authentic information on COVID-19.

Due to the novel nature and indistinctness of COVID-19, different sources of information and suggestions were developed for guiding the individuals about transmission, and precautions regarding prevention of infection. The whole exercise of providing the information and guidelines becomes increasingly challenging with the heterogeneous nature of population nature and variable education status. The unregulated social media and lack of crisis communication offered vast amount of misinformation and deception, which shaped the clouding understanding of COVID-19, panic, and confusion [12]. Despite the extensive and prolonged lockdowns, a decrease in the doubling time of occurrence of cases, and the number of new cases continued to rise in India [13]. Response to these active intervention efforts posed relevant questions of population understanding and attitudes toward COVID-19. We have some learnings from the earlier SARS outbreak, which highlights the association between knowledge and attitudes with panic and emotion, which might affect the preventive efforts to control the spread of infection [14].

To implement the behavioural change interventions, assessment of population knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) is a fundamental step, as it determines the community readiness to accept change. It provides the baseline information and better insight to address the knowledge gap, misconceptions, involved practices for the disease and informs the need for amendment in preventive programs and health awareness plans. There is a profusion of KAP-based studies on different diseases, including infectious diseases and studies on the current COVID-19 pandemic with KAP based study design and variable study populations have been published from different countries as well as from India. Still, most of the studies targeted the healthcare communities [15-19], and paucity of general population-based studies was observed. The present study address the need for Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) with a mixed method (quantitative and qualitative) study design on heterogeneous Indian population. The results and observations of this study attempted to inform the need for active efforts directed on the societal readiness to comply with pandemic control measures.

Materials and methods

Participants and procedure

The study was conducted using a cross-sectional questionnaire survey method among the Indian residents. Due to the highly contagious nature of COVID-19 and to avoid physical interactions, a web-based online survey was planned to record the responses. An online google form was created with brief study details, and the link of the survey was shared to available contacts via email and social media (Facebook and WhatsApp), following the convenient sampling method. The participants were also asked to share the survey link with their contacts. Survey responses for the study were solicited from April 2020 to May 2020. For survey respondents, eligibility was defined with criteria; individuals with Indian residency (living in Indian geographical locations), above the age of 18 or older, and consent for participation. In the study, Individuals below 18 ages, non-Indian and who does not understand the survey language were excluded to participate in the survey. The formal sample size calculation was performed considering the adult population number of India, and the response rate on the KAP study. The proportion of the population having adequate knowledge regarding COVID-19 was assumed to be 50% as no similar study was conducted in the study population, level of significance 5%, and margin of error 5% were considered for calculation and target sample size for the survey was calculated as 385 using formula (“Sample Size = (Distribution of 50%) / ((Margin of Error%/ Confidence Level Score)2)”). Eventually, considering the incomplete and dropout responses, we established the target sample of 500. The mixed (quantitative and qualitative) methodology was employed for the evaluation of KAP dimensions.

Questionnaire

Survey questions were constructed with available questionnaire construction information and guidelines from WHO [20] (WHO,2008). The questionnaire incorporated four significant dimensions, demography, knowledge & awareness, attitudes and practices. Apart from primary demographic details, respondents were also asked for healthcare facility distance, and Covid-19 positive status. The knowledge and awareness, attitude and practices dimensions were arranged in sequence and in each part, inquiries on information and communications, knowledge, awareness, transmission, cause and symptoms, preventions and treatment, and care-seeking behaviour domain for COVID-19 were made respectively (Fig 1). The complete questionnaire was limited to 45 questions in total with 20 questions on knowledge, 14 questions on attitudes, 11 questions on practices, and additionally, 11 questions were asked for the demographic’s details and health information (S1 Appendix). To facilitate a detailed and better response, questions were developed in categorical (one-optional & multi-optional) and open-ended format. The clarity of the questionnaire was tested in a pilot study among ten students and workers to confirm that the target audience understood the questions. The questions and domains were reviewed for suitability, applicability, relevance, and accuracy by experts comprising social scientist, epidemiologist and medical doctor. The perplexing and challenging questions were then improved or omitted before the initiation of the study. Data from the pilot study were excluded from the results.

Fig 1

Questionnaire construct.

However, pilot feedback assisted to adjust minor alterations and to revise the questions based on the analysis of the comments received. The survey was also tested and modified for length and applicability among the different groups of participants. In order to facilitate completion within an approximate duration of 20 min, the survey was restricted to a total of 56 questions. The translation of the questionnaire was performed by the expert team of Rajbhasha (Hindi) division, National Institute of Malaria research. The Hindi translated version were retranslated to original (English) version, following the backward translation. The two versions were compared for content similarity and no significant differences were observed.

Scoring and analysis

All the data, including close and open-ended responses, were reviewed and compiled in an window MS Excel sheet for analysis. The scores were calculated for each of the three dimensions of knowledge & awareness, attitude, and practices after assigning respective scores for the responses to the multiple-choice questions in each dimension. One point was awarded for each rightly answered question (for questions with only one correct option) and option (for questions that had more than one correct option) and no point was awarded for wrongly answered questions/options. The knowledge and awareness dimension scores ranged from 0 to 30, for attitudes, the range was 0 to 17, whereas the score range was from 0 to16 for the practice dimension. The total score (63) was calculated after adding all KAP dimensions scores. We followed the published study with a similar study design for the scoring and criteria for assessing the knowledge, attitude, and practices [21]. A cutoff score of > = median value within each dimension was used to categorize the outcome as low, and high (for knowledge and awareness), positive and negative (for attitudes) and good and poor (for practice). Therefore, a participant is said to have: high level of knowledge if the knowledge score was at least 21 points; positive attitude if the attitude dimension was at least 11 points and good practice if the practice score was at least 10 points. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed with qualitative analysis techniques. Content and thematic analyses were done on the recorded typed/written responses, and appropriate themes or codes were allocated to each response.

Statistical analysis

The survey response data were captured in Google spreadsheet that was further exported and captured in Microsoft Office Excel 365. Descriptive analysis was done for relevant outcomes and characteristics and summary statistics were presented as means, standard deviations, and frequencies. The chi-square (χ2) test of independence was performed for comparative analyses of the frequency of participants in different demographic variables. The knowledge, attitude and practice scores and their domain mean scores among the demographic variables were compared with independent samples t-test. The association between KAP categories with different demographic categories were tested using the chi-squared (χ2) test in bivariate analysis. Logistic regression analysis was planned in bivariate and multivariable models for measuring the magnitude of association between socio-demographic characteristics, and other KAP dimensions. The level of the statistical significance was set for all analyses at α = 0.05. The data visualization charts were developed in Microsoft Office Excel 365. The map was developed with ArcGIS software. All quantitative statistical analysis was done with Special Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23 (IBM). Qualitative analysis, including content and thematic analyses for responses to open-ended questions, were done with NVivo version 12 software.

Ethical considerations

The protocol for the study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee, ICMR-NIMR, New Delhi (PHB/NIMR/EC/2020/106). Participation in the survey was voluntary, anonymous, and in the opening part of the survey, the purpose of the research was communicated in language familiar (Hindi, English) to the respondents. Consent was ensured when a box was checked to designate that the consent was granted. During the survey, participants were provided with the option to deny and withdraw their participation in the survey at any time. Anonymity and confidentiality of participants were ensured during the survey. The participants’ details were de-identified, and their responses were stored in a password-protected computer.

Result

A total of 527 responses were received out of which 13 participants denied consent, ten responses were duplicated, and three were from non-Indians. Following the study protocol, total 501 qualified the study participants’ criteria and completed the questionnaire and hence were included in the analysis. The study reported participation from almost all Indian states and union territories. Maximum study participants were from the capital state of Delhi (N = 138, 27.54%), whereas at least one response was received from the newly formed union territory of Ladakh. We could not get any participants from the northeast states of Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram, and Sikkim. In terms of geographical distribution, most responses were from north India (301, 60.08%) and least respondents from three northeast states of India (20, 3.99%) (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Participants geographical distribution (number corresoponds to participants from specific locations).

The socio-demographic characteristics were evaluated with the variables, e.g., gender, age, occupation, education, nearest health facility distance, and residency category of the survey respondents. Data on their demographic details were summarized and presented in Table 1. Of the 501 participants, the majority were male (N = 274, 54.70%), and the mean age recorded was 30.94 ± 10.6 years. Participant’s occupation was dominated by the student’s category (N = 205,40.90%), followed by individuals involved in government services (N = 156,31.10%). The study group included a large proportion of individuals with a postgraduate university degree or higher education (N = 336,67.10%), and individuals residing in the urban areas (N = 301, 60.10%). The significant portion (N = 449,89.40%) of the respondents reported the 0–10 kilometers home distance from the healthcare facility. To facilitate the statistical analysis the demographic characteristics were further categorized in bivariate categories. The χ goodness of fit test among the categories showed significant differences in all except education characteristics (Table 1).

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Characteristics	Category	N	%	Characteristics	Category	N	%
Age	30.94 ± 10.6			Age	18–30	302	60.30%
				(Bivariate)	Above 30	199	39.70%
				χ2(p-value)	21.176 (0.000) **
Gender	Female	227	45.30%	χ2 (p-value)	4.409 (.036) *
	Male	274	54.70%
Occupation	Unemployed	29	5.80%	Occupation	Not working	248	49.50%
	Housewife	12	2.40%	(Bivariate)	Working	253	50.50%
	Student	205	40.90%	χ2(p-value)	0.050(.823)
	Workers	2	0.40%
	Business	6	1.20%
	Private job	73	14.60%
	Government Job	156	31.10%
	Healthcare worker	18	3.60%
Education	High school (till class 10)	11	2.20%	Education (Bivariate)	No higher education	165	32.90%
	College (Graduation)	154	30.70%		higher educated	336	67.10%
	Higher education	336	67.10%	χ2(p-value)	58.365(0.000)**
	(postgraduate or above)
Residence Category	Rural	64	12.80%	Residency category	Non-urban	200	39.90%
	Town	61	12.20%	(Bivariate)	Urban	301	60.10%
	Semi-Urban	75	15.00%	χ2 (p-value)	20.361(0.000)**
	Urban	301	60.10%
Health facility distance	0–10 kilometers	449	89.40%	χ2 (p-value)	714.71(0.000)**
	11–20 kilometers	32	6.40%
	above 20 Km	20	4.00%

* χ2 (p-value) significant at the 0.05 level,

** χ2 (p-value) significant at the 0.01 level

Knowledge and awareness assessment

A total of twenty questions with one correct option and more than one correct option were designed to evaluate the knowledge and awareness of COVID-19. The mean knowledge score of the participants was 20.7 with a standard deviation of 3.9. The knowledge and awareness were assessed in domains of cause/symptoms, transmission, prevention, treatment/care-seeking, risk, specific knowledge, and scores were calculated (Table 2). The knowledge & awareness dimension and domain score were also analyzed across different demographic factors. The results demonstrate that knowledge & awareness scores were high in the age group of 31 and above, female gender, working participants, individuals with higher education, and people living in the urban area. Differences in knowledge & awareness dimension among different demographic variables were evaluated using the independent sample t-test. The present study reported a significant difference among education variables in cause/symptoms, transmission, prevention, treatment/care-seeking, specific knowledge and in total knowledge score. Similarly, gender and occupation categories show a significant difference in prevention. The t-test results and significant differences were highlighted in different domains as well. The bivariate data and test of significance (χ2) also pointed out the difference in the education factor (Table 2).

Table 2

Knowledge score of the respondents and their demographic distribution.

		Knowledge Domain	Cause / symptoms	Transmission	Prevention	Treatment/care-seeking	Risk	Knowledge	Total Score	Low (N, %)	High (N, %)
Age	18–30	Mean±SD	5.33±2.04	3.67±1.13	7.27±1.4	1.85±0.78	0.87±0.34	1.46±0.57	20.5±4.1	78(39.2)	121(60.8)
	above 30	Mean±SD	5.33±2.1	3.86±1	7.56±1.15	1.89±0.67	0.92±0.27	1.47±0.52	21±3.5	132(43.7)	170(56.3)
		tTest	0.024	1.942	2.373	0.718	1.894	0.241	0.749	χ2Test	1.003
		p-value	0.981	0.053	0.018 *	0.473	0.059	0.81	0.454	p-value	0.317
Gender	Female	Mean±SD	5.38±2.14	3.78±1.05	7.53±1.19	1.79±0.74	0.89±0.32	1.48±0.56	20.8±3.8	92(40.5)	135(59.5)
	Male	Mean±SD	5.29±1.99	3.72±1.11	7.27±1.39	1.93±0.73	0.89±0.31	1.46±0.54	20.6±4	118(43.1)	156(56.9)
		tTest	0.489	0.623	2.204	2.036	0.178	0.397	1.679	χ2Test	0.328
		p-value	0.625	0.533	0.028 *	0.042 *	0.859	0.692	0.094	p-value	0.567
Occupation	Not working	Mean±SD	5.21±2.02	3.69±1.05	7.21±1.38	1.81±0.78	0.86±0.35	1.46±0.56	20.2±4	114(46)	134(54)
	Working	Mean±SD	5.45±2.09	3.8±1.11	7.57±1.22	1.92±0.68	0.92±0.28	1.47±0.54	21.1±3.7	96(37.9)	157(62.1)
		tTest	1.332	1.082	3.089	1.561	2.064	0.38	1.781	χ2Test	3.311
		p-value	0.183	0.28	0.002 *	0.119	0.040 *	0.704	0.075	p-value	0.069
Education	No higher education	Mean±SD	4.94±1.91	3.59±1.14	7.01±1.57	1.73±0.81	0.87±0.33	1.34±0.57	19.5±4.2	81(49.1)	84(50.9)
	higher educated	Mean±SD	5.52±2.1	3.82±1.05	7.57±1.12	1.93±0.69	0.9±0.31	1.53±0.53	21.3±3.5	129(38.4)	207(61.6)
		tTest	3.093	2.303	4.162	2.697	0.77	3.635	2.594	χ2Test	5.202
		p-value	0.002 *	0.022 *	0.000 *	0.007 *	0.441	0.000 *	0.010 *	p-value	0.023 #
Residence category	Urban	Mean±SD	5.42±2.09	3.81±1	7.5±1.29	1.87±0.73	0.91±0.29	1.45±0.55	21±3.7	92(46)	108(54)
	Non- Urban	Mean±SD	5.19±2.01	3.66±1.2	7.21±1.32	1.86±0.74	0.86±0.35	1.49±0.55	20.3±4	118(39.2)	183(60.8)
		tTest	1.235	1.485	2.477	0.155	1.578	0.828	0.53	χ2Test	2.28
		p-value	0.217	0.138	0.014 *	0.877	0.115	0.408	0.597	p-value	0.131
Total			5.33±2.06	3.75±1.09	7.39±1.31	1.87±0.73	0.89±0.32	1.47±0.55	20.7±3.9	210(41.92)	291(58.08)

* t-Test (p Value) significant at the 0.05 level,

** t-Test (p Value) significant at the 0.01 level,

# χ2Test (p-value) significant at the 0.05 level

Attitude assessment

Attitude towards COVID-19 was measured by analyzing the responses under the domains of psycho-social, risk, prevention, treatment / care-seeking stigma, and information (Table 3). The attitude score average was 11.2 with SD 2.1,65.88% of the total attitude score (17). The result shows that attitude scores were found to be high in similar demographic variables as were in the knowledge and awareness dimension. In gender, male show a high score as compared to their counterparts. The study also reported a significant difference among the education categories in risk, treatment / care-seeking, and stigma domain score as well as in total attitude score. In the treatment-seeking attitude score. Most of the demographic characteristics showed significant differences in the treatment-seeking attitude score except the residency status. The scores were tested with t-test results and significance scores are marked in the Table 3. The bivariate χ2 test of significance repeated the findings of Knowledge & awareness dimensions and reported the significant difference among the education variables in negative and positive attitude categories (Table 3).

Table 3

Attitude score of the respondents and their demographic distribution.

Demographic Characteristics		Attitude Domain	Psychosocial	Risk	Prevention	Treatment / care-seeking	Stigma	Information	Total score	Negative (N, %)	Positive (N, %)
Age	18–30	Mean±SD	2.03±0.7	0.17±0.38	4.47±1.46	2.37±0.7	1.64±0.55	0.48±0.5	11.2±2.1	114(37.7)	188(62.3)
	above 30	Mean±SD	2.03±0.64	0.19±0.39	4.42±1.58	2.54±0.66	1.71±0.51	0.42±0.49	11.3±2	76(38.2)	123(61.8)
		t-Test	-0.129	0.490	-0.361	2.804	1.487	-1.390	0.749	χ2Test	0.010
		p-value	0.897	0.624	0.718	0.005 *	0.138	0.165	0.454	p-value	0.920
Gender	Female	Mean±SD	1.95±0.71	0.17±0.37	4.39±1.38	2.34±0.7	1.7±0.5	0.49±0.5	11±2	88(38.8)	139(61.2)
	Male	Mean±SD	2.09±0.64	0.18±0.39	4.49±1.61	2.52±0.67	1.65±0.56	0.42±0.49	11.4±2.1	102(37.2)	172(62.8)
		t-Test	-2.373	-0.441	-0.753	-2.918	1.147	1.566	-1.679	χ2Test	0.125
		p-value	0.018 *	0.660	0.452	0.004 *	0.252	0.118	0.094	p-value	0.724
Occupation	Not working	Mean±SD	1.99±0.67	0.16±0.36	4.44±1.43	2.33±0.72	1.64±0.56	0.48±0.5	11±2.1	100(40.3)	148(59.7)
	Working	Mean±SD	2.07±0.68	0.19±0.4	4.45±1.58	2.54±0.65	1.7±0.51	0.43±0.5	11.4±2.1	90(35.6)	163(64.4)
		t-Test	-1.246	-1.071	-0.111	-3.329	-1.225	1.280	-1.781	χ2Test	1.200
		p-value	0.213	0.285	0.911	0.001 *	0.221	0.201	0.075	p-value	0.273
Education	No higher education	Mean±SD	2.01±2.01	0.22±0.22	4.35±4.35	2.24±2.24	1.56±1.56	0.49±0.49	10.9±10.9	74(44.8)	91(55.2)
	Higher educated	Mean±SD	2.04±0.65	0.15±0.36	4.5±1.49	2.53±0.62	1.72±0.51	0.44±0.5	11.4±2	116(34.5)	220(65.5)
		t-Test	-0.554	2.007	-1.057	-4.173	-3.061	1.127	-2.594	χ2Test	5.011
		p-value	0.580	0.045 *	0.291	0.000 *	0.002 *	0.260	0.010 *	p-value	0.025 #
Residency category	Non-urban	Mean±SD	2.1±0.65	0.18±0.39	4.34±1.46	2.45±0.68	1.65±0.57	0.45±0.5	11.2±2.2	74(37)	126(63)
	Urban	Mean±SD	1.99±0.69	0.17±0.38	4.52±1.54	2.43±0.7	1.69±0.51	0.46±0.5	11.3±2	116(38.5)	185(61.5)
		t-Test	1.759	0.208	-1.296	0.341	-0.876	-0.369	-0.530	χ2Test	0.121
		p-value	0.079	0.835	0.195	0.733	0.381	0.712	0.597	p-value	0.728
Total			2.03±0.68	0.18±0.38	4.45±1.51	2.44±0.69	1.67±0.53	0.46±0.5	11.2±2.1	190(37.9)	311(62.1)

* t-Test (p Value) significant at the 0.05 level,

** t-Test (p Value) significant at the 0.01 level,

# χ2Test (p-value) significant at the 0.05 level

Practice assessment

The measurement of practice dimensions for COVID-19 was done with inquiries on two major domains: 1) Prevention and 2) Treatment / care-seeking behaviour of participants. The mean score was 10.3 (SD2) for practice outcome, and significant differences were observed among the gender categories with a higher female practice score (10.6 SD 1.9). The bivariate distribution in poor and good practices has reflected the significant prevalence of good practices in 18–30 age cohort and female gender. Other characteristics also showed differences among the categories but could not reach the significance level (Table 4). The response rate for the question, "Would you like to test yourself for Coronavirus infection?" (Yes-36%), and “If there will be a vaccine available against Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), would you consider, having it?” (Yes-75.05%) indicated the moderate attitudes for suggested prevention practices.

Table 4

Practice score of the respondents and their demographic distribution.

Demographic Characteristics		Practice Domain	Prevention	Treatment / care-seeking	Total score	Poor (N, %)	Good (N, %)
Age	18–30	Mean±SD	9.29±1.76	1.13±0.72	10.4±2	134(44.4)	168(55.6)
	above 30	Mean±SD	9.07±1.64	1.05±0.72	10.1±1.9	114(57.3)	85(42.7)
		t Test	-1.414	-1.154	-1.652	χ2Test	8.005
		p-value	0.158	0.249	0.099	p-value	0.005 *
Gender	Female	Mean±SD	9.48±1.54	1.14±0.7	10.6±1.9	95(41.9)	132(58.1)
	Male	Mean±SD	8.97±1.81	1.06±0.73	10±2	153(55.8)	121(44.2)
		t Test	3.425	1.283	3.408	χ2Test	9.719
		p-value	0.001 *	0.2	0.001 *	p-value	0.002 #
Occupation	Not working	Mean±SD	9.27±1.78	1.1±0.73	10.4±2	115(46.4)	133(53.6)
	Working	Mean±SD	9.13±1.65	1.09±0.71	10.2±2	133(52.6)	120(47.4)
		t Test	0.913	0.154	0.85	χ2Test	1.925
		p-value	0.362	0.877	0.396	p-value	0.165
Education	No higher education	Mean±SD	9.28±1.71	1.08±0.74	10.4±2	79(47.9)	86(52.1)
	higher education	Mean±SD	9.16±1.72	1.1±0.71	10.3±1.9	169(50.3)	167(49.7)
		t Test	0.743	-0.239	0.559	χ2Test	0.259
		p-value	0.458	0.811	0.576	p-value	0.611
Residency category	Non-urban	Mean±SD	9.11±1.81	1.09±0.72	10.2±2	99(49.5)	101(50.5)
	Urban	Mean±SD	9.27±1.65	1.1±0.72	10.4±1.9	149(49.5)	152(50.5)
		t Test	0.743	-0.239	0.559	χ2Test	0
		p-value	0.458	0.811	0.576	p-value	1
Total			9.2±1.71	1.1±0.72	10.3±2	248(49.5)	253(50.5)

* t-Test (p Value) significant at the 0.05 level,

** t-Test (p Value) significant at the 0.01 level,

# χ2Test (p-value) significant at the 0.05 level

The correlation analysis of the Knowledge, Attitude, Practice scores with age reflected a high correlation (Table 5). The data indicated that knowledge score improvement was highly correlated with an increment in a positive attitude, and no correlation was observed with practice. The increase in positive attitude was found to influence the practice in Indian people as data reflects. The analysis of the KAP dimensions score with age indicates that the knowledge about COVID-19 had increased with increasing age (Table 5).

Table 5

Correlation matrix among knowledge, attitude and practice score and age.

		Age	Knowledge Score	Attitude score
Age	Pearson Correlation
	p-value (2-tailed)
Knowledge Score	Pearson Correlation	.095 *
	p-value (2-tailed)	.034
Attitude score	Pearson Correlation	.056	.327 **
	p-value (2-tailed)	.212	.000
Practice score	Pearson Correlation	-.029	.098*	.176 **
	p-value (2-tailed)	.517	.028	.000

*.Pearson Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

**. Pearson Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

In the present study, the bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were applied to identify the predictors for a positive attitude and good health practice outcomes. The analysis, used demographic variables (age, gender, occupation, education, residence), knowledge, attitudes, and practice scores as independent variables. The result of the analysis, presented in Table 6, highlights a significant association of knowledge and practice score with positive attitude outcome, whereas age (above 30), gender (male), and attitude variables presented significant contribution in the development of good health practice. The association was checked in both bivariate and multivariate regression models and similar findings were observed. Odds ratio with confidence interval values in unadjusted and adjusted patterns indicate the results from bivariate and multivariate models, respectively (Table 6).

Table 6

Regression analysis among KAP variables and demographic characteristics.

Variables	Unadjusted			Adjusted
	Wald	Odds Ratio (Upper-Lower)	p-value	Wald	Odds Ratio (Upper-Lower)	p-value
Attitude
Age	0.01	0.981(0.679–1.419)	0.92	0.597	0.824(0.504–1.347)	0.44
Gender	0.125	1.067(0.743–1.533)	0.724	0.596	0.854(0.784–1.748)	0.44
Occupation	1.199	0.8172(0.569–1.173)	0.273	0.424	0.85(0.522–1.386)	0.515
Education	4.983	0.648(0.443–0.9484)	0.0256	0.912	0.816(0.538–1.238)	0.34
Residency	0.121	1.068(0.738–1.544)	0.728	0.82114923	0.365(0.804–1.81)	0.365
Knowledge score	38.300	1.183(1.122–1.247)	0.000 **	33.742	1.181(1.117–1.25)	0.000 **
Practice Score	9.837	1.16(1.057–1.273)	0.002 **	8.249	1.161(1.049–1.286)	0.004 **
Practice
Age	7.954	1.681(1.172–2.413)	0.005 **	5.4	0.582(0.368–0.919)	0.020 *
Gender	9.653	1.757(1.231–2.507)	0.002 **	9.412	1.805(1.238–2.633)	0.002 **
Occupation	1.922	0.78(0.549–1.108)	0.166	0.341	0.874(0.555–1.375)	0.559
Education	0.259	0.908(0.625–1.317)	0.611	0.286	1.116(0.746–1.671)	0.592
Residency	0	1(0.699–1.43)	1	0.045	1.042(0.713–1.522)	0.831
Knowledge score	1.687	1.031(0.985–1.079)	0.194	0.062	1.007(0.956–1.06)	0.803
Attitude Score	11.095	1.16(1.063–1.264)	0.001 **	11.743	1.178(1.073–1.294)	0.001 **

* Significant at the 0.05 level

** significant at the 0.01 level

Information and communication

The study assessed the Information and communication domain with four questions (3-Knowledge and awareness, 1- Attitude) responses: 1) When did you first hear about coronavirus? 2) Where/from whom did you first hear about coronavirus? 3) Whom do you trust to give you accurate information about Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)? 4) If you need to know about coronavirus disease, what would you like more information about?

All the respondents mentioned familiarity with the term “coronavirus,” and most of the respondents had listened the word in recent months (65%). The most common sources of their information on COVID-19 were the print media (26.31%) and internet/social media (23.79%). The share of other communication mediums was also evaluated (Fig 3). The trusted sources of information for the Indian population were the National (25.3), International health agencies (21.41%), followed by the healthcare workers (14.28%). Th addition, respondents expressed their wish to know more about COVID-19, mostly on the treatment options (20%), prevention (17%), Government actions for prevention (15%) and signs & symptoms (15%) (Fig 3(d)).

Fig 3

Information and communication.

(a) First Information time (b) Mode of information & communication (c) Reliable sources for information & communication (d) Information & communication need.

Health behaviour and barriers

Health-related behaviour and barriers were also assessed with the survey response dataset and presented in Fig 4. Participants conveyed the challenges in necessary item access (33%) and financial inability (12%) to procure the resources in taking preventing actions for COVID-19. Assessment of treatment-seeking behaviour in the last 30 days demonstrated that half of (54.33%) fever patients (more than three days) believe in going to the hospitals. However, in general, the Indian population, hospital visiting rate for the treatment was 21.16% (Fig 4).

Fig 4

Practice behavior.

(a) Barrier for preventive practices (b) Treatment/care seeking behaviour during COVID-19 pandemic.

Qualitative analysis

Content analysis with word frequency query for most used words was performed to ascertain the distinct knowledge about the reason for lockdown measures. Cloud image with 20 most frequent words was developed and reported the popular term used by the participants to define the reason, e.g., Spread, Virus, Corona, Prevent, Covid, distancing, transmission etc. Further, thematic based qualitative analysis was employed to analyze the open-ended question response for the inquiry on "most effective ways of preventing Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) or infection". Each response was coded with the listed themes (Fig 5b) and a frequency distribution table was created to find out the most favored way. The large section of the study population supported the mode of social distancing, followed by the washing hand with soaps. The respondents also realized the need for authentic information; however, not at a high rate.

Fig 5

Qualitative analysis.

(a)- Word cloud of terms (words) used to describe the reason of lockdown (b)—Identified themes and their frequency for reported preventive measures (c)—Identified themes and their frequency for ‘transmission source’.

The assessment of transmission source perception for COVID-19 was explored with the response of an open-ended question; “In your opinion, who is responsible for the transmission of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in your community/region? The responses were analyzed, and some major themes were identified. Most of the respondents (32.69%) wrote about the people with irresponsible behaviour (32.96%), e.g., Do not follow the lockdown rules, unnecessary going outside. Some respondents (9.22%) also discussed the role of authorities considering lockdown measures. The need for improved knowledge and awareness was also felt by some (8.38%) respondents, as highlighted in the "lack of proper information" theme.

Discussion

The present survey evaluated community knowledge, attitude, practices towards COVID-19 among a heterogeneous, adult and the literate population of India that could be reached during the lockdown via the internet only. The survey was conducted during the initial phase of the pandemic impact in India. Realizing the emergent need, some recent studies have been published on knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19 from India [22, 23] and other parts of the countries, majorly among the health care workers [15-19] and also in the general population [24-28]. The novelty of the study is to ascertain the public knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 with a wide range of domains in a heterogeneous Indian population. The respondent population ensured participation from most Indian states and a preponderance of (301, 60.08%) North Indian population was observed. However, the limited share (36%) of internet users in the Indian population has restricted our scope of involving more wide-ranging participants [29]. So only educated people and those who understand English or Hindi and had internet access were included in the study.

The mean total KAP score of 42.2 SD 5.6 (out of 63) for the study population was recorded, and the median (43) based categorization indicated half of the population (51.8%) with good knowledge, attitude, and practice behaviour. The demography of the respondents shows that a large portion of adults (age 18–30), males (54.70%), individuals involved in some kind of jobs (50.50%) (though student proportion (40.90%) was noteworthy), educated with a higher degree (67.10%) and individuals living in urban (60.10%) parts of India responded the survey more. The skewness of the study population was presumed as only literate, and internet user population could access the survey due to the inherent limitations as mentioned above. The difference among the demographic variables was tested and found significant in most characteristics except in occupation. This study revealed that nearly all the (98.60%) respondents know about the causes of the COVID-19 crisis. All the respondents agreed to be familiar with the word "coronavirus" but denied any infections in their family. In the present study, the mean knowledge score for the study population was 20.7 SD 3.9 (Total Knowledge score = 30). The knowledge dimension assessed he knowledge about the characteristics of the COVID-19, the mode of transmission and prevention against virus transmission primarily. Approximately 58% of respondents were found in the high knowledge category whereas the domains; specific knowledge (97%), and risks (89%) recorded high response in comparison to the domain’s cause/symptoms (63%), transmission (75%), prevention (57%), and treatment /care-seeking (70%). Following the results, the present study warrants the need for prevention-, and treatment-specific knowledge communication among the Indian population. The degree of knowledge about COVID-19 reported in this study is higher to the Bangladeshis (33%) [30], comparable to the KAP studies on the Indian general population (50%) [23], Iraq (52.15%) [31], Syria (60%) [32], health care workers in Uganda [17] and lower than that reported in China (90%) [28], Indian population (83.7%, 81%) [33, 34], Tanzania (77%) [27] and the US (80%) [35] general population. Similarly, lower than the healthcare population of India (71.2%) [22] Vietnam Healthcare Workers (88.4%.) [36] and in Multinational healthcare worker (92.7%) [37]. The knowledge score and high knowledge proportion was significantly higher in higher educated individuals, and the knowledge about prevention was found to be significantly different in all measured demographic characteristics. The bivariate analysis in the knowledge dimension pointed out the need for more diverse awareness initiative to educate differently educated people.

The study estimated that about 6 in 10 (62.1%) Indians have a positive attitude about COVID-19. The finding is comparatively higher than the Iraq population (22.2) [31], Indian construction worker population (32.8) [38] and lower than the Vietnam Healthcare population (90%) [36], Indian (77.33, 77%) [33, 34], Chinese [28], and Malaysian general population [24]. The attitude score of the study group was 11.2 SD 2.1 (65.88% of the total attitude score), which was significantly more in higher educated people. The domain categories recorded a small proportion of positive attitudes in risk perception (18%), information seeking attitude (46%), prevention (51%), and treatment-seeking attitude (54%). The study population scored better for psychosocial attitude (82%) and stigma towards COVID-19 patients (70%). The difference in treatment-seeking attitude was found significant in different demographic variables. The perception of risk assessed with the question "you or your family members will get Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the next 1–2 months" and moderate attitude for the current healthcare system had given some evident suspicion about the high transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in India. A 22 countries-based study reports the fair knowledge in many countries and good attitudes among the residents of many countries, but significant portion of the studied population reflected little knowledge about the symptoms and treatment [39]. The knowledge and attitude dimensions finding suggest developing a more curated awareness and communication program for COVID-19 with differential targeting.

In agreement with the previous study [18], our study reported a significantly high COVID-19 related practice score among the females. In other screened demographic variables, younger age groups, lesser educated people, non-working respondents, and people living in urban areas showed good practice scores but were not statistically significant. Study findings affirm that only half of the studied (50.5%) population is involved in good practice behaviour towards COVID-19, which is comparable to Iraq general population (46.2%) [31] and lower than the reported in multinational healthcare workers (79%) [32] and Indian general population (63.8) (83.5%) [33, 34]. A study on Indian construction workers presented lower (20.2) practice (social distancing) to our practice findings [38]. The treatment-seeking behaviour of the participants with “fever (more than three days) in the last 30 days" indicates the same proportion (53%) (Fig 4(b)). Participants in the study showed low (36%) compliance for testing and a high (74%) positive response for future vaccines use. The correlation matrix confirms a significant positive correlation among knowledge-attitude, and attitude-practices, which coincides with the previous studies findings and suggest that interventions should target the knowledge promotion and increasing positive attitude to improve the covid-19 related preventive practices [39]. The increasing age was associated with the knowledge score. The logistic regression analysis model allowed us to quantify the effects of demographic and KAP variables in developing positive attitudes and good practices. The present study highlights the role of age (30 and above), gender (Male), and attitude (Positive) as active predictors for the development of COVID-19 related practice outcomes as tested in the bivariate and multivariate model. Positive attitudes have shown a strong association (p = 0.000) with knowledge compared to practice (p = 0.004). The study suggests that most of the participants followed the credible mode and source of information; however, the role of another active medium like social media is also evident and needs to be evaluated in terms of communicating misinformation, unverifiable content, and creating misconception [40] The Study on Ebola pointed out the role of, the trust deficit for the healthcare system as well as belief in misinformation which had created a decrease in adopting preventive behaviour [41]. This misinformation can also be attributed to the non-acquaintance and lack of training in crisis communication methodology and principles. Customized IEC campaigns to the target populations with the local terminology can reduce the chances of misinformation and misconception among the different communities. Only half of the population (53%) with three days of fever have sought hospital or doctor-based care in the last 30 days. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended question identifies the key themes and endorses increasing awareness about the suggested prime preventive measures (social distancing, handwash, and mask use) among the participants. The study outcome specifies the active adaptation of high knowledge into a positive attitude (71%) but a comparatively lower conversion of a positive attitude to good practice (56%). Only half of the individuals (50%) with high knowledge showed good practice for COVID-19, suggesting the lower progression of knowledge-to-practice compared to attitude-to-practice.

The study results demonstrate that almost a quarter (119, 24%) of Indian literate people had Covid-19 related high knowledge, positive attitude and good practice. The information arriving in any community may not necessarily become a part of their knowledge and wisdom, and variations in knowledge and perception are apparent. This synchronization needs to be understood with their believes, traditions and practices of the community. The public has access to many sources of information, and they form their perceptions based on these diverse sources and not merely on official sources. These perceptions regulate the attitude to add significant stimulus to perform various practices like social distancing, isolation, quarantine, mask use, personal hygiene and empathy to patients and healthcare workers. The volatile existence of deadly viruses with ill-defined transmission behavior and the lack of awareness often influences the readiness to address these challenges unexpectedly. The study presents some additional advantages over comparable studies from different parts of the world due to the inclusion of multi-optional and open-ended questions for better expression of multilingual, and multicultural respondents. The present KAP inquiry attempted to address the Indian population variation in terms of education status, socio-economic status, and high heterogeneity, and the study inferences should not be viewed as a representative reflection of all Indian communities. The central suggestion of the study lies with the fact that participation at the individual level should be ensured for COVID-19 control with active efforts to increase the knowledge, attitude and practices on COVID-19. These efforts will be operative for achieving this great goal of humanity free of the SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) and prevent us from future such infections.

Limitations

There are some potential limitations in the study that need to be highlighted. The snowball and convenient sampling procedure could have introduced systemic unavoidable selection bias. The scoring pattern of the questions was the same for all the domains of different KAP dimensions. The response data in this study are self-reported and depend on the participants’ honesty & recall ability and may create recall bias. The questionnaire’s pattern and mix (quantitative and qualitative) design did not allow us for validity and reliability statistical analysis. Most respondents for the survey were from literate and urban, semi-urban locations, which may not truly represent the varied Indian population and participation from marginalized, neglected, and underprivileged populations could have been ensured.

Conclusions

In summary, the present study demonstrates moderate level of knowledge (High), positive attitudes and good practices about COVID-19 among Indians. The mode of information and its access to the population are good but domain specific education initiatives may be adopted to improve knowledge and preventive practices for COVID-19 infections. In future, more comprehensive (e.g., qualitative) studies should be designed in a better inclusive sample from the different heterogeneous groups. Even with some limitations, our findings present valuable information about the KAP dimensions and their dynamics in the Indian population.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice questionnaire on coronavirus disease (Covid-19).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

KAP data.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Dec 2021

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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Junaid Farrukh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Author,

after carefully reviewing your manuscript and reviewers comments, you are required to do major revision in your manuscript and submit again.

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)”

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study specifically please include a copy, in  the original language

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. We note that Figure 2 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:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 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].”

b. 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/

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: I did not see any reliability and validity test. We should know the Cronbach alpha value for this questionnaire. Would you please Provide the flow chart of your research? I did not see the objective in the abstract, And in methodology, please mention the exclusion criteria. In the result, please mention in of table below the statistic that you used. I saw some paragraphs did not mention the table

For discussion, please add more the similar study in others country.

In conclusion, please make sure the statement based on the objective of the study

Reviewer #2: Overall found this to be a good read and well done research taking into account the circumstances of the pandemic at the time of the study. That shows forward-thinking and adaptability.

Introduction

second paragraph. Kindly add the year 2020 to the 27th January to prevent any ambiguity regarding the time although it is apparently obvious. It does not hurt to add it.

Last sentence of paragraph 2; would be good to have the figures as of the time of this article being published or a recent update in 2021. Also "....as on August..." should be "...as of August.."

third paragraph.

Kindly rephrase this to reflect that you refer to that period. Maybe you could change "so far" to "At that time" and "have been developed" to "had been developed" as well as the subsequent tense of the sentence to match.

Regarding the situation during the study period, kindly change the tense to the past tense like above to reflect what was happening at that time. In this current state it sounds like that is the current situation in India.

METHODS

Line 6: participants were also asked to share the survey link with "their" instead of "his"

Questionnaire

line 5: you mention infection status. I think this would be better if defined as it leaves room for subjectivity. What does this mean for a participant who selects yes or no. Is their answer based on official results from the country's testing program or from symptoms the patient has or some other means.

Scoring and analysis

State the basis of the scoring system used. Was it arbitrarily generated or based on for example WHO's questions you developed your questionnaires on? It is important that this is very clear as your entire study seems to be based on this scoring system.

RESULTS

the scores are mentioned again in a manner i believe not to be intuitive. Clarifying the scoring system will help this. Also state what the overall score would have been again to make it easy for the reader to follow. Kindly review this in the results section.

KNowledge and Awareness assessment

Line 7: the results demonstrate that knowledge scores.... The first part can be removed to make the sentence less wordy and read better. It could be "knowledge scores were found to

be high in the age group of 31 and above, female gender, working participants, individuals with

higher education, and people living in the urban area."

Discussion

The first paragraph provides context and the need for your work. This belongs in the introduction as justification. The discussion should begin with key findings of the study

Limitations should also come before the conclusions

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

Please kindly refer to my specific comments for improvement of the manuscript below:

1. Keywords in abstracts - There are a few keywords that I find unnecessary e.g. awareness and survey. Please kindly revise

2. Spelling - please standardize the spelling for 'coronavirus' vs 'corona virus'.

3. Methodology - Please refer to the questions below:

- Was there any target population planned before the distribution of the survey? I understand that the survey was distributed in Facebook and Whatsapp. However, there must be target groups that you were trying to reach. Please clarify.

- Has the questionnaire undergone reliability and validity tests? If yes, please include the Cronbach's alpha values.

- Who performed the questionnaire translation? Did the translation process follow a standard protocol? Please elaborate.

- Please revise the total number of questions to 45 and not 56 as the other 11 questions were related to demographics.

- What does the term 'dropout' response refer to here? I personally think that the term is not applicable in a survey-type research.

- What was the formula used to calculate the sample size in this research? Please clarify and think of the need to calculate the sample size for this type of research.

4. Results - the overall results presentation were quite vague in presentation i.e. the tables and descriptions. Please refer to more specific comments below:

- Awareness was mentioned in some parts of the results and conclusion. However, there were no questions on awareness in the questionnaire. Please clarify.

- An example of vague sentence - 'Education shows a significant difference in the knowledge and attitude dimensions;. Please revise.

- Response rate was not reported. As this is an online survey, I would expect to see a response rate. This is where it is important that target populations are identified at the early stage of the study.

- 40.9% of the respondents were students. This could be due to chance but this is why it is important that ttarget populations are identified.

5. Conclusion - some sentences were ambiguous. Please rephrase.

Thank you and all the best.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

15 Feb 2022

Point-by-point reply and rebuttal to the reviewer’s comments

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-12498

COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, and practices in Indian Population: An online national cross-sectional survey

Editor Comment:

Comment-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

Reply: We are thankful to the reviewer in finding our manuscipt relevant for giving new insights and find it suitable for publication. Manuscript content is cross checked for PlOS One style amenability.

Comment-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.

Reply: The manuscript content is checked for grammar and spelling by the two independent researchers.

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

Prof.V.R.Rao MSc; PhD

Presently, Director (Research), Genome Foundation, Hyderabad;India

Visiting Professor, Thalassemia & Sickle Cell Society, Hyderabad;India

Former,ICMR Emeritus Medical Scientist

Dept of Genetics, Osmania University, Hyderabad;India

Former Professor, Biochemical Genetics & Molecular Anthropology Laboratory,

Department of Anthropology, Delhi University, Delhi; India

Email: profraovr@gmail.com

Comment-3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study specifically please include a copy, in the original language

Reply: The details of questionnaire used in the Study is provided in Methods section and copy of questionnaire is its original language (English) is submitted under section: supporting Information.

Comment-4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated.

Comment-5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Comment-6. We note that Figure 2 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:

Reply: We agree with the editor comments and a new Map developed with freely available (QGIS) software has replaced the previous map.

Comment-7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated.

Comment-8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

Comment-1: I did not see any reliability and validity test. We should know the Cronbach alpha value for this questionnaire.

Reply: In the study, due to the mix (quantitative and qualitative) nature of KAP (Knowledge, attitude and practice) questionnaire the reliability and validity analysis could not be performed. In the questionnaire, questions with more than one valid answer and open-ended questions were also used, so we have not carried out the questionnaire internal consistency analysis using the statistics tools. However, questionnaires’ questions clarity and validity were tested in a pilot population (N=10). The question and domain were also critically reviewed by the social scientist, epidemiologist, and medical doctor for its suitability, applicability, relevance and accuracy.

Comment-2 Would you please Provide the flow chart of your research?

Reply: The flow chart could not be provided to minimize the manuscript length. Please see the below image:

Comment-3 I did not see the objective in the abstract, And in methodology, please mention the exclusion criteria.

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Comment-4 In the result, please mention in of table below the statistic that you used. I saw some paragraphs did not mention the table

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Comment-5 For discussion, please add more the similar study in others country.

Reply: suggestion has been incorporated and recent studies has been updated in manuscript.

Comment-6 In conclusion, please make sure the statement based on the objective of the study

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript. Additional details has been deleted from conclusion.

Reviewer #2:

Overall found this to be a good read and well-done research taking into account the circumstances of the pandemic at the time of the study. That shows forward-thinking and adaptability.

Reply: We are thankful to the reviewer in finding our ms relevant for giving new insights and find it suitable for publication.

Comment-1 Introduction

second paragraph. Kindly add the year 2020 to the 27th January to prevent any ambiguity regarding the time although it is apparently obvious. It does not hurt to add it.

Last sentence of paragraph 2; would be good to have the figures as of the time of this article being published or a recent update in 2021. Also "....as on August..." should be "...as of August.."

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript

Comment-2 third paragraph.

Kindly rephrase this to reflect that you refer to that period. Maybe you could change "so far" to "At that time" and "have been developed" to "had been developed" as well as the subsequent tense of the sentence to match.

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript. The part has been deleted, as its not reflect the real situation.

Comment-3 Regarding the situation during the study period, kindly change the tense to the past tense like above to reflect what was happening at that time. In this current state it sounds like that is the current situation in India.

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript. The part has been deleted, as its not reflect the real situation.

Comment-4 METHODS

Line 6: participants were also asked to share the survey link with "their" instead of "his"

Reply: The suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Comment-5 Questionnaire

line 5: you mention infection status. I think this would be better if defined as it leaves room for subjectivity. What does this mean for a participant who selects yes or no. Is their answer based on official results from the country's testing program or from symptoms the patient has or some other means.

Reply: We agree with the reviewer comments and the requited changes has been made in the manuscript. During the study period, the self-volunteer as well as state regulated testing of suspected individuals has been done by state authority.

Comment-6 Scoring and analysis

State the basis of the scoring system used. Was it arbitrarily generated or based on for example WHO's questions you developed your questionnaires on? It is important that this is very clear as your entire study seems to be based on this scoring system. the scores are mentioned again in a manner i believe not to be intuitive. Clarifying the scoring system will help this. Also state what the overall score would have been again to make it easy for the reader to follow.

Reply: The scoring system followed in the study was inspired by the recently published study with a similar design cited in the manuscript (Orimbo, 2020). WHO guidelines were followed for the theme identification and structure of the questionnaire. For the scoring system, one point was awarded for each rightly answered question (for questions with only one correct option) and option (for questions which had more than one correct option) and no point was awarded for wrongly answered questions/options. We defined the criteria for the assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practices. A cutoff score of >=median value within each dimension was used to categorize the outcome as low, and high (for knowledge and awareness), positive and negative (for attitudes) and good and poor (for practice). The analysis was followed by the recently published study. Some addition has been made in the section for easy understanding of readers.

Orimbo EO, Oyugi E, Dulacha D, Obonyo M, Hussein A, Githuku J, Owiny M, Gura Z. Knowledge, attitude and practices on cholera in an arid county, Kenya, 2018: A mixed-methods approach. PloS one. 2020 Feb 26;15(2):e0229437.

Comment-7 RESULTS, Kindly review this in the results section.

KNowledge and Awareness assessment

Line 7: the results demonstrate that knowledge scores.... The first part can be removed to make the sentence less wordy and read better. It could be "knowledge scores were found to be high in the age group of 31 and above, female gender, working participants, individuals with higher education, and people living in the urban area."

Reply: Suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Comment-10 Discussion

The first paragraph provides context and the need for your work. This belongs in the introduction as justification. The discussion should begin with key findings of the study

Reply: Suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript and additional details has been deleted from discussion part.

Comment-11 Limitations should also come before the conclusions

Reply: Suggestion has been incorporated.

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

Please kindly refer to my specific comments for improvement of the manuscript below:

Comment-1 1. Keywords in abstracts - There are a few keywords that I find unnecessary e.g. awareness and survey. Please kindly revise

Reply: Suggestion has been incorporated.

Comment 2. Spelling - please standardize the spelling for 'coronavirus' vs 'corona virus'.

Reply: Suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Comment-3. Methodology - Please refer to the questions below:

- Was there any target population planned before the distribution of the survey? I understand that the survey was distributed in Facebook and Whatsapp. However, there must be target groups that you were trying to reach. Please clarify.

Reply: In the study, the population targeted includes the characteristics of adult (Above 18 year, living in Indian territory and understand the survey language (Literate).

Comment-3.1- Has the questionnaire undergone reliability and validity tests? If yes, please include the Cronbach's alpha values.

Reply: In the study, due to the mix (quantitative and qualitative) nature of KAP (Knowledge, attitude and practice) questionnaire the reliability and validity analysis could not be performed. In the questionnaire, questions with more than one valid answer and open-ended questions were also used, so we have not carried out the questionnaire internal consistency analysis using the statistics tools. However, questionnaires’ questions clarity and validity were tested in a pilot population (N=10). The question and domain were also critically reviewed by the social scientist, epidemiologist, and medical doctor for its suitability, applicability, relevance and accuracy.

Comment-3.2- Who performed the questionnaire translation? Did the translation process follow a standard protocol? Please elaborate.

Reply: The translation of questionnaire was performed by expert team of Rajbhasha (Hindi) division, National institute of Malaria research. The Hindi translated version were retranslated to original (English) version, following the backward translation. The two versions were compared for content similarity and no significant difference were observed. The details has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Comment-3.3- Please revise the total number of questions to 45 and not 56 as the other 11 questions were related to demographics.

Reply: Suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Comment-3.4- What does the term 'dropout' response refer to here? I personally think that the term is not applicable in survey-type research.

Reply: Suggestion has been incorporated and term dropout has been omitted from the manuscript.

Comment-3.5- What was the formula used to calculate the sample size in this research? Please clarify and think of the need to calculate the sample size for this type of research.

Reply:

The study followed the suggested survey design research formula to calculate the sample size. (Charan, 2013). The formal sample size calculation was performed considering the adult population number of India, and the response rate on the KAP study. The proportion of the population having adequate knowledge regarding COVID-19 was assumed to be 50% as no similar study was conducted in the study population, level of significance 5%, and margin of error 5% were considered for calculation and target sample size for the survey was calculated as 385 using formula (“Sample Size = (Distribution of 50%) / ((Margin of Error%/ Confidence Level Score)2)”).

Charan J, Biswas T. How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research?. Indian journal of psychological medicine. 2013 Apr;35(2):121-6.

Comment-4. Results - the overall results presentation were quite vague in presentation i.e. the tables and descriptions. Please refer to more specific comments below:

Reply: Suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Comment-4.1- Awareness was mentioned in some parts of the results and conclusion. However, there were no questions on awareness in the questionnaire. Please clarify.

Reply: The first dimension of the questionnaire was Knowledge and awareness, so accordingly the term was used in the manuscript.

Comment-4.2- An example of vague sentence - 'Education shows a significant difference in the knowledge and attitude dimensions; Please revise.

Reply: Suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Comment-4.3- Response rate was not reported. As this is an online survey, I would expect to see a response rate. This is where it is important that target populations are identified at the early stage of the study.

Reply: A total of 527 responses were received out of which 13 participants denied consent, ten responses were duplicate, and three were from non-Indians. Following the study protocol, a total of 501 qualified the study participants’ criteria and completed the questionnaire and hence were included in the analysis. Considering the mentioned numbers, proportion of 95.06% response can be calculated. The actual response rate could not be reported, as the survey link was shared from different end to many individuals which cannot be traced.

Comment-4.4- 40.9% of the respondents were students. This could be due to chance but this is why it is important that ttarget populations are identified.

Reply: The high proportion of higher educated students in the study population reported due to the convenient nature of sampling, internet accessibility and familiarity of the survey mode of respondents.

Comment-5. Conclusion - some sentences were ambiguous. Please rephrase.

Reply: Suggestion has been incorporated in the manuscript.

_________

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

17 Feb 2022

COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, and practices in Indian Population: An online national cross-sectional survey

PONE-D-21-12498R1

Dear Dr. Piyoosh Kumar Singh ,

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,

Muhammad Junaid Farrukh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

21 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-12498R1

COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, and practices in Indian Population: An online national cross-sectional survey

Dear Dr. Singh:

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. Muhammad Junaid Farrukh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE