A National Survey Evaluating the Knowledge and Attitude of Health-Care Workers of Saudi Arabia about Coronavirus Infection.

Background and
Objectives: Health-care workers (HCWs) are playing an instrumental role in combating coronavirus infection (COVID-19). While rendering their services, they also run the risk of cross-contamination. Hence, it is important to evaluate and correlate the knowledge and attitude of HCWs of Saudi Arabia about COVID-19. Materials and
Methods: A prospective, nationwide, questionnaire-based survey was conducted after getting the approval from the institutional ethical board. A validated and reliable questionnaire was constructed, developed on the Qualtrics software, and circulated through an electronic medium across the country. The questionnaire had a total of 29 questions regarding knowledge and attitude about COVID-19. Through convenience sampling, the data were collected from a total sample of 1553 HCWs. Based on the primary area of expertise, the sample was categorized into three study groups with 1040 medical health-care professionals (MHCPs) (Group I), 318 dental health-care professionals (DHCPs) (Group II), and 195 allied health-care professionals (AHCPs) (Group III). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was done using SPSS v. 21, where P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Female HCWs (P = 0.003) were shown to have a higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.46; confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.79) risk of inadequate knowledge in comparison to male HCWs. With respect to qualification, HCWs with doctorate qualification (P = 0.005) (aOR: 0.39; CI: 0.2-0.75) had shown to have adequate knowledge compared to their counterparts. AHCPs were shown inadequate knowledge (P < 0.001; aOR: 2.36; CI: 1.65-3.38), but adequate attitude (P < 0.001; aOR: 0.13; CI: 0.09-0.2) compared to MHCPs and DHCPs.
Conclusion: MHCPs were shown to have the most appropriate level of knowledge, whereas AHCPs outscore other counterparts of HCWs with respect to attitude toward COVID-19. Emphasis should be directed to the whole community of HCWs in enhancing their awareness and practice attitude toward the novel infection of COVID-19. Copyright:

INTRODUCTION

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a newly discovered virus that belongs to a wide group of coronaviruses that exist in the environment.[1] On January 8, 2020, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention formally identified a novel coronavirus (nCoV) as the source of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19).[2] It began in December 2020 in Wuhan, China, and since then expanded into a huge public health threat for not only China but also countries around the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) designated this disease as a global public health emergency on January 30, 2020.[3] According to the current evidence, people of all ages are vulnerable to this infectious disease with varied percentage.[4] Health-care personnel and other patients admitted to hospitals for various other reasons, who came into close contact with COVID-19 patients, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, were at a higher risk of getting infected with the virus.[5] The virus was first given the designation novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), but due to its similarity to the SARS virus, it was renamed SARS-CoV-2 after a short span of time.[6] The virus is made up of single-stranded ribonucleic acid and belongs to the Coronaviridae family and its envelope is made up of glycoproteins. Coronaviruses are grouped based on the type, structure, genome, and replication of the virus.

Health-care professionals are constantly in contact with patients. Hence, they must be well-versed with the virus's potential transmission routes.[7] First, there is the direct route from one person to another, which involves coughing or sneezing in close contact with another person, as well as inhaling infectious droplets.[8] Contact with oral and nasal mucosa, as well as conjunctival mucosa, after contacting a contaminated surface, is another method of transmission.[89] Respiratory droplets, which are regarded to be water-based particles with the potential to fall to the ground, are a source of infection. It spreads through the air, breath, and direct contact with infected surfaces, including respiratory airways, mouths, noses, and eyes.[810] The virus has been shown to enter the body through the conjunctiva of the eyes, touching infected surfaces, and then spreading the virus to the face and mouth, as well as through air conditioning that collects the virus from the air droplets.[9] As a result, virus-carrying droplets are collected by air conditioning and then discharged into the same environment, with the air conditioner exiting at a minimum distance of eight meters, which is exceedingly dangerous when compared to the recommended spacing of two meters.[10] Contact is another reported method of transfer. All of the infected patient's things, as well as the local environment, can be regarded as a potential medium for virus transmission, even if just inadvertently.[11] COVID-19 infection can result in a wide range of symptoms, from mild-to-severe sickness, cough, shortness of breath, fever, body aches, chills, sore throat, and loss of taste or smell.[1213] Patients may present with gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrheas or some other symptoms which may not be universally seen in COVID-19 patients.[14]

COVID-19 patients come into close contact with frontline health-care workers (HCWs). As a result, they are constantly at risk of infection.[15] Overcrowding and a lack of isolation are the key causes of disease transmission among HCWs.[1516] However, the possibility of infection transmission may also be linked to a lack of understanding of infection prevention methods.[7] As a result, health-care professionals must be well-versed in proper infection-prevention practice.

To cope with COVID-19 in any health-care setting and to avoid infection to the maximum degree possible, infection management strategies based on the best available evidence are required. Hand hygiene should be prioritized since it is considered to be the most effective way to avoid the spread of microorganisms and microbial infections in health-care settings.[17] Previous research has suggested that health-care staff can lack the necessary attitude and information about SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome.[18] Caring for patients with COVID-19 puts HCWs under a lot of mental and physical strain. They are at a greater risk of contracting and spreading the virus.[19] Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the knowledge and attitude of HCWs of Saudi Arabia about COVID-19. This evaluation will aid in the prevention of disease transmission by identifying areas that need to be addressed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational study was conducted across Saudi Arabia during March–April 2020. The study was approved by the institutional ethical board (14-07/21). Health-care professionals working in different health-care sector including governmental and private organization were included in the study. Professionals engaged in teaching as well as hospital setup were considered eligible for the study. Students and interns of medical, dental, and allied health-care colleges were excluded in the present study. Furthermore, health professionals that is not registered or engaged in any noncertified heath-related specialty were also excluded. A convenient sample of 1553 HCWs was considered in the current study. On the basis of their primary field of specialization, the sample was divided into three study groups: a total 1040 medical health-care professionals (MHCPs) (Group-I), 318 dental health-care professionals (DHCPs) (Group II), and 195 allied health-care professionals (AHCPs) (Group III).

The questionnaire was developed based on the information gathered from various sources including WHO website and few published papers about COVID-19.[11202122] The tool was validated and tested with a small group of HCW with a reliability coefficient of 0.85. The questionnaire was developed in Arabic and English language and the consistency in content was assured by doing forward and backward translation by bilingual experts. The modified questionnaire was developed with Qualtrics software and was circulated among the HCWs working in different sector of health care across Saudi Arabia.

The questionnaire encompassed of 15 and 14 questions related to knowledge and attitude domain, respectively. During data editing, the responses of knowledge section were replaced with dummy codes, where “0” was given for the correct response, and “1” was assigned for the incorrect response. At the same time, the total scores were computed for every participant. For the attitude segment of questionnaire, the coding was done in terms of 5-point Likert scale, where the maximum score of 5 was assigned for the most acceptable/desired attitude and “1” for the least desirable. According the previously published cut-off values, the total score of both domains was converted into 3-order scale. However, for statistical reasons, the 3-tier scale was transformed into dichotomous variable, as “adequate” and “inadequate” knowledge/attitude.

Data analysis was carried out in SPSS version 21 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA), where P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The data were initially presented in frequency distribution tables using number and percentages. Later, univariate and multivariate logistic regression was done to assess the impact of independent variables on the level of knowledge and attitude among the study groups.

RESULTS

Around 1553 HCWs participated in the present study, with majority of Saudi nationals in all three individual groups of professionals. Majority of respondents were male in the MHCPs (67%) group, whereas female outscored in the DHCP (66%) and AHCP (69%) groups. The maximum numbers of respondents were in the age group of 31–40 years in the MHCPs (44%) and AHCPs (50%); however, 44% of DHCPs were in the 20–30 years' age group. All classes of health-care professionals had majority of the respondents with bachelor's degree. Although all regions of Saudi Arabia were included in the study, majority of responses were from northern region (32%) and the least was from eastern (5%). Majority of medical (38%) and allied health (35%) professionals who participated in the study had more than 10 years of work experience, whereas most of DHCPs had 1–3 years of experience [Tables 1-5].

Table 1

Sample characteristics

Parameters	Study groups			Overall (n=1553), n (%)
	MHCPs (n=1040), n (%)	AHCPs (n=195), n (%)	DHCPs (n=318), n (%)
Nationality
Saudi	635 (61)	151 (77)	182 (57)	968 (62)
Non-Saudi	405 (39)	44 (23)	136 (43)	585 (38)
Gender
Male	339 (33)	134 (69)	210 (66)	683 (44)
Female	701 (67)	61 (31)	108 (34)	870 (56)
Age (years)
20-30	371 (36)	57 (29)	141 (44)	569 (37)
31-40	454 (44)	98 (50)	113 (36)	665 (43)
41-50	151 (15)	32 (16)	53 (17)	236 (15)
51-60	64 (6)	8 (4)	11 (3)	83 (5)

Result expressed in n (%). MHCPs: Medical health-care professionals, AHCPs: Allied health-care professionals, DHCPs: Dental health-care professionals

Table 5

Distribution table showing level of knowledge and attitude among study groups

Parameters	Study groups			Overall, n (%)
	MHCPs, n (%)	AHCPs, n (%)	DHCPs, n (%)
Knowledge
Adequate	501 (48)	64 (33)	147 (46)	712 (46)
Inadequate	539 (52)	131 (67)	171 (54)	841 (54)
Attitude
Adequate	352 (34)	156 (80)	271 (85)	779 (50)
Inadequate	688 (66)	39 (20)	47 (15)	774 (50)

MHCPs: Medical health-care professionals, AHCPs: Allied health-care professionals, DHCPs: Dental health-care professionals

On comparing the correct response of knowledge among the study groups, MHCPs (48%) outscored the DHCPs (46%) and AHCPs (33%) [Table 1]. With multivariate analysis, AHCPs were reported to have 2.36 times significantly (P < 0.001, confidence interval [CI]: 1.65–3.38) higher risk of inadequate knowledge when compared to professional in medical care. Female professionals were reported to have 46% higher risk (P < 0.001, CI: 1.14–1.86) for having inadequate knowledge compared to male counterparts. While considering educational qualification, professionals with doctorate were reported to have 61% significantly adequate knowledge when compared with professionals with other qualification [Table 6].

Table 6

Univariate and multivariate regression analysis of level of knowledge

Knowledge	OR (95% CI)	P §	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	P ¥
Nationality
Saudi	Reference		Reference
Non-Saudi	0.56 (0.46-0.69)	<0.001	0.81 (0.62-1.07)	0.132
Gender
Male	Reference		Reference
Female	1.46 (1.19-1.79)	<0.001	1.46 (1.14-1.86)	0.003
Age (years)
20-30	Reference		Reference
31-40	0.65 (0.52-0.82)	<0.001	0.83 (0.59-1.16)	0.266
41-50	0.53 (0.39-0.72)	<0.001	0.99 (0.61-1.59)	0.955
51-60	0.26 (0.16-0.42)	<0.001	0.62 (0.32-1.19)	0.148
Qualification
Intern	Reference		Reference
Diploma	1.21 (0.78-1.86)	0.393	1.79 (1.07-2.99)	0.027
Bachelor degree	0.86 (0.58-1.27)	0.447	1.08 (0.69-1.68)	0.742
Master level	0.56 (0.36-0.88)	0.011	1.02 (0.59-1.74)	0.952
Doctorate/PhD	0.2 (0.11-0.35)	<0.001	0.39 (0.2-0.75)	0.005
Region of workplace
Central region	Reference		Reference
Eastern region	0.87 (0.54-1.4)	0.561	0.81 (0.49-1.34)	0.41
Western region	1.16 (0.86-1.55)	0.328	0.92 (0.67-1.27)	0.613
Northern region	1.03 (0.8-1.34)	0.806	1.15 (0.86-1.54)	0.335
Southern region	1.56 (1.13-2.17)	0.007	1.34 (0.95-1.9)	0.095
Organization setup
Government	Reference
Private	1.09 (0.82-1.46)	0.544
Type of workplace
Primary health-care center	Reference		Reference
Regional/public hospital	0.94 (0.57-1.55)	0.806	0.89 (0.5-1.56)	0.672
Specialized hospital	0.92 (0.59-1.43)	0.704	0.89 (0.53-1.49)	0.654
Private hospital	0.7 (0.43-1.15)	0.159	0.79 (0.46-1.36)	0.394
University hospital/clinics	0.75 (0.42-1.36)	0.348	0.79 (0.42-1.47)	0.45
Military hospital	0.57 (0.35-0.93)	0.024	0.7 (0.41-1.2)	0.195
Primary health-care center	0.73 (0.38-1.43)	0.361	0.75 (0.36-1.55)	0.43
Work experience (years)
1-3	Reference		Reference
4-6	0.96 (0.7-1.32)	0.803	1.1 (0.77-1.59)	0.597
7-10	0.86 (0.64-1.16)	0.318	0.94 (0.64-1.4)	0.77
˃10	0.56 (0.44-0.72)	<0.001	0.68 (0.45-1.03)	0.066
Number of sources of information
1	Reference		Reference
2	0.88 (0.7-1.1)	0.26	0.9 (0.71-1.15)	0.406
˃2	0.56 (0.42-0.74)	<0.001	0.76 (0.56-1.03)	0.079
Study groups
MHPs	Reference		Reference
AHCPs	1.9 (1.38-2.63)	<0.001	2.36 (1.65-3.38)	<0.001
DHCPs	1.08 (0.84-1.39)	0.543	1.37 (0.99-1.89)	0.058

§ Univariate logistic analysis, ¥ Multivariate logistic analysis. OR: Odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval, MHCPs: Medical health-care professionals, AHCPs: Allied health-care professionals, DHCPs: Dental health-care professionals

Considering the attitude responses, AHCPs outscored (85%) their counterparts in AHCPs (80%) and MHCPs (66%) [Table 1]. On multivariate analysis, DHCPs (93%) and AHCPs (87%) had shown significantly higher number of professionals with adequate attitude with respect to MHCPs [Table 7].

Table 7

Univariate and multivariate regression analysis of level of attitude

Attitude	OR (95% CI)	P §	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	P ¥
Nationality
Saudi	Reference		Reference
Non-Saudi	1.28 (1.04-1.57)	0.019	1.3 (1-1.68)	0.049
Gender
Male	Reference		Reference
Female	2.04 (1.66-2.5)	<0.001	1.11 (0.86-1.42)	0.427
Age (years)
20-30	Reference
31-40	1.09 (0.87-1.36)	0.458
41-50	0.98 (0.72-1.33)	0.886
51-60	1.13 (0.71-1.78)	0.616
Qualification
Intern	Reference
Diploma	1.52 (1-2.32)	0.053
Bachelor degree	0.93 (0.63-1.38)	0.732
Master level	1.11 (0.71-1.72)	0.653
Doctorate/PhD	0.91 (0.55-1.51)	0.709
Region of workplace
Central region	Reference		Reference
Eastern region	1.26 (0.78-2.02)	0.348	1.66 (0.96-2.88)	0.072
Western region	1.37 (1.03-1.84)	0.034	1.62 (1.15-2.28)	0.006
Northern region	1.06 (0.82-1.38)	0.639	1.49 (1.09-2.03)	0.012
Southern region	1.4 (1.01-1.92)	0.042	1.37 (0.95-1.98)	0.089
Organization setup
Government	Reference		Reference
Private	0.46 (0.34-0.62)	<0.001	1.39 (0.7-2.78)	0.345
Type of workplace
Primary health-care center	Reference		Reference
Regional/public hospital	2.32 (1.39-3.87)	0.001	1.07 (0.45-2.54)	0.886
Specialized hospital	2.17 (1.37-3.44)	0.001	0.78 (0.34-1.79)	0.551
Private hospital	3.35 (2.02-5.58)	<0.001	1.11 (0.48-2.6)	0.804
University hospital/clinics	0.99 (0.53-1.84)	0.961	0.54 (0.26-1.14)	0.105
Military hospital	1.07 (0.64-1.78)	0.795	1.14 (0.49-2.67)	0.758
Primary health-care center	2.07 (1.06-4.07)	0.034	0.82 (0.3-2.24)	0.704
Work experience (years)
1-3	Reference
4-6	1.31 (0.96-1.79)	0.085
7-10	1.31 (0.98-1.76)	0.071
x˃10	1.23 (0.96-1.58)	0.100
Number of sources of information
1	Reference		Reference
2	0.75 (0.59-0.94)	0.012	0.84 (0.65-1.09)	0.186
˃2	0.83 (0.63-1.11)	0.21	0.86 (0.61-1.2)	0.373
Study groups
MHPs	Reference		Reference
AHCPs	0.13 (0.09-0.19)	<0.001	0.13 (0.09-0.2)	<0.001
DHCPs	0.09 (0.06-0.12)	<0.001	0.07 (0.05-0.11)	<0.001

OR: Odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval, MHCPs: Medical health-care professionals, AHCPs: Allied health-care professionals, DHCPs: Dental health-care professionals. § - P values for univariate analysis, ¥ - P values for Multivariate analysis

DISCUSSION

Several reports have shown that the COVID-19 epidemic is still affecting medical, social, and economic systems around the world, posing considerable problems for the health-care providers.[7811122324] Furthermore, various SARS-CoV-2 variants are being discovered all over the world by viral sequencing, raising new worries about their clinical importance.[25] Regular updates on COVID-19 are available as a consequence of new trials, observations, and clinical data. Hence, HCWs must learn and keep up with new knowledge and updates about this disease.[26] The present study was conducted with an aim to assess knowledge and attitude across Saudi Arabian HCWs. The overall findings of this study indicate certain variances in knowledge and attitude across Saudi Arabian HCWs. These results of the study should be a guide for motivating and updating the knowledge of the HCWs across Saudi Arabia.

In the present study, the participants were 1553 HCWs. These participants belong to three groups of professionals, where most of the participants were MHCPs followed by the DHCPs and the third groups of the participants were AHCPs. The current study findings showed that most of the MHCP participants were knowledgeable about COVID-19 followed by DHCPs; however, AHCPs were reported to have a higher risk of inadequate knowledge when compared to other professionals.

In this study, HCWs' awareness of COVID-19 was positively influenced by their age. HCWs in the middle and elderly age groups were reported to be more informed than those in the younger age groups. A comparable study conducted with Ugandan HCPs yielded contradictory results,[27] whereas similar results were reported in a study conducted by Saqlain et al. 2020.[28]

A positive association was found between knowledge, age, and qualification; in this regard, the most knowledgeable age group were 41–50 years old with doctorate degrees. The main strength of this study is the participants who have significant knowledge about COVID-19 are also statistically highly significant. Interestingly, knowledge has shown to increase exponentially with education and years of experience. Hence, it was observed that professionals with a doctorate have adequate knowledge in compassion with professionals with other qualifications. This observation can easily be explained as professionals with advancing age and with higher degrees tend to be more focused and opt for an evidence-based approach.[1529] Such professionals are believed to address clinical situations in a more logical manner. Additionally, their clinical judgments are based on scientific literature. Although, some authors have reported contradictory to the result of present study.[2728]

An important finding in the present study was that the most appropriate level of knowledge was shown among MHCPs, whereas the highest level of attitude was observed in the AHCPs. This could be attributed with the fact that the MHCPs were the one who first treat the patients based on the scientific background, whereas the AHCPs are the supporting professionals who treat the patient in coordination with MHCPs or subsequently as a follow up such as nutritionist or physiotherapist. Previous studies have shown that HCWs must be knowledgeable about infection control protocols to combat any disease in general and the disease arising during pandemic in particular.[30] Another important finding was that most DHCPs showed a moderate level of knowledge and the most appropriate level of attitude. This was expected as they are well knowledgeable about the infection control and possess a positive attitude toward the dental care of the COVID-19 patient. Along with this, the efforts of MOH in order to raise the public awareness regarding different aspects of the disease including its symptoms, routes of disease spread, and ways of disease prevention are well reflected in respondents' knowledge. It is noteworthy that the efforts made by MOH Saudi Arabia have raised awareness among HCWs as well as in the public by various methods. During pandemic, negative or wrong information propagated by social media can be detrimental to the society.[31] In the present study, also, the HCWs were more relying on MOH website compared to other platforms which might have constituted a better and correct knowledge about COVID-19.

In the current study, considering the gender, the female professionals were reported to have inadequate knowledge as compared to male professionals. This can be an area where the government can reinforce their policy to attend more continuing medical education, so that the HCPs can acquire updated knowledge about COVID 19. HCPs from the all the regions have shown similar knowledge. This finding is contradictory to that of Abolfotouh et al., 2020,[26] where HCPs in the Western region were more knowledgeable. The suggested reason given for different knowledge could be because the Western region in Saudi Arabia has experienced a substantially faster increase in confirmed cases during COVID-19 compared to other regions.[26]

A favorable attitude is always shown with reasonable knowledge. The HCPs in this study were enthusiastic about professional education approaches, as well as keeping up with new material and distributing it. This is a positive attitude that aids in the resolution of any flaws in an existing setting.

Strength and limitations of the study

The current research has some limitations. Our survey relied on self-reported data, which could lead to reporting bias; also, the study could have been reinforced if the number of replies provided had been greater. Furthermore, all study participants were HCPs, which may limit the findings' applicability to other settings. Despite these flaws, our research tackles a key issue that HCPs face in many nations around the world. Also, during the pandemic, the results of the present study will aid in assessing the gaps in the knowledge and attitude of HCPs in all regions of Saudi Arabia.

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed that MHCPs had an appropriate amount of knowledge; however, AHCPs outperform other HCPs peers in terms of COVID-19 attitude. Age, gender, and level of education have shown a positive correlation with knowledge. HCPs with inadequate knowledge should be reinforced to attend continuing medical education program to keep them updated with COVID-19.

Financial support and sponsorship

Self-funded.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Table 2

Distribution of education and work experience variables among sample

Parameters	Study groups			Overall (n=1553), n (%)
	MHCPs, n (%)	AHCPs, n (%)	DHCPs, n (%)
Qualification
Intern	71 (7)	17 (9)	30 (9)	118 (8)
Diploma	269 (26)	34 (17)	19 (6)	322 (21)
Bachelor degree	484 (47)	92 (47)	177 (56)	753 (48)
Master level	138 (13)	34 (17)	66 (21)	238 (15)
Doctorate/PhD	78 (8)	18 (9)	26 (8)	122 (8)
Work experience (years)
1-3	255 (25)	58 (30)	143 (45)	456 (29)
4-6	167 (16)	34 (17)	51 (16)	252 (16)
7-10	218 (21)	34 (17)	44 (14)	296 (19)
˃10	400 (38)	69 (35)	80 (25)	549 (35)

Result expressed in n (%). MHCPs: Medical health-care professionals, AHCPs: Allied health-care professionals, DHCPs: Dental health-care professionals

Table 3

Sample characteristics related to workplace

Parameters	Study groups			Overall, n (%)
	MHCPs, n (%)	AHCPs, n (%)	DHCPs, n (%)
Region of workplace
Central region (Riyadh, Qassim)	297 (29)	40 (21)	79 (25)	416 (27)
Eastern region (Dammam, Jubail, Hassa and others)	52 (5)	10 (5)	19 (6)	81 (5)
Western region (Makkah, Jeddah, Taif and Madinah)	224 (22)	42 (22)	54 (17)	320 (21)
Northern region (Hail, Aljouf, Tabouk and Arar)	291 (28)	68 (35)	142 (45)	501 (32)
Southern region (Assir, Jazan, Najran, and Baha)	176 (17)	35 (18)	24 (8)	235 (15)
Organization setup
Government	975 (94)	165 (85)	199 (63)	1339 (86)
Private	65 (6)	30 (15)	119 (37)	214 (14)
Type of workplace
Primary health-care center	23 (2)	8 (4)	60 (19)	91 (6)
Regional/public hospital	155 (15)	14 (7)	42 (13)	211 (14)
Specialized hospital	506 (49)	103 (53)	27 (8)	636 (41)
Private hospital	197 (19)	7 (4)	31 (10)	235 (15)
University hospital/clinics	35 (3)	17 (9)	34 (11)	86 (6)
Military hospital	79 (8)	36 (18)	121 (38)	236 (15)
Primary health-care center	45 (4)	10 (5)	3 (1)	58 (4)

Result expressed in n (%). MHCPs: Medical health-care professionals, AHCPs: Allied health-care professionals, DHCPs: Dental health-care professionals

Table 4

Distribution table of source of information among study group

Parameters	Study groups			Overall, n (%)
	MHCPs, n (%)	AHCPs, n (%)	DHCPs, n (%)
Number of sources of information
1	596 (57)	103 (53)	151 (47)	850 (55)
2	285 (27)	65 (33)	106 (33)	456 (29)
˃2	159 (15)	27 (14)	61 (19)	247 (16)

MHCPs: Medical health-care professionals, AHCPs: Allied health-care professionals, DHCPs: Dental health-care professionals