Knowledge and Practice of Personal Protective Measures Against COVID-19 in Africa: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: With COVID-19 being a newly evolving disease, its response measures largely depend on the practice of and compliance with personal protective measures (PPMs). OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to examine the knowledge and practice of COVID-19 PPMs in African countries as documented in the published literature. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on the Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases using appropriate keywords and predefined eligibility criteria for the selection of relevant studies. Only population-based original research studies (including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies) conducted in Africa and published in the English language were included. The screening process and data extraction were performed according to a preregistered protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42022355101) and followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Thematic analysis was used to systematically summarize the studies into 4 predefined domains: knowledge and perception of PPMs, mask use, social and physical distancing, and handwashing and hand hygiene, including their respective levels and associated factors. RESULTS: A total of 58 studies across 12 African countries were included, published between 2019 and 2022. African communities, including various population groups, had varying levels of knowledge and practice of COVID-19 PPMs, with the lack of personal protective equipment (mainly face masks) and side effects (among health care workers) being the major reasons for poor compliance. Lower rates of handwashing and hand hygiene were particularly noted in several African countries, especially among low-income urban and slum dwellers, with the main barrier being the lack of safe and clean water. Various cognitive (knowledge and perception), sociodemographic, and economic factors were associated with the practice of COVID-19 PPMs. Moreover, there were evident research inequalities at the regional level, with East Africa contributing 36% (21/58) of the studies, West Africa contributing 21% (12/58), North Africa contributing 17% (10/58), Southern Africa contributing 7% (4/58), and no single-country study from Central Africa. Nonetheless, the overall quality of the included studies was generally good as they satisfied most of the quality assessment criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to enhance local capacity to produce and supply personal protective equipment. Consideration of various cognitive, demographic, and socioeconomic differences, with extra focus on the most vulnerable, is crucial for inclusive and more effective strategies against the pandemic. Moreover, more focus and involvement in community behavioral research are needed to fully understand and address the dynamics of the current pandemic in Africa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022355101; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022355101.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».