Assessing factors associated with compliance to preventive measures of COVID-19 in Rwanda: a cross-sectional community survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of compliance with COVID-19 preventive measures and compliance-associated factors in the Rwanda community. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: Country-wide community survey in Rwanda. PARTICIPANTS: 4763 participants were randomly sampled following the sampling frame used for the recent Rwanda Demographic Health Survey. Participants were aged between 22 years and 94 years. OUTCOMES: The participants' compliance with three preventive measures (wearing a face mask, washing hands and social distancing) was the main outcome. METHODS: From 14 February 2022 to 27 February 2022, a cross-sectional survey using telephone calls was conducted. Study questionnaires included different questions such as participants' demographics and compliance with COVID-19 preventives measures. Verbal consent was obtained from each participant. The compliance on three main preventive measures (wearing a mask, washing hands and social distancing) were the main outcomes. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate factors associated with compliance (age, gender, level of education, socioeconomic status). RESULTS: Compliance with the three primary preventive measures (washing hands 98%, wearing a mask 97% and observing social distance 98%) was at a rate of 95%. The respondents' mean age was 46±11 SD (range 22-98) years. In addition, 69% were female and 86% had attended primary education. Bivariate and regression analyses indicated a significant association among the three primary preventive measures (p<0.05). The results showed factors associated significantly between the different models (p<0.05): proper mask use and social distancing in the hand washing model; hand washing, social distancing, avoiding handshakes and not attending gatherings in the proper mask use model; hand washing and avoiding handshakes in the social distancing model. CONCLUSION: Compliance with the three key preventive measures against COVID-19 was high in the Rwandan community and these measures were interdependent. Therefore, the importance of all three measures should be emphasised for effective disease control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".