Suchergebnisse

Purpose: To compare COVID-19 related knowledge, perceptions, and preferred information sources between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Web-based. Subjects: Convenience sample of Pennsylvanian adults. Measures: Primary outcomes were binary responses to 15 COVID-19 knowledge questions weighted by a Likert scale assessing response confidence. Analysis: Generalized linear mixed-effects models to assess comparisons between clinical decision makers (CDM), non-clinical decision makers working in healthcare (non-CDM) and non-healthcare workers (non-HCW). Results: CDMs (n = 91) had higher overall knowledge than non-CDMs (n = 854; OR 1.81 [1.51, 2.17], p < .05). Overall knowledge scores were not significantly different between non-CDMs (n = 854) and non-HCW (n = 4,966; OR 1.03 [0.97, 1.09], p > .05). Conclusion: The findings suggest a need for improved education about COVID-19 for healthcare workers who are not clinical decision makers, as they play key roles in patient perceptions and compliance with preventive medicine during primary care visits.

PURPOSE: To explore public knowledge, understanding of public health recommendations, perceptions, and trust in information sources related to COVID-19. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of central Pennsylvanian adults evaluated self-reported knowledge, and a convergent, mixed methods design was used to assess beliefs about recommendations, intended behaviors, perceptions, and concerns related to infectious disease risk, and trust of information sources. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 5,948 adults. The estimated probability of correct response for the basic knowledge score, weighted with confidence, was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.79-0.80). Knowledge was significantly higher in patients with higher education and nonminority race. While the majority of respondents reported that they believed following CDC recommendations would decrease the spread of COVID-19 in their community and intended to adhere to them, only 65.2% rated social isolation with the highest level of belief and adherence. The most trusted information source was federal public health websites (42.8%). Qualitative responses aligned with quantitative data and described concerns about illness, epidemiologic issues, economic and societal disruptions, and distrust of the executive branch's messaging. The survey was limited by a lack of minority representation, potential selection bias, and evolving COVID-19 information that may impact generalizability and interpretability. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge about COVID-19 and intended adherence to behavioral recommendations were high. There was substantial distrust of the executive branch of the federal government, however, and concern about mixed messaging and information overload. These findings highlight the importance of consistent messaging from trusted sources that reaches diverse groups.