The socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants illustrated in Table 1. Four hundred-nineteen respondents participated in the survey. Among the respondents, 207 (49.4%) had awareness, and 212 (50.6%) did not have an understanding of COVID-19 pandemics, which was an almost equal proportion of awareness. Of the total respondents, males accounting, 97(46.9%), and females accounting, 110 (53.3%) had awareness towards COVID-19 pandemics whereas 68 (32.1%) of males and 144 (67.9%) of females did not have awareness about COVID-19. Table 1 also shows the distribution of age on awareness status. The majority of the respondents in the age group between 20 to 29 had awareness.
Table 1
Socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants (n = 419)
Awareness Status (%) Chi-square |
Variables Categories | Yes | No | df | P-value |
Gender | Male | 97 (46.9) | 68 (32.1) | 1 | 0.002 |
| Female | 110 (53.1) | 144 (67.9) | | |
Age | Less than 20 | 15 (7.2) | 5 (2.4) | 5 | 0.009 |
| 20–29 | 88 (42.5) | 65 (30.7) | | |
| 30–39 | 59 (28.5) | 89 (42.0) | | |
| 40–49 | 31 (15.0) | 34 (16.0) | | |
| 50–59 | 8 (3.9) | 11 (5.2) | | |
| >=60 | 6 (2.9) | 8 (3.8) | | |
Education Level | Illiterate | 33(15.9) | 29 (13.7) | 2 | 0.539 |
Primary level | 75 (36.2) | 119 (56.1) | | |
| Secondary & above | 99 (47.8) | 64 (30.2) | | |
Religion | Orthodox | 107 (51.7) | 106 (50) | 4 | 0.000 |
| Muslim | 47 (22.7) | 56 (26.4) | | |
| Catholic | 22 (10.6) | 4 (1.9) | | |
| Protestant | 23 (11.1) | 21 (9.9) | | |
| Others | 8 (3.9) | 25 (11.8) | | |
Source of income | Daily workers | 59 (28.5) | 68 (32.1) | 2 | 0.089 |
Trade | 77 (37.2) | 92 (43.4) | | |
| Salary | 71 (34.3) | 52 (24.5) | | |
Prevention | Partially used | 158 (28) | 95 (44.8) | 2 | 0.001 |
Methods | Fully used | 144 (69.6) | 115 (54.2) | | |
used by individuals | No idea | 5 (2.4) | 2 (0.9) | | |
Treatment | Treatment | 17 (8.2) | 31 (7.4) | 2 | 0.418 |
assumed by | No any treatment | 137 (66.2) | 269 (64.2) | | |
Participants | No idea | 53 (25.6) | 119 (28.4) | | |
Source of | Television | 76 (36.7) | 74 (39.9) | 4 | 0.006 |
information | Radio | 10 (4.8) | 16 (7.5) | | |
| Health professional | 64 (30.9) | 37 (17.5) | | |
| All | 55 (26.7) | 77 (36.3) | | |
| No idea before | 2 (0.9) | 8 (3.7) | | |
Use of Quarantine | Know | 210 (99.1) | 203 (98.1) | 1 | 0.394 |
No idea | 2 (0.9) | 4 (1.9) | | |
Knowing symptom of COVID-19 | High pulmonary pain and difficult to breath | 2 (1) | 10 (4.7) | 3 | 0.002 |
Fever & Dray Cough | 27 (13) | 40 (18.9) | | |
| All | 131 (63.3) | 99 (46.7) | | |
| No idea | 47 (22.7) | 63 (29.7) | | |
Pre-existing health status | Normal | 167 (80.7) | 157 (74.1) | 7 | 0.015 |
Diabetic Mellitus | 8 (3.9) | 12 (5.7) | | |
of participants | Addiction | 11 (5.3) | 2 (0.9) | | |
| Hypertension | 7 (3.4) | 15 (7.1) | | |
| HIV | 4 (1.9) | 6 (2.8) | | |
| Pregnancy | 6 (2.9) | 14 (6.6) | | |
| Seizure | 1 (0.5) | 4 (1.9) | | |
| Rental disease | 3 (1.4) | 2 (0.9) | | |
Level of implementation | Fair | 98 (47.3) | 123 (58.0) | 4 | 0.004 |
Medium | 68 (32.9) | 74 (34.9) | | |
perceived | High | 22 (10.6) | 8 (3.8) | | |
| Very high | 13 (6.3) | 3 (1.4) | | |
| No idea | 6 (2.9) | 4 (1.9) | | |
The educational level of respondents has an increasing proportion of awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic. The percentage of understanding is (15.9%) for non-educated participants, (36.2%) for primary educated participants and (47.8%) for respondents whose education level is secondary and above had an awareness of COVID-19. Whereas 13.7% are non-educated participants, 56.1% primary educated participants, and 30.2% secondary and above the educational level of participants had not awarded towards COVID-19 pandemic.
Concerning the source of informations,76 (36.7%), 10 (4.8%), 64(30.9%), 55(26.7%) and 2(0.9%) of respondents obtained information about COVID-19 from Television, Radio, Health professionals, and no source information respectively had an awareness of COVID-19 pandemic. Whereas 74(39.9%), 16 (7.5%), 37(17.5%), 77(36.3%), and 8(3.7%) of respondents obtained information from Television, Radio, Public Health professionals, and no idea respectively did not have awareness towards COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 1 also illustrates the distribution of different prevention methods recommended by the world health organization (WHO) used by the respondents. Thus,158 (28%), 144 (69.6%) and 5(2.4%) of respondents used prevention methods partially, fully used or apply all WHO recommended prevention methods and no idea for prevention or they did not apply WHO recommended prevention methods respectively had an awareness of COVID-19 diseases. Whereas 95(44.8%), 115 (54.2%) and 2(0.9%) of respondents used prevention methods partially, fully used or apply all WHO recommended prevention methods and no idea for prevention or they did not apply WHO recommended prevention methods respectively did not have awareness about COVID-19 pandemic.
The result also shows the most important of 210 (99.1%) of respondents well informed about the use of quarantine to control COVID-19, and 203 (98.1%) of the respondents also well informed about the use of quarantine, but did not have awareness about COVID-19 infection.
Table 1 also shows the pre-existing health status of respondents; the pre-existing health status of respondents were 324 (77.3%), 20 (4.8%), 13(3.1%), 22(5.3%), 10(2.4%), 20 (4.8%) and 5 (1.2%) respectively are normal, Diabetic Mellitus, addiction, hypertension, HIV, pregnancy, seizure, and Rental disease. People with diabetic miles, hypertension, HIV, and Rental disease patients considered to be at high risk of suspected to COVID-19 infection. Henceforth, these people should give special care to them and effectively apply WHO recommended prevention methods. Except for the source of income, treatment, use of quarantine or isolation, and educational level of respondents are statistically significantly associated with an awareness of respondents towards COVID-19 diseases at 5% significant level.
Figure 1 shows that the majority of respondents are healthy (currently have no disease) and expected to be less susceptible to the COVID-19 pandemic. Four hundred nineteen respondents interviewed and among that 4.77%, 1.19%, 5.25%, 2.39%, 4.77%, 1.19% and 3.10% of respondents whose there pre-existing medical conditions were pregnant, seizure, hypertension, HIV, Diabetic Miletus, rental disease, and addicted respectively are high risk for COVID-19.
Figure 2 shows that 54.18 percent of respondents fairly implemented, 34.37 percent applied in the medium, 7.19 percent applied highly implemented, 3.82 percent implemented too high, and 0.48 percent not implemented for government declaration towards COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the results need much intervention to apply all prevention strategies towards COVID-19 to the individual.
Figure 3 showed that the probability of the individual’s awareness towards COVID-19 is decreasing, whereas the chance that individuals will not aware of COVID-19 increases. It implies an awareness creation strategy to maximize the individual’s awareness of COVID-19pandemic.
The χ2 statistic with 8 degrees of freedom is 14.911, and the p-value is 0.06. Thus, the model well fitted the data (Table 2).
Table 2
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test of good ness of fit
Chi-square | df | Sig. |
14.911 | 8 | 0.061 |
A classification table used to distinguish accurately predicted value of awareness of respondents towards COVID-19 (Table 3). A classification table is indicating that the validity of predicted probabilities shown in (Table 3). The first two rows in Table 3 stand for the two possible outcomes, and the two columns under the heading predicted are for high and low probabilities.
Table 3
The Observed and the Predicted Frequencies for Awareness of Respondents towards COVID-19 by Logistic Regression with the Cutoff of 0.50
| Observed | Predicted |
Awareness | Percentage Correct |
yes | No |
| Awareness | yes | 148 | 59 | 71.5 |
No | 50 | 162 | 76.4 |
Overall Percentage | | | 74.0 |
Note. Sensitivity = 148 /(148 + 59)% = 71.5%. Specificity = 162/(50 + 162)% = 76.4%. |
False positive = 50/(148 + 50)% = 25.5%. False negative = 59/59 + 162)% = 26.7%. |
The observation also held in the sensitivity (71. 5%) as compared to that of specificity (76.4%). Sensitivity measured the correct proportion of classified events (the awareness of individuals towards COVID-19). Specificity measures the true proportion of classified non-events (those not suggested for awareness of individuals towards COVID-19). Both false positive and false negative rates are a little more than 25%. The false positive and false-negative rate respectively measure the proportion of observing misclassified as events and miss classified as non-events. Thus, the overall correction prediction was 74% on the progress over the chance level to aware of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The results from multivariable analysis revealed that gender, religion, education level, understanding prevention methods were factors associated with awareness level of COVID-19. (Table 4).
Table 4
Parameter estimates of binary logistic regression using forward stepwise variable selection Method.
Variables | Categories | Estimate | S.E. | Wald | df | P-value. | AOR | 95% C.I.for EXP(B) |
Lower | Upper |
Sex | Male (ref) | | | | | | | | |
Female | 0.743 | 0.247 | 9.061 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.476 | 0.293 | 0.772 |
education | Illiterate(ref) | | | | | | | | |
Elementary | 0.349 | 0.361 | .933 | 1 | 0.334 | 0.706 | 0.348 | 1.431 |
Secondary + | 0.779 | 0.254 | 9.374 | 1 | 0.002 | 2.178 | 1.323 | 3.586 |
Religion | Orthodox (ref) | | | 15.395 | 4 | 0.004 | | | |
Muslim | 1.238 | 0.493 | 6.300 | 1 | 0.012 | 0.290 | 0.110 | 0.762 |
Catholic | 1.048 | 0.522 | 4.026 | 1 | 0.045 | 0.351 | 0.126 | 0.976 |
Protestant | 2.879 | 0.749 | 14.771 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.056 | 0.013 | 0.244 |
Others | 1.327 | 0.576 | 5.301 | 1 | 0.021 | 0.265 | 0.086 | 0.821 |
Symptoms | Pulmonary and difficult to breath (ref) | | | | | | | | |
fev, dry cough | 1.718 | 0.979 | 3.076 | 1 | 0.079 | 5.572 | 0.817 | 37.991 |
All | 0.265 | 0.401 | .436 | 1 | 0.509 | 1.303 | 0.594 | 2.857 |
Don’t know | 0.541 | 0.285 | 3.593 | 1 | 0.058 | 0.582 | 0.333 | 1.019 |
| Partially(ref) | | | | | | | | |
Fully used | 2.095 | 0.946 | 4.908 | 1 | 0.027 | 8.127 | 1.273 | 51.871 |
None of used | 1.384 | 0.950 | 2.122 | 1 | 0.145 | 3.990 | .620 | 25.673 |
*= P < 0.05 * |
The odds ratio (OR) of education (secondary and above) equal to exp(0.779) = 2.178 (95% CI: 1.323, 3.586) (adjusted other variables).The respondents whose education status is secondary and above education level are 2.178 times more likely to aware of COVID-19 than respondents whose education status is illiterate(Table 4). The odds ratio (OR) of religion (catholic, protestant and others) respectively equal to exp (-1.238), exp (-1.048), and exp (-1.327) = 0.290, 0.351 and 0.013 [95% CI: (0.110, 0.762); (0.013, 0.244) and (0.086, 0.281] (adjusted others variables). The respondents whose religion, catholic, protestant, and others respectively are 0.290, 0.351, and 0.013 times less likely to aware of COVID-19 pandemic than those respondents whose religion is orthodox (Table 4).
The odd ratio of prevention method (fully used) equal to exp (2.095) = 8.127(95%CI: 1.273, 51.871) (other variables are adjusted) is 8.127 times more likely to aware about COVID-19 pandemic than those respondents partially used (at most three prevention method have used).