- Journal List
- PLoS One
- PMC7647104
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
PLoS One. 2020; 15(11): e0242126.
Published online 2020 Nov 6. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242126
PMCID: PMC7647104
PMID: 33156873
Dil K. Limbu, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,1 Rano M. Piryani, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – review & editing,2 and Avinash K. Sunny, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing3,*
Amit Sapra, Editor
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Associated Data
- Supplementary Materials
- Data Availability Statement
Abstract
Background
COVID-19 is an ongoing pandemic, for which appropriate infection prevention and control measures need to be adopted. Healthcare workers’ adherence to prevention and control measures is affected by their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards COVID-19. In this study, we assessed the KAP among healthcare workers towards the COVID-19 during the ongoing pandemic.
Method
A self-developed piloted KAP questionnaire was administered to the recruited healthcare workers involved in the COVID-19 response at the Universal College of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital (UCMSTH), in Bhairahawa, Nepal. The knowledge questionnaire consisted of questions regarding the clinical characteristics, prevention, and management of COVID-19. Assessment on attitudes and practices towards COVID-19 included questions on behaviour and change in practices made towards COVID-19 response. Knowledge scores were calculated and compared by demographic characteristics and their attitude and practices towards COVID-19. Data were analysed using bivariate statistics.
Results
A total of 103 healthcare workers participated in the study. The mean age of the participants was 28.24±6.11 years (range: 20–56); 60.2% were females; 61.2% were unmarried; 60.2% had a medical degree, and 39.8% were the nursing staff. The mean knowledge score was 10.59±1.12 (range: 7–13), and it did not vary significantly when adjusted for demographic characteristics. The attitude was positive for 53.4% of the participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.35±1.19 and negative for 46.6% participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.88±0.98 (p = 0.02). The practice was good (≥3 score) for 81.5% participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.73±1.12 and poor for 18.5% participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.46±1.13 (p = 0.24). The attitude of the participants improved with increasing age (29.55±7.17, p = 0.02).
Conclusion
There is comparably better knowledge regarding COVID-19 among healthcare workers. Appropriate practice correlates with better knowledge and positive attitude towards COVID-19 infection is seen with increasing age. Hence, training on protection and protective measures for having a positive attitude among healthcare workers is necessary against the fight with COVID-19 infection.
Introduction
COVID-19 is a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, first identified in the city of Wuhan, in China's Hubei province in December 2019 [1]. COVID-19 was previously known as the 2019 novel Corona virus (2019-nCoV) respiratory disease before the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the official name as COVID-19 in February 2020 [2]. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic [3]. This ongoing pandemic has been spreading very rapidly, with more than 8.5 million confirmed infections and more than 0.47 million deaths worldwide as of June 22 2020 (GMT 01.18) [4].
Countries worldwide have used various control measures such as social distancing, hand washing, shutting public transportation and public places, and finally testing and tracing affected communities [5]. Like many governments around the world, Nepal has also called for lockdown since 24th March, 2020, allowing only essential services like hospitals, groceries, and medical supplies and frontline emergency services [6]. In Nepal, the total number of confirmed infections stood at 9561 as of June 22, 2020 [7].
Profound knowledge supports an optimistic attitude and appropriate practices at work, which helps deter the risk of infection [8]. Healthcare workers' adherence to control measures is affected by their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards COVID-19. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the knowledge of the medical providers and determine the factors that affect their attitudes and practices to have adequate practices and protection. Thus, this study aimed to assess the KAP among healthcare workers towards COVID-19 infections during the ongoing pandemic.
Method
Study design and setting
A cross-sectional study was conducted from April 7, 2020 to May 7, 2020 at Universal College of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital (UCMSTH), Bhairahawa, Nepal. The hospital has recently stepped up its efforts to support the government in its fight towards COVID 19. UCMSTH is a teaching hospital serving as a tertiary care centre located in the southwest border of Nepal. All the healthcare providers working in the hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic response were included in the study.
Data collection and management
Data were collected from healthcare workers using a self-administered questionnaire to assess KAP towards COVID-19. This questionnaire consisted of two parts: the demographic information and a self-developed piloted and pretested KAP questionnaire. The KAP questionnaire assessed knowledge, attitude and practices of COVID-19 response. Knowledge was measured using 13 true and false questions. These questions assessed the provider’s knowledge on clinical manifestations, mode of transmission, prevention and control of COVID-19. The reliability analysis of the knowledge questionnaire with Cronbach's alpha coefficient was accep with an internal consistency of 0.76. Attitude and practice were assessed using 5 questions with a yes/no/don't know option. (Table 1)
Table 1
Correct responses on KAP questionnaire (n = 103).
| Knowledge Questions | Correct response (%) |
|---|---|
| 1. Fever, dry cough, difficulty in breathing, tiredness are the common clinical symptoms of COVID-19. | 103 (100%) |
| 2. Sneezing, runny nose, stuffy nose and headache are less common in persons infected with COVID-19. | 80 (77.7%) |
| 3. Loss of taste and smell are also the feature of COVID 19 infection. | 52 (50.5%) |
| 4. Currently there is no treatment of COVID-19 infection, but early symptomatic and supportive treatment can help most patient recover from infection. | 101 (98.1%) |
| 5. Majority of COVID-19 infective patient will not develop severe illness but elderly, patient having chronic illness, DM, COPD are likely to develop severe illness. | 86 (83.5%) |
| 6. COVID-19 infected person with fever can infect to other people. | 28 (27.2%) |
| 7. COVID-19 virus spread via respiratory droplets. | 99 (96.1%) |
| 8. Ordinary people should wear general mask. | 85 (82.5%) |
| 9. People maintain 2-meter distance in the public places. | 94 (91.3%) |
| 10. Lockdown is effective measure to slow the spread of infection. | 102 (99.0%) |
| 11. People infected with COVID-19 should immediately place in proper isolation. | 102 (99.0%) |
| 12. Suspected COVID19 patient should be sent to a quarantine centre or home quarantine. | 99 (96.1%) |
| 13. Health care professional with direct contact should take tablet hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis. | 60 (58.3%) |
| Attitude Questions | Correct response (%) |
| 1. Can Nepal win the battle against COVID-19? | 52 (50.5%) |
| 2. Are you confident to work in hospital during COVID-19 pandemic? | 47 (45.6%) |
| 3. Does your family support you to work in hospital during pandemic? | 58 (56.3%) |
| 4. Do you experience anxiety and fear while working with suspected COVID-19 patient? | 81 (78.6%) |
| 5. Have all the doctors from various department actively involved in COVID-19 Pandemic response? | 38 (36.9%) |
| Practice Questions | Correct response (%) |
| 1. Are you being trained to work for COVID-19 patient? | 18 (17.5%) |
| 2. Have you following social distancing? | 78 (75.5%) |
| 3. Have you been wearing mask and gloves during hospital practice? | 99 (96.1%) |
| 4. Do you regularly follow infection protection measures? | 87 (84.5%) |
| 5. Are you attending patient suspected with COVID-19? | 71 (68.9%) |
Open in a separate window
Collected data was then entered into an MS Excel sheet and coded for anonymity. The entered data was exported into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23 for analysis.
Study variables
Demographic variables included age as a continuous variable; gender as male and female; marital status as married and unmarried. For education, Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM), Proficiency Certificate Level (PCL) Nursing and Community Medical Assistant (CMA) were included as certificate level; Bachelor in Nursing Science (BNS) as graduate level in nursing; Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) as graduate medical education; Doctor of Medicine (MD), Master in Dental Surgery (MDS) and Doctorate of Medicine (DM) as post-graduate medical education. Designation were included as Nursing staff, Medical Intern, Medical Officer, Post Graduate (PG) Resident, and Consultant.
Knowledge scores were calculated by assigning 1 point to each correct answer, and a 0 to an incorrect/unknown answer. The total knowledge score ranged from 0 to 13, with higher scores signifying better knowledge.
Attitude was assessed as positive and negative. The average score on the attitude questionnaire was calculated and used as a cut off for positive and negative. The average score was 3 and scores below 3 was labelled negative.
Practice was assessed as good and poor. The average score on the practice questionnaire was calculated and used as a cut off for good and poor. The average score was 3 and scores below 3 was labelled poor.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated as frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation (SD). Data were analysed using Pearson chi-square test, Pearson correlation, independent t-test, and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. At 95% Confidence Interval, p-value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Ethical approval
Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Review Committee (IRC) of Universal College of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital (UCMSTH). Informed written consents were taken from the participant before inclusion in the study, and confidentiality was maintained throughout.
Result
The correct responses to KAP are mentioned in Table 1. A total of 103 healthcare workers participated in the study with a male to female ratio of 1:1.5. The mean age of the participants was 28.24±6.11 years (range: 20–56), 62 (60.2%) were females, 63 (61.2%) were unmarried, 62 (60.2%) had a medical degree and 41 (39.8%) were the nursing staff. The mean knowledge score was 10.59±1.12 (range: 7–13) with 81.5% correct answer rate. There was no significant correlation in the participants’ knowledge score and their mean age (p = 0.13). The mean knowledge scores for male participants was 10.76±1.16, while for female participants was 10.48±1.10, with no statistical significance (p = 0.24). Married participants had a mean knowledge score of 10.78±1.00, while for unmarried participants, it was 10.48±1.19, suggesting no statistically significant difference (p = 0.19). By education, the mean knowledge score was highest for MBBS education with 10.85±1.28 (p = 0.06), and by designation; it was highest for Resident with 11.00±0.86 (p = 0.05) with no statistical significance. (Table 2)
Table 2
Knowledge scores of COVID-19 by demographic variables (n = 103).
| Characteristics | Category | N (%) | Knowledge score (Mean ± SD) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 28.24±6.11 | 103(100) | 10.59±1.12 | 0.13a |
| Gender | Male | 41(39.8) | 10.76±1.16 | 0.24b |
| Female | 62(60.2) | 10.48±1.10 | ||
| Marital status | Unmarried | 63(61.2) | 10.48±1.19 | 0.19b |
| Married | 40(38.8) | 10.78±1.00 | ||
| Education | ANM/PCL/CMA | 34(33.0) | 10.18±1.03 | 0.06c |
| BNS | 7(6.8) | 10.57±0.96 | ||
| MBBS | 47(45.6) | 10.85±1.28 | ||
| MD/MDS/DM | 15(14.6) | 10.73±1.12 | ||
| Designation | Nursing staff | 41(39.8) | 10.24±1.18 | 0.05c |
| Medical Intern | 23(22.3) | 10.87±0.92 | ||
| Medical Officer | 4(3.9) | 10.00±1.41 | ||
| Resident | 20(19.4) | 11.00±0.86 | ||
| Consultant | 15(14.6) | 10.73±1.28 | ||
| Attitude | Positive (≥3) | 55(53.4) | 10.35±1.19 | 0.02d |
| Negative (<3) | 48(46.6) | 10.88±0.98 | ||
| Practice | Good (≥3) | 84(81.5) | 10.73±1.12 | 0.24d |
| Poor (<3) | 19(18.5) | 10.46±1.13 |
Open in a separate window
aPearson correlation
bIndependent t-test
cone way ANOVA test
dPearson chi-square test.
The mean knowledge score varied significantly with the attitude of the participants (p = 0.02) but it did not vary with their practice (p = 0.24). Attitude was positive (≥3 score) for 55(53.4%) participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.35±1.19 and negative (<3 score) for 48(46.6%) participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.88±0.98. Similarly, practice was good (≥3 score) for 84(81.5%) participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.73±1.12 and practice was poor (<3 score) for 19(18.5%) participants with a mean knowledge score of 10.46±1.13. There was a negative correlation between knowledge and attitude (r = -0.313, p = 0.001), however, knowledge didn’t correlate with practice (r = 0.093, p = 0.35). There was a significant correlation between attitude and practice (r = 0.298, p = 0.002). (Tables (Tables22 & 3)
Table 3
Correlation between the knowledge, attitude and practice scores (n = 103).
| Variable (Mean ± SD) | Knowledge | Attitude | Practice | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge (10.59±1.12) | Correlation Coefficient (r) | 1 | -0.313 | 0.093 |
| p-value | 0.001* | 0.350* | ||
| Attitude (2.68±1.16) | Correlation Coefficient (r) | -0.313 | 1 | 0.298 |
| p-value | 0.001* | 0.002* | ||
| Practice (3.43±1.03) | Correlation Coefficient (r) | 0.093 | 0.298 | 1 |
| p-value | 0.350* | 0.002* |
Open in a separate window
*Pearson correlation.
Association of attitude and practice of the participants towards COVID-19 with their characteristics were assessed. There was no significant difference in the attitude of the participants by their gender (p = 0.66), marital status (p = 0.51), education (p = 0.42) or designation (p = 0.28); however, the attitude varied significantly with the increasing age of the participants (p = 0.02). The practice of the participants was mostly good and did not differ by age (p = 0.64), gender (p = 0.82), marital status (p = 0.47), education (p = 0.78) or designation (p = 0.09). (Table 4)
Table 4
Attitude and practice towards COVID-19 by demographic variables (n = 103).
| Characteristics | Category | Positive attitude N (%) | p-value | Good Practice N (%) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 29.55±7.17 | 0.02* | 28.38±6.10 | 0.64* | |
| Gender | Male | 23(41.8) | 0.66 | 33(39.3) | 0.82 |
| Female | 32(58.2) | 51(60.7) | |||
| Marital status | Unmarried | 32(58.2) | 0.51 | 50(59.5) | 0.47 |
| Married | 23(41.8) | 34(40.5) | |||
| Education | ANM/PCL/CMA | 18(32.7) | 0.42 | 26(31.0) | 0.78 |
| BNS | 2(3.6) | 6(7.1) | |||
| MBBS | 25(45.5) | 40(47.6) | |||
| MD/MDS/DM | 10(18.2) | 12(14.3) | |||
| Designation | Nursing | 20(36.4) | 0.28 | 32(38.1) | 0.09 |
| Medical Intern | 9(16.4) | 16(19.0) | |||
| Medical Officer | 3(5.5) | 4(4.8) | |||
| Resident | 13(23.6) | 20(23.8) | |||
| Consultant | 10(18.2) | 12(14.3) |
Open in a separate window
*Independent t-test.
Discussion
This is a cross-sectional study conducted with the objective to assess the KAP among healthcare workers toward the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The findings of this study with relation to 81.5% providers answering correctly on the knowledge questionnaire is comparable with a similar study conducted in China, which reported that 89% healthcare workers surveyed demonstrated sufficient knowledge on COVID-19 [9]. As this study was conducted during the national lockdown period in Nepal, healthcare workers were quite aware of most of the information related to COVID-19 as part of being prepared to respond to the ongoing pandemic. Despite the differences in healthcare workers’ demographic characteristics, the knowledge seemed to be on par with all of them. This is in contrast with other studies suggesting differences in knowledge with differing types of healthcare workers [10].
Overall, 53.4% of the healthcare workers had a positive attitude towards the COVID-19. This finding is lower compared to that in other studies conducted in China. This attitude could probably be due to only half of medical providers (50.5%) belief that Nepal could win the fight against COVID-19. Even with having family support (56.3%), they were less confident (45.6%) while at work because of increased anxiety and fear (78.6%). The attitude of the healthcare workers was found to be similar across different demographic characteristics. This suggests that the notion was the same for all in this pandemic situation, defying the reports from other studies of varying attitudes by the healthcare workers’ demographics [11].
Having better knowledge of COVID-19 among the healthcare workers did not correlate with their attitude towards the disease while at work in this study. This finding is in contrast with other studies reporting that knowledge directly affected their attitude and increased their confidence [9, 10]. Knowledge is a prerequisite for promoting preventive measures and forming positive attitudes towards the fight against the disease [8]. However, studies have reported that protective measures not being in place could increase the chances of infection, while well-protected emergency and other departments in the hospital had lower chances of infection [12]. Healthcare workers with higher age elicited positive attitudes in this study. Similar was the case among healthcare workers in other studies. The higher age, the longer is the experience in dealing with emergencies, ultimately demonstrating confidence and optimism. Hence, increasing age could be the reason for a positive attitude [13].
In this study, healthcare workers’ practices were found to be mostly appropriate, and it did not differ by their demographic characteristics or knowledge scores. However, the practice significantly correlated with their attitude. Thus, poor practices can be linked to poor attitude, and it resulted so because very few (17.5%) were trained to work for COVID-19 patient, despite many following practices such as social distancing (75.5%), wearing mask and gloves during hospital practice (96.1%), infection protection measures (84.5%) and attending patient suspected with COVID-19 (68.9%). This finding is comparable to a similar study in China, which found 89.7% of the healthcare workers followed correct practices regarding COVID-19 [9]. Moreover, they cannot neglect their protection by engaging in best practices at work as they are the most vulnerable to infection [14].
Limitations
The findings of this study should be cautiously used for generalization since it depicts one hospital in Nepal. Additionally, practices being self-reported may not be actual; hence further study is warranted.
Conclusion
This study found out that there is a positive correlation between knowledge regarding COVID-19 among healthcare workers and appropriate clinical practices. However, their attitude was less optimistic even with better knowledge. Higher optimism was seen with healthcare workers’ higher age. Healthcare workers practice is directly correlated with their attitude. Hence, despite better knowledge, there is a need for a more positive attitude at the place of practice. Also, education and training on protection and protective measures are required to improve positive attitude and better practices at work during the COVID-19 pandemic response.
Supporting information
S1 File
(XLSX)
Click here for additional data file.(22K, xlsx)
Acknowledgments
We thank all the healthcare workers for their voluntary participation in the study.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
References
1. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China.Lancet.2020;395(10223):497–506. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. World Health Organization. Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it. World Heal Organ; [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2020 Jun 8];1. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it [Google Scholar]
3. Adhanom Ghebreyesus T. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2020. [cited 2020 Jun 8]. p. 4 Available from: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—11-march-2020 10.1002/wps.20768 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report-152.
5. World Health Organization. Covid-Strategy-Update-14April2020. 2020;(April):18. Available from: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo
6. Pradhan TR. Nepal goes under lockdown for a week starting 6am Tuesday [Internet]. The Kathmandu Post. 2020. [cited 2020 Jun 9]. Available from: https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/03/23/nepal-goes-under-lockdown-for-a-week-starting-6am-tuesday [Google Scholar]
7. Ministry of Health and Population, Nepal. SitRep#134 Health Sector Response to COVID-19 Key Activities: 22-06-2020;1–3.
8. McEachan R, Taylor N, Harrison R, Lawton R, Gardner P, Conner M. Meta-Analysis of the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) to Understanding Health Behaviors. Ann Behav Med. 2016;50(4):592–612. 10.1007/s12160-016-9798-4 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Zhang M, Zhou M, Tang F, Wang Y, Nie H, Zhang L, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding COVID-19 among healthcare workers in Henan, China.J Hosp Infect.2020;105(2):183–7. 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.04.012 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Giao H, Le An P, Thi Ngoc Han N, Van Khanh T, Kim Ngan V, Van Tam V. Knowledge and attitude toward COVID-19 among healthcare workers at District 2 Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City.Asian Pac J Trop Med [Internet]. 2020;13(March):6–11. Available from: http://www.apjtm.org [Google Scholar]
11. Jiang L, Ng IHL, Hou Y, Li D, Tan LWL, Ho HJA, et al. Infectious disease transmission: survey of contacts between hospital-based healthcare workers and working adults from the general population. J Hosp Infect. 2018;98(4):404–11. 10.1016/j.jhin.2017.10.020 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, Zhu F, Liu X, Zhang J, et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients with 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China.JAMA—J Am Med Assoc.2020;323(11):1061–9. 10.1001/jama.2020.1585 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Wang J, Zhou M, Liu F. Reasons for healthcare workers becoming infected with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. Vol. 105, Journal of Hospital Infection. 2020. p. 100–1. 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.03.002 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Murthy S, Gomersall CD, Fowler RA. Care for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19. Vol. 323, JAMA—Journal of the American Medical Association. 2020. p. 1499–500. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- PLoS One. 2020; 15(11): e0242126. »
- Decision Letter 0
2020; 15(11): e0242126.
Published online 2020 Nov 6. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242126.r001
Amit Sapra, Academic Editor
Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
2 Oct 2020
PONE-D-20-25614
Healthcare workers’ knowledge, attitude and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic response in a tertiary care hospital of Nepal
PLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Sunny,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 16 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Amit Sapra
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.
Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.
Upon resubmission, please provide the following:
● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript
● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)
● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)
Additional Editor Comments (if provided):
The manuscript is very interesting and pertinent to current times. Please view the reviewer's comments to make the recommended changes before the publication is approved.
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1:Yes
Reviewer #2:Yes
**********
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1:Yes
Reviewer #2:Yes
**********
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1:Yes
Reviewer #2:Yes
**********
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1:Yes
Reviewer #2:No
**********
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1:Please see attached Document for recommended changes. There were many Grammar and Syntax errors that I corrected. It is a well done study and very appropriate in today's times. I enjoyed reading it. Great job!
Reviewer #2:Please review my edits. Too many grammatical errors. Data is presented in a very complex way and too many running sentences. Please view the document with enabling the edits so you can see the revisions requested. Read my questions in () sentences to elaborate.
**********
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.
Reviewer #1:Yes:Priyanka Bhandari
Reviewer #2:Yes:Waiz A Wasey
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS atgro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
Attachment
Submitted filename: PLOS-ONE REVISED PRIYANKA.docx
Click here for additional data file.(36K, docx)
Attachment
Submitted filename: Edits on Paper Requested.docx
Click here for additional data file.(21K, docx)
- PLoS One. 2020; 15(11): e0242126. »
- Author response to Decision Letter 0
2020; 15(11): e0242126.
Published online 2020 Nov 6. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242126.r002
Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
9 Oct 2020
Reviewer #1: Please see attached Document for recommended changes. There were many Grammar and Syntax errors that I corrected. It is a well done study and very appropriate in today's times. I enjoyed reading it. Great job!
Response: Thank you so much for appreciation and corrections as well. I have revised the corrections accordingly.
Reviewer #2: Please review my edits. Too many grammatical errors. Data is presented in a very complex way and too many running sentences. Please view the document with enabling the edits so you can see the revisions requested. Read my questions in () sentences to elaborate.
Response: Thank you so much for the review and suggestions. I have constructed simpler sentences as suggested and elaborated at the mentioned places.
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Click here for additional data file.(14K, docx)
- PLoS One. 2020; 15(11): e0242126. »
- Decision Letter 1
2020; 15(11): e0242126.
Published online 2020 Nov 6. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242126.r003
Amit Sapra, Academic Editor
Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
28 Oct 2020
Healthcare workers’ knowledge, attitude and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic response in a tertiary care hospital of Nepal
PONE-D-20-25614R1
Dear Dr. Sunny
We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.
Kind regards,
Amit Sapra
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
Reviewers' comments:
- PLoS One. 2020; 15(11): e0242126. »
- Acceptance letter
2020; 15(11): e0242126.
Published online 2020 Nov 6. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242126.r004
Amit Sapra, Academic Editor
Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
29 Oct 2020
PONE-D-20-25614R1
Healthcare workers’ knowledge, attitude and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic response in a tertiary care hospital of Nepal
Dear Dr. Sunny:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.
If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp.
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
Kind regards,
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Amit Sapra
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS
