Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 28;18(3):e0283582. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283582

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of the rural community about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia

Bereket Alemayehu 1,2,*, Abraham Getachew Kelbore 3, Mihiretu Alemayehu 4, Chimdesa Adugna 1, Tessema Bibo 1, Aberham Megaze 1, Herwig Leirs 2
Editor: Alireza Badirzadeh5
PMCID: PMC10047512  PMID: 36976758

Abstract

Background

Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a neglected tropical disease that is caused by a Leishmania parasite and transmitted by the bite of infected female sandflies. Community awareness is an essential component of disease control and prevention. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the community’s knowledge, attitude, and practice toward CL in Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia.

Methods

A community-based cross-sectional study design was employed to include 422 study subjects selected using a systematic sampling technique from two districts, Kindo Didaye and Sodo Zuria. A pretested structured questionnaire was used to collect data from the household heads. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between the participants’ knowledge about CL and socio-demographic characteristics.

Results

Out of the 422 study participants, only 19% had good knowledge of CL in general. Most (67.1%) of the respondents knew CL by its local name ("bolbo" or "moora") though this knowledge varied highly over the study districts. The majority (86.3%) of respondents did not know how CL is acquired, though they considered CL a health problem. Most (62.8%) respondents believed that CL was an untreatable disease. Most (77%) participants responded that CL patients preferred to go to traditional healers for treatment. Herbal treatment was the most (50.2%) used to treat CL. Knowledge about CL was significantly associated with sex, age, and study districts.

Conclusion

The overall knowledge, attitude, and practice about CL and its prevention in the study area were low. This emphasizes the need to implement health education and awareness campaign to reduce the risk of CL infection. Policymakers and stakeholders should also give due attention to the prevention and treatment of CL in the study area.

Introduction

Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a neglected tropical disease (NTD) and is caused by a protozoan parasite of the genus Leishmania. It is a vector-borne disease transmitted by the bite of infected female sandflies of various species [1]. The disease is the most common form of leishmaniasis, which causes skin lesions on the exposed parts of the body, leaving life-long scars and serious disability or stigma. WHO estimated that 600,000 to 1 million new cases of CL occur worldwide annually, though this might be an underestimation due to misdiagnosis and lack of reporting. About 95% of CL cases occurred in the Americas, the Mediterranean Basin, the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Sub-Saharan region. In 2018, of the 200 countries and territories reported to WHO to have leishmaniasis, 44% were considered endemic for CL [2]. In endemic countries, the transmission cycle of CL is very complex, involving various species of parasites, sandfly vectors, and reservoir hosts [3, 4].

Ethiopia is one of the world’s CL-endemic countries, with an estimated incidence of 20,000 to 50,000 cases annually [5, 6]. Almost all CL infection in Ethiopia is caused by a L. aethiopica parasite. Infection with this parasite can result in a mild, localized CL, to a more severe form, diffused CL [79]. The Ethiopian CL is reported to be zoonotic, involving hyraxes as reservoir hosts, and the transmission to the human host is effected through blood-feeding Phlebotomine sandflies [3, 810].

Studies have reported the magnitude of CL and its ecology in Ethiopia until recently [3, 1114]. However, the disease continues to be a public health problem in the country. There is a lack of knowledge about CL infection among communities in the country, which hinders community participation in disease prevention and control [15, 16]. The national master plan of NTDs of Ethiopia has prioritized community engagement as one of the core elements to achieve the national goals of preventing and controlling NTDs, including CL [17]. Identifying gaps in knowledge, attitude, and practices can guide the development of locally adapted community interventions.

Rural communities bear the highest disease burden [1820]. The lack of health facilities and inaccessibility of appropriate treatments worsen the situation [21]. Due to a lack of awareness, there are also misconceptions about CL among remote communities [22]. Therefore, community-based knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) studies are essential to assess such awareness and perceptions and make the information available mainly for health sectors. However, only a few community-based KAP studies towards CL are available in Ethiopia [18, 23, 24], and none existed for Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice about CL in that area.

Materials and methods

Study area

The study was conducted in Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia (Fig 1). The zone is situated at a distance of 330 Km away from Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital. The administrative areas in Wolaita zone are structured in woredas (districts) and kebeles (villages). There are seventeen rural districts and three town administrations in the zone. Wolaita zone is one of Ethiopia’s most densely populated zones, with over 342 persons living per square kilometer [25]. The majority of the population in the zone resides in rural districts where the primary livelihood is agriculture [26]. According to the zonal reports, although the existing health facilities are insufficient to address the service needs of the large population in the zone, there are significant recent improvements regarding health care provision and infrastructure development. However, traditional treatment is still largely practiced for some diseases, mainly among rural communities.

Fig 1. A location map of the study area (created with ESRI ArcGIS Desktop 10.8).

Fig 1

Study design

A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from August to October 2020 in two selected districts of Wolaita zone, Kindo Didaye and Sodo Zuria, based on CL presence information obtained from the local and the zonal health offices. Information about CL presence in the districts was also obtained from the farmer community during reconnaissance surveys conducted in the zone’s mid-highland areas. By using the Garmin 72H GPS apparatus, villages having areas above an altitude of 1700 m.a.s.l. were taken: six villages from Kindo Didaye district (Bosa Borto, Bosa Manara, Sime Dolaye, Zebo, Bereda, and Mogisa) and three villages from Sodo Zuria district (Gurumo Woide, Damot Waja, and Dalbo Wogene) were included in this study. The purposive focus on the study areas with the specified altitude was because CL is reported from highland or mid-highland areas in Ethiopia [3, 8, 10, 27].

Sample size and sampling

The sample size was calculated using the single population proportion statistical formula for health studies [28], n = Z2 P(1-P)/d2, with the following assumption: n = the number of study subjects (household heads), Z is a critical value (1.96) at 95% confidence level, P = an anticipated population proportion assumed to be 50% to obtain a maximum sample size since there was no previously established report on the KAP about CL for the study area, d = the level of precision or margin of error (5%). Therefore, the minimum sample size of the household heads required for this study was 384. After adding a 10% non-response rate, the total sample size was calculated to be 422. To allocate the sample size for each study district (village in the district), the calculated sample size was proportionally divided by the total households present in the CL suspected areas. Every fifth household was systematically selected, and the household head was approached to gather information about the KAP regarding cutaneous leishmaniasis and its prevention.

Data collection procedure

A total of thirty-six data collectors and nine supervisors collected the data. The two-day training was given to data collectors and supervisors before the data collection. Pretesting was done in a neighboring village (not included in the actual data collection) in 5% of the sample size. The data were collected using a pretested structured questionnaire (S1 File). The questionnaire contained four parts: part one related to the socio-demography of study participants, part two on knowledge regarding CL, part three on practice related to CL prevention and treatment, and part four on attitude towards CL. The questionnaire was prepared in English and then translated into Amharic or the local language, Wolaittatto, as appropriate and back-translated into English to check for consistency.

Scoring knowledge

Participants’ knowledge was scored according to the method described in other studies [15, 29, 30] with some modifications to adapt to the present study. For each question, a score of 1 point was assigned for answers that were considered to categorize a respondent as knowledgeable, and a score of 0 point was assigned for answers that were considered to categorize a respondent not knowledgeable. The knowledge was assessed using a composite variable created from 5-item questions that assessed the knowledge of participants towards CL. For the knowledge questions, the answers considered to categorize a respondent knowledgeable were: 1) “yes” for “do you know CL?”; 2) “yes” for “do you know zoonosis?”; 3) “by insect bite” for “do you know CL mode of transmission?”; 4) “yes” for “do you know sandflies?” and 5) all except “I don’t know” for “do you know the sign and symptoms of CL?”. The total knowledge scores ranged from 0 to 5. The knowledge scores between 0 and 2 were considered to indicate poor knowledge, while scores between 3 and 5 were considered to indicate good knowledge.

Data analysis

Data analysis was performed with R version 4.1 after entering, cleaning, and organizing the data in Epidata version 4.6.0.2. Descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage and mean) were used to describe the socio-demographic variables. Categorical variables were presented using frequencies and percentages. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between the participants’ knowledge about CL and socio-demographic characteristics. Possible associations were measured using an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% CI, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Ethics statement

The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wolaita Sodo University under the reference number WSU41/12/1225. Subsequently, Permissions were obtained from Wolaita Zone Health Bureau and the respective District authorities. Written informed consent was obtained from each study participant. All demographic data of the study participants were kept confidential and anonymized before analysis.

Results

Socio-demographic profiles of the participants

Of the 422 household heads who participated in this study, 367 (87%) were males, and 55 (13%) were females. The average age of respondents was 43.52 years, with a standard deviation of 10.38 years. The majority (226, 53.6%) of the participants were aged less than or equal to 40 years. Most (368, 87.2%) of the participants were farmers, while the rest were non-farmers. With regard to education, 288 (68.2%) of the participants hadn’t had a formal education. The mean family size of the households was 5.51 (SD1.761, range 1–10), with ≤5 individuals living per household in 221 (52.4%) houses (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic profiles of the household heads.

Variables Frequency Percent
Sex
 Male 367 87.0
 Female 55 13.0
Age group (year)
 ≤40 226 53.6
 >40 196 46.4
Occupation
 Farmer 368 87.2
 Non-farmers 54 12.8
Status of education
 No formal education* 288 68.2
 Formal education 134 31.8
Family size
 ≤5 221 52.4
 >5 201 47.6

*Refers to no formal school attended.

Knowledge of the participants about CL

CL in the area has local names, "Bolbo" and "Moora," both meaning "disfigure." Most (283, 67.1%) respondents knew CL by its local name though this knowledge varied over the study districts. The majority (369, 87.4%) of respondents hadn’t known about zoonosis in general. Though 58 (13.7%) of study participants responded to insect biting as a mode of CL transmission, none knew sandflies. Concerning signs and symptoms of CL, the participants responded that CL disfigures the skin (24.6%), causes lasting wounds (19.7%), mainly occurs on the face (17.5%), and causes pain (11.4%). Overall, only 80 (19%) participants had good knowledge about CL (Table 2).

Table 2. Knowledge of the participants about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, south Ethiopia.

Variables Frequency %
Know CL
 Yes 283 67.1
 No 139 32.9
Know zoonosis
 Yes 53 12.6
 No 369 87.4
Know CL mode of transmission
 Contact with an infected person 140 33.2
 Contact with infected animals 5 1.2
 By insect bite 58 13.7
 I don’t know 219 51.9
Know sandfly
 Yes 0 0
 No 422 100
Know the signs and symptoms of CL
 Mostly occur on the face 74 17.5
 Disfigure the skin 104 24.6
 Cause lasting wound 83 19.7
 Pain 48 11.4
 I don’t know 113 26.8
Knowledge (overall)
 Good 80 19
 Poor 342 81

The attitude of the participants toward CL

One hundred fifty-seven (37.2%) participants thought CL is treatable. However, most (318, 75.4%) believed that CL patients should not receive modern medication to treat CL. The majority (302, 71.6%) thought CL was a health problem in the area. A significant number (185, 43.8%) of the respondents had bad feelings about meeting CL patients. Most (70.9%) respondents believed CL was not a stigmatizing disease (Table 3).

Table 3. The attitude of the respondents about CL in Wolaita zone, south Ethiopia.

Variables Frequency %
CL is treatable
 Yes 157 37.2
 No 265 62.8
CL patients should receive modern medication
 Yes 104 24.6
 No 318 75.4
CL is a health problem in the area
 Yes 302 71.6
 No 120 28.4
CL is a stigmatizing disease
 Yes 123 29.1
 No 299 70.9
I feel bad when meeting CL patients
 Yes 185 43.8
 No 237 56.2

Practice toward CL prevention and treatment

Three hundred twenty-five (77%) of the study participants responded that CL patients preferred to go to the traditional healers seeking treatment. Herbal treatment was the most used (212, 50.2%), followed by burning (100, 25.1%) to treat CL. There was no CL control at a community level. Only 23 (5.5%) respondents used bed nets. The indoor residual spray was also practiced by only 14 (3.3%) of the respondents (Table 4).

Table 4. Practice toward CL treatment and prevention in Wolaita zone, south Ethiopia.

Variables Frequency %
Treatment preference
 Traditional healers 325 77
 Hospitals/clinics 97 23
Type of medication CL patients receive
 Herbal medicine 212 50.2
 Burning 106 25.1
 Modern medicine 104 24.6
Community-based CL control
 Yes 0 0
 No 422 100
Use bed net
 Yes 23 5.5
 No 399 94.5
Use insecticides indoor
 Yes 14 3.3
 No 408 96.7

Factors associated with knowledge about CL

Both bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that age, sex, and study districts were significantly associated with the overall knowledge of the respondents about CL (P<0.05). However, family size, occupation, and educational status were not associated with the respondents’ overall knowledge. There were increased odds of having good knowledge among participants who were males (AOR = 4.162, 95% CI = 1.386, 12.499), aged 40 years or below (AOR = 2.020, 95% CI = 1.121, 3.639), and those who lived in Kindo Didaye district (AOR = 12.379, 95% CI = 4.737, 32.346) than their counterparts (Table 5).

Table 5. Association of knowledge about CL with the socio-demographic profiles of the respondents in Wolaita zone, south Ethiopia.

Variables Knowledge about CL COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) P value for AOR
Good n (%) Poor n (%)
Sex
 Male 76 (20.7) 291 (79.3) 3.330 (1.167, 9.502)* 4.162 (1.386, 12.499) 0.011
 Female 4 (7.3) 51 (92.7) 1 1
Age group (year)
 ≤40 58 (25.7) 168 (74.3) 2.731 (1.600, 4.660)* 2.020 (1.121, 3.639) 0.019
 >40 22 (11.2) 174 (88.8) 1 1
Family size
 ≤5 35 (15.8) 186 (84.2) 0.652 (0.400, 1.065) 0.658 (0.385, 1.123) 0.125
 >5 45 (22.4) 156 (77.6) 1 1
Occupation
 Non-farmer 15 (27.8) 39 (72.2) 1.793 (0.933, 3.445) 1.233 (0.549, 2.769) 0.612
 Farmer 65 (17.7) 303 (82.3) 1 1
Education
 Formal 32 (23.9) 102 (76.1) 1.569 (0.948, 2.596) 1.728 (0.928, 3.217) 0.085
 Non-formal 48 (16.7) 240 (83.3) 1 1
Study district
 Kindo Didaye 75 (27.7) 196 (72.3) 11.173 (4.407, 8.327)* 12.379 (4.737, 32.346) 0.000
 Sodo Zuria 5 (3.3) 146 (96.7) 1 1

Variables adjusted: Sex, Age group, Family size, Occupation, Education, and Village

*Significant association (P ≤ 0.05) for COR

COR: crude odds ratio, AOR: adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence interval.

Discussion

The present study assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of the rural community about CL in Kindo Didaye and SodoZuria districts of Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia. Although CL was perceived as a serious health problem in the study community, our findings showed poor knowledge about CL and little use of disease prevention strategies.

The present study participants knew CL by its local name, either "bolbo" or "moora," meaning disfigurement of the exposed parts of the body. Almost all the community groups in Kindo Didaye district knew CL in the local name, while in Sodo Zuria district, none had the knowledge. The reasons for such differences in the usage of CL local name in the present area could be due to the extent of disease transmission and the lack of disease-related communication among the community groups. Although most participants recognized CL based on signs/symptoms, they lacked knowledge about its transmission. The lack of knowledge about CL transmission among the current study participants might be due to the absence of CL-targeted health education in the area. The present finding is consistent with most community-based KAP studies elsewhere, which reported better knowledge of CL symptoms but poor knowledge about its transmission [18, 23, 24, 29]. Community awareness about CL transmission might depend on the presence of health education in the area [30].

In this study, one-third of the respondents considered CL a stigmatizing disease. The observed stigma towards CL patients can be linked to the wrong perception of CL transmission, seeing it as a contagious disease that might have existed among the present community groups. Depending on the extent of community perception and awareness of CL transmission, the stigma due to the disease can be higher or lower than the proportion presented in this study. A study in northwest Ethiopia reported a lower proportion (about one-fifth) of the respondents who perceived CL as a stigmatizing disease [23]. While in some areas, the proportion and the level of stigma could be higher than the present finding [3136]. CL lesions and scars on the face are of considerable social impact due to stigma [11, 3739].

About 77% of participants in this study responded that CL patients preferred to go to traditional healers rather than hospitals or clinics to receive treatment. This finding is similar to that of other studies among rural communities of Ethiopia: 68.3% in the Amhara region (northwest Ethiopia) [23], 90% in a district in the Tigray region (north Ethiopia) [18], and 67.6% in Gamo Gofa zone (south Ethiopia) [24]. In localities like the present study area, where modern CL treatment is unavailable, CL patients remain dependent on traditional therapies. The use of herbal preparation was a widely practiced traditional method to treat CL in the present study area, particularly in Kindo Didaye district, where most affected community groups live.

The very low prevention practices found in the current study, coupled with the absence of standard CL treatment, implies CL is a highly neglected disease in the area. These might have led most of the current study participants to consider CL a non-treatable disease. Community awareness about the treatability of CL might be better in areas where appropriate CL treatment is available and accessible [23, 40, 41]. However, the availability and accessibility of such treatment alone may not be sufficient to create community awareness toward CL treatability [24]. Engaging the community in health education programs would substantially improve the community’s awareness of CL treatability.

In this study, the knowledge about CL was found to be associated with sex, age, and study districts. The male participants had better knowledge as compared to their female counterparts. In a male-dominated rural community [42], males might have better exposure to knowledge about CL. However, the association of knowledge about CL with gender was reported differently in some studies where females had better knowledge about the disease [18, 43]. In the current study, participants aged below or equal to 40 years had better knowledge. A relationship between CL knowledge and age was also shown in Tigray [18], although different age categories were used. In contrast, CL knowledge was better associated with the participants’ age above 40 years in southwestern Yemen [29]. The differences in age-related CL knowledge in various areas might be due to the CL awareness of the communities [11, 29]. Interestingly, this study found that district was the most important factor associated with CL knowledge. Participants of the Kindo Didaye district had better knowledge than the other district. The observed district-wise difference in the knowledge about CL might be attributed to the eco-epidemiological factors and the associated experiences of the local communities between the districts regarding the disease [12, 40].

Limitations

Our study was conducted among communities at higher altitudes. Hence, the findings of this study should not be generalized to the whole population of the zone. The face-to-face interview method of the data collection might have predisposed the respondents to social desirability bias. Nevertheless, we minimized the bias by restricting interviewers not to interview households from the same locality. Despite these limitations, this study presented valuable findings to emphasize health education campaigns and future CL prevention and control plans in the study areas.

Conclusion

This study found a lack of knowledge about and practices toward CL in the study areas. The insufficient knowledge and community practice regarding the infection nature, vector, transmission ways, and treatment and presentation of CL emphasize the need for health education and community mobilization campaigns to increase community awareness about the disease in the area. The misconceptions observed about CL treatment also need the urgent establishment of treatment facilities.

Declarations

Consent for publication

Consent to publish this manuscript from the participants was deemed not applicable since the manuscript does not contain identifying data from any individual person.

Supporting information

S1 File. Questionnaire used for the data collection.

(DOCX)

S2 File. The dataset of KAP of CL, Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia (August to October 2020).

(SAV)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank VLIR-UOS, the University of Antwerp, Belgium, and Wolaita Sodo Universities for their technical and administrative support. We also extend our gratitude to the respective district administrative bodies, data collectors, data clerks, the local community, and study participants for their cooperation and technical assistance.

Abbreviations

CL

Cutaneous Leishmaniasis

GPS

Global Positioning System

KAP

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice

NTD

Neglected Tropical Disease

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR-UOS, ET2019TEA485A102). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Cutaneous leishmaniasis control in selected countries of the WHO eastern Mediterranean and African regions. Report of an interregional network meeting Casablanca, Morocco 23–24 June 2014.; 2014.
  • 2.World Health Organization. Global leishmaniasis surveillance, 2017–2018, and first report on 5 additional indicators–Surveillance mondiale de la leishmaniose, 2017–2018, et premier rapport sur 5 indicateurs supplémentaires. Weekly Epidemiological Record. 2020;95(25):265–79 [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ashford RW, Bray MA, Hutchinson MP, Bray RS. The epidemiology of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Ethiopia. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1973;67(4):568–601 doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(73)90088-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alemayehu B, Alemayehu M. Leishmaniasis: A Review on Parasite, Vector and Reservoir Host. Health Sci J. 2017;11(4) doi: 10.21767/1791-809x.1000519 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.World Health Organization. Control of leishmaniases: report of a meeting of the WHO Expert Commitee on the Control of Leishmaniases, Geneva, 22–26 March 2010. WHO. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44412
  • 6.Deribe K, Meribo K, Gebre T, Hailu A, Ali A, Aseffa A, et al. The burden of neglected tropical diseases in Ethiopia, and opportunities for integrated control and elimination. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5(1):240 doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-5-240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hailu A, Di Muccio T, Abebe T, Hunegnaw M, Kager PA, Gramiccia M. Isolation of Leishmania tropica from an Ethiopian cutaneous leishmaniasis patient. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2006;100(1):53–8 doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2005.04.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lemma A, Foster WA, Gemetchu T, Preston PM, Bryceson A, Minter DM. Studies on leishmaniasis in Ethiopia. I. Preliminary investigations into the epidemiology of cutaneous leishmaniasis in the highlands. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1969;63(4):455–72 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bray RS, Ashford RW, Bray MA. The parasite causing cutaneous leishmaniasis in Ethiopia. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1973;67(3):345–8 doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(73)90111-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lemma W, Erenso G, Gadisa E, Balkew M, Gebre-Michael T, Hailu A. A zoonotic focus of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Parasit Vectors. 2009;2(1):60 doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-60 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Eshetu B, Mamo H. Cutaneous leishmaniasis in north-central Ethiopia: trend, clinical forms, geographic distribution, and determinants. Trop Med Health. 2020;48 doi: 10.1186/s41182-020-00231-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bsrat A, Berhe N, Balkew M, Yohannes M, Teklu T, Gadisa E, et al. Epidemiological study of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Saesie Tsaeda-emba district, eastern Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:149 doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0758-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pareyn M, Van den Bosch E, Girma N, van Houtte N, Van Dongen S, Van der Auwera G, et al. Ecology and seasonality of sandflies and potential reservoirs of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Ochollo, a hotspot in southern Ethiopia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(8):e0007667 doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Negera E, Gadisa E, Yamuah L, Engers H, Hussein J, Kuru T, et al. Outbreak of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Silti woreda, Ethiopia: risk factor assessment and causative agent identification. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008;102(9):883–90 doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.03.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Devipriya JS, Gupta AK, Veeri RB, Garapati P, Kumar R, Dhingra S, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practices towards visceral leishmaniasis among HIV patients: A cross-sectional study from Bihar, India. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0256239 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vázquez ML, Kroeger A, Lipowsky R, Alzate A. [Popular conceptions regarding cutaneous leishmaniasis in Colombia and their applicability in control programs]. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam. 1991;110(5):402–12 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ministry of Health of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. The Third National Neglected Tropical Diseases Strategic Plan 2021–2025. 2021.
  • 18.Tesfay K, Mardu F, Berhe B, Negash H, Legese H, Adhanom G, et al. Household knowledge, practice and treatment seeking behaviors towards cutaneous leishmaniasis in the endemic rural communities of Ganta- afeshum district, Tigrai, northern Ethiopia, 2019: a cross-sectional study. Trop Dis Travel Med Vaccines. 2021;7(1):19 doi: 10.1186/s40794-021-00144-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nandha B, Srinivasan R, Jambulingam P. Cutaneous leishmaniasis: knowledge, attitude and practices of the inhabitants of the Kani forest tribal settlements of Tiruvananthapuram district, Kerala, India. Health Educ Res. 2014;29(6):1049–57 doi: 10.1093/her/cyu064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ahmad S, Obaid MK, Taimur M, Shaheen H, Khan SN, Niaz S, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practices towards cutaneous leishmaniasis in referral cases with cutaneous lesions: A cross-sectional survey in remote districts of southern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. PLoS One. 2022;17(5):e0268801 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bautista-Gomez MM, Doerfler J, Del Mar Castro M. Barriers to cutaneous leishmaniasis care faced by indigenous communities of rural areas in Colombia: a qualitative study. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):302 doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07204-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Moussa S AT, Alhudaires KM, Alshammari TS, Alshammari TR, Elgendy AI, et al. Awareness and behavioral practice of cutaneous leishmaniasis among hail population, kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J Microbiol Exp. 2019;7(2):88–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tamiru HF, Mashalla YJ, Mohammed R, Tshweneagae GT. Cutaneous leishmaniasis a neglected tropical disease: community knowledge, attitude and practices in an endemic area, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):855 doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4506-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kebede N, Worku A, Ali A, Animut A, Negash Y, Gebreyes WA, et al. Community knowledge, attitude and practice towards cutaneous leishmaniasis endemic area Ochello, Gamo Gofa Zone, South Ethiopia. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2016;6(7):562–7 doi: 10.1016/j.apjtb.2016.01.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wolaita Zone. Annual Socio-economic and Demographic Reports. Wolaita Sodo; 2015.
  • 26.Cochrane L, Gecho Y. Data on the demographics, education, health and infrastructure: Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia. Data Brief. 2018;21:2095–102 doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2018.11.063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pareyn M, Rutten A, Merdekios B, Wedegärtner REM, Girma N, Regelbrugge L, et al. High-resolution habitat suitability model for Phlebotomus pedifer, the vector of cutaneous leishmaniasis in southwestern Ethiopia. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):467 doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04336-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S. Sample size determination in health studies: a practical manual. Geneva: WHO. 1991. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/40062
  • 29.Alharazi TH, Haouas N, Al-Mekhlafi HM. Knowledge and attitude towards cutaneous leishmaniasis among rural endemic communities in Shara’b district, Taiz, southwestern Yemen. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):269 doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-05965-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alemu A, Alemu A, Esmael N, Dessie Y, Hamdu K, Mathewos B, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practices related to visceral leishmaniasis among residents in Addis Zemen town, South Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:382 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bailey F, Mondragon-Shem K, Hotez P, Ruiz-Postigo JA, Al-Salem W, Acosta-Serrano A, et al. A new perspective on cutaneous leishmaniasis-Implications for global prevalence and burden of disease estimates. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(8):e0005739 doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005739 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bennis I, De Brouwere V, Belrhiti Z, Sahibi H, Boelaert M. Psychosocial burden of localized cutaneous leishmaniasis: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):358 doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5260-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chahed MK, Bellali H, Ben Jemaa S, Bellaj T. Psychological and Psychosocial Consequences of Zoonotic Cutaneous Leishmaniasis among Women in Tunisia: Preliminary Findings from an Exploratory Study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(10):e0005090 doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Garapati P, Pal B, Siddiqui NA, Bimal S, Das P, Murti K, et al. Knowledge, stigma, health seeking behavior and its determinants among patients with post kalaazar dermal leishmaniasis, Bihar, India. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0203407 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ramdas S, van der Geest S, Schallig HD. Nuancing stigma through ethnography: the case of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Suriname. Soc Sci Med. 2016;151:139–46 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.12.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gómez LJ, van Wijk R, van Selm L, Rivera A, Barbosa MC, Parisi S, et al. Stigma, participation restriction and mental distress in patients affected by leprosy, cutaneous leishmaniasis and Chagas disease: a pilot study in two co-endemic regions of eastern Colombia. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2020;114(7):476–82 doi: 10.1093/trstmh/trz132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Yanik M, Gurel MS, Simsek Z, Kati M. The psychological impact of cutaneous leishmaniasis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2004;29(5):464–7 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2230.2004.01605.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Akram A, Khan HAA, Qadir A, Sabir AM. A Cross-Sectional Survey of Knowledge, Attitude and Practices Related to Cutaneous Leishmaniasis and Sand Flies in Punjab, Pakistan. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130929 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Okwor I, Uzonna J. Social and Economic Burden of Human Leishmaniasis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;94(3):489–93 doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yohannes M, Abebe Z, Boelee E. Prevalence and environmental determinants of cutaneous leishmaniasis in rural communities in Tigray, northern Ethiopia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019; 13 (9): e0007722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Padovese V, Terranova M, Toma L, Barnabas GA, Morrone A. Cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis in Tigray, northern Ethiopia: clinical aspects and therapeutic concerns. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009;103(7):707–11 doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2009.02.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lailulo YA, Susuman AS, Blignaut R. Correlates of gender characteristics, health and empowerment of women in Ethiopia. BMC women’s health. 2015;15:116– doi: 10.1186/s12905-015-0273-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dires A, Kumar P, Gedamu S, Yimam W, Ademe S. Knowledge, attitude and prevention measures of students towards cutaneous leishmaniasis in Delanta district, Northeast Ethiopia. Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2022;17:e00241 doi: 10.1016/j.parepi.2022.e00241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alireza Badirzadeh

12 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-15781Knowledge, attitude, and practice of the rural community about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, southern EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bereket Alemayehu,

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 8/26/2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alireza Badirzadeh

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 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

We would like to thank VLIR-UOS, the University of Antwerp, Belgium, and Wolaita Sodo Universities for financial, technical, and administrative support. We also extend our gratitude to the respective district administrative bodies, data collectors, data clerks, local community, and study participants for their cooperation and technical assistance.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

 This work was funded by the Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR-UOS, ET2019TEA485A102). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. 

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: I reviewed a manuscript entitled “Knowledge, attitude, and practice of the rural community about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia”. The work is intended to investigate the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of the community toward CL in the Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia. The study concludes that the overall knowledge, attitude, and practice about CL and its prevention in the study area were low. The study is interesting and such types of studies provide the baseline information for disease control and management in endemic areas. The study has merit and should be considered for publication; however, I recommend minor revision before its publication in PLoS One.

Factors associated with knowledge about CL are among the key results of the study, however, these results are not mentioned in the abstract. I would suggest to please mention these results in the abstract.

In the discussion, the authors should also include some studies from other countries to support the current findings. This will add further diversity to the findings and will make the study of more international interest. Some examples of such studies are suggested below.

1. Doe ED, Egyir-Yawson A, Kwakye-Nuako G. Knowledge, attitude, and practices related to cutaneous leishmaniasis in endemic communities in the Volta region of Ghana. Int J Health Sci. 2019; 7(1):12.

2. Moussa S, Alshammari T, Alhudaires K, Alshammari T, Alshammari T, Elgendy A. Awareness, and behavioural practice of cutaneous leishmaniasis among hail population, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J Microbiol Exp. 2019; 7(2):88–9.

3. Ahmad S, Obaid MK, Taimur M, Shaheen H, Khan SN, Niaz S, Ali R, Haleem S. Knowledge, attitude, and practices towards cutaneous leishmaniasis in referral cases with cutaneous lesions: A cross-sectional survey in remote districts of southern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. PLoS One. 2022 26;17(5): e0268801. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268801. PMID: 35617283; PMCID: PMC9135282.

4. Zeinali M, Mohebali M, Mahmoudi M, Hassanpour GR, Shirza di MR. Study on knowledge, attitude, and practice of health workers of East Azerbaijan, Ilam and Khorasan Razavi provinces about leishmaniasis during 2015–2016: a comparative study before and after the intervention. Arch Clin Infect Dis. 2019; 14(1): e64282

The references should be revised as per the PLoS One author’s guidelines https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines. In some references the journal name is not abbreviated.

Reviewer #2: The article is relatively well written and is about CL in an area from which CL reports are scarce. However, I have a few issues with the article that should be improved before it can be considered for publication

MAJOR COMMENTS

The rationale for this study is not well explained in the introduction at all. The introduction is very general and does not explain what is already known and what is still unclear and why this is relevant. The introduction should be shortened, all the general stuff about CL in other countries can be removed, the different subspecies and the parts about eco-epidemiology are not related to this manuscript and are distracting. The introduction should be rewritten focused on why a KAP study is needed, what is already known and what is not yet known, also why a KAP would help in control. If there are already several KAP studies done in Ethiopia, it should be very clear why another one is needed. Simply repeating something in a new district is not enough to sell a study.

The sampling of the study subjects is not clear to me and should be elaborated or mentioned in the discussion as a limitation. Why were household heads chosen? Is this really the right population to study KAP? Is this a representative population for your community survey? Are they generally the patients who will be affected by CL or is CL more common in children and females in this area? The questions related to treatment practices may be better asked to patients who are actually suffering from CL rather than household heads not affected by CL.

The authors categorize all the outcome variables into Good and Bad, but I don’t really see the added value of this. What is the value of this classification? Is this a standardized tool that they were using? It would be useful to add the questionnaire as a supplementary file.

To me it would be more useful to simply describe the knowledge, attitude and practices rather than look at associated factors, especially because the sampling setup doesn’t lead to a representative population.

Missing data is not clearly described. Per variable, the number of missing values should be given. Additionally, the number of people who refused to participate should be mentioned.

What does it mean to have good knowledge of CL? Which variables are classified as ‘ correct’ and which are ‘ wrong’ ? My worry is that these things are not black and white, not all CL lesions are painful or disfiguring, how do you assess whether participants know a sandfly or not or whether they know CL or not? These things should be more clearly described.

How the attitude part of the questionnaire was done is unclear. It is mentioned that likert scales were done, ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), but that the total attitude score ranged from 0-5. I would assume a maximum score of 25 would be possible if a patient strongly agreed with all statements? The attitude questions are classified as having unfavourable attitude and favourable attitude, but it is unclear what is really meant by this as the term is vague and seems to be more about treatment than the disease itself. Why is considered negative if a disease is not treatable or a health problem or not? I would suggest to simply describe attitudes and not classify them as good and bad.

Similarly, for practices I would advise to simply describe, rather than calling it good or bad practices. Why is it good or bad practice for CL prevention to live with domestic animals? Why is it poor practice to go to traditional healers?

In addition, I think asking about CL treatment and prevention practices is more appropriately asked to CL patients rather than community members.

The authors do a regression analysis to look at factors associated with CL knowledge. I would advise them to remove this, as it doesn’t really make sense. Especially since the population is not representative, the classification into good or poor is not strong, and the rationale of it is not clear.

The discussion is a bit long, and there is some repetition. I would advise the authors to make it more concise. Important things to add are a section on limitations and the relevance of this manuscript.

MINOR COMMENTS (also see PDF)

Were there any CL patients among the recruited participants?

It is not clear what the sample size is based on, is that knowledge? Attitude? Practices? This should be specified

Something more about the burden of CL in this area should be explained, what is the endemicity of the two districts and the villages that were sampled?

Classification of variables is not clearly explained. Why was age cutoff of 40 used? How was no formal education classified? Why was a family size of 5 used as a cutoff?

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “Knowledge, attitude, and practice of the rural community about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia”. I would like to appreciate the authors' effort to undertake this valuable task. Based on my point of view I raised the following points that I believed might improve the manuscript. This work plans to assess the community's knowledge, attitude, and practice about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia. This kind of researches provides baseline information for future studies. However, there are some concerns which when addressed hope to improve the quality of the manuscript. Find my specific comments below.

1- Line 42, “What plants were used in herbal treatment?

2- Line 54, “Cutaneous leishmaniasis…. For the first time, write it completely and then use its abbreviation (CL)

3- Line 63, “In 2020, about 85% of new….. The reference related to this sentence is for 2010.

4- Line 65, East African countries, including Ethiopia, are…… There is a duplicate with the last paragraph of the introduction.

5- Table 1: Instead of level of education I would recommend use of “years of education”. Reads might not be familiar with Ethiopian system of education.

6- Did you have any missing data among the variables?

7- I suggest the authors put raw data in an online open access repository for preserve and share their research outputs.

8- Line 251, “ perhaps??? In the south of Ethiopia, there are similar studies, please write clearly whether there is a similar study in your studied area.

References

9- Italicize the scientific names (Leishmania tropica in REF 13)

10- Journal names should appear in abbreviation.

11- No journal name should start with "the"

12- Books need city.

**********

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: Rehman Ali

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[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 at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-15781_reviewer_comments.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Alireza Badirzadeh

21 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-15781R1Knowledge, attitude, and practice of the rural community about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, southern EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bereket Alemayehu,

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 12/30/2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alireza Badirzadeh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. 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

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: No

**********

5. 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: Yes

**********

6. 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: All the comments have been addressed by the authors and I recommend the manuscript for publication in PLOS One.

Reviewer #2: Most of the comments have been adequately adressed.

I still have two main points that I am not satisfied with

-I still really disagree with categorizing attitudes as positive or negative. Firstly, I don't what see it adds to classify it overall, and secondly, the overall category (negative/positive attitude towards CL) doesn’t fit the underlying questions.

To me, classifying someone as having a positive or negative attitude is possible (e.g. the last two questions). But the questions about CL being treatable, CL patients having to receive modern medication and CL being a health problem don’t fit the description as good/bad attitude. Why is it negative attitude if someone considers CL a health problem?

How can you classify whether people CL as a health problem as positive or negative? And how can you classify CL is treatable

-The discussion is still very long and contains sections which are more suited for results.

Try to really link it to things that can be used for policy and practice and how the findings can be use to improve community engagement. I have made suggestions in the attached PDF.

**********

7. 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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 at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-15781_R1_comments.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 28;18(3):e0283582. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283582.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


19 Jan 2023

The authors of this manuscript are thankful to the reviewers for the provided comments an suggestions. The point-by-point response letter is uploaded in a separate file in this submission.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Alireza Badirzadeh

27 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-15781R2Knowledge, attitude, and practice of the rural community about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, southern EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bereket Alemayehu,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:Please apply reviewer's comments.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 13 2023 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 plosone@plos.org. 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alireza Badirzadeh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. 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

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: No

**********

5. 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: Yes

**********

6. 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: The raised concerns have been thoroughly addressed by the authors and I recommend the manuscript for publication in PLOS One

Reviewer #2: Thank you for your revised manuscript. I have no major comments left. Here I provide a few remaining suggestions to improve readability:

• Line 205-207: Here for binary responses both percentages are given (the n,% for those who had bad feelings and n,% for those who didn’t). This can be reduced as follows.

A significant number (185,205 43.8%) of the respondents had bad feelings about meeting CL patients. Most (70.9 %) respondents believed CL was not a stigmatizing disease (Table 3).

• Line 260: only one third thought CL to be stigmatizing. This seems low. It would be interesting to explain potential reasons for this, rather than stating things that can lead to stigma.

• Line 273: there seems to be a typo, should be Kindo Didaye (not Kndo)

• Line 289: "Studies also reported different findings concerning CL knowledge and age-wise association [18, 29]." It would be better to specify if the findings confirm your finding or contrast it.

o Ref 18 shows a relationship with age, but doesn’t show a difference in those below and above 40

o Ref 29 doesn’t show a relationship with age.

o Suggestion to rewrite: A relationship between CL knowledge and age was also shown in Tigray [18], although different age categories were used.

• Line 300: better to replace misinterpreted with 'generalized'

• Line 311: campaign(s), should be plural

• Some references should be checked

o Ref 5 WHOECotCot?

o Ref 15: initials should come after the last name

o Ref 28: WHO is not an author here

**********

7. 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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 at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 28;18(3):e0283582. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283582.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


2 Mar 2023

Response to Reviewers (PLOS ONE)

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-15781R2

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of the rural community about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia

We thank the editor and the reviewers for giving us feed-backs on the manuscript. We also appreciate PLoS One/editor for allowing us to clean our manuscript further. Please find below our responses to the points raised in the current review. In this response letter, the editor’s and the reviewer’s comments/suggestions are in blue, and our responses are in black. We have also made the requested changes in the manuscript (yellow colored). We hope the recent revisions now address the comments the academic editor and reviewer pointed out.

Academic Editor's Comments:

Journal Requirements:

Comment #1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: Thank you for the concern about the completeness and correctness of references. We ensure that all references are complete and correct and all are relevant.

Reviewer’s Comments:

Reviewer #2: Thank you for your revised manuscript. I have no major comments left. Here I provide a few remaining suggestions to improve readability:

• Line 205-207: Here for binary responses both percentages are given (the n,% for those who had bad feelings and n,% for those who didn’t). This can be reduced as follows.

A significant number (185,205 43.8%) of the respondents had bad feelings about meeting CL patients. Most (70.9 %) respondents believed CL was not a stigmatizing disease (Table 3).

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. We have accepted the comments/suggestions (lines 206 to 208 of the revised manuscript).

• Line 260: only one third thought CL to be stigmatizing. This seems low. It would be interesting to explain potential reasons for this, rather than stating things that can lead to stigma.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for this suggestion. We revised the section (lines 259 to 263).

• Line 273: there seems to be a typo, should be Kindo Didaye (not Kndo)

Response: Thank you. The typo is corrected (line 273).

• Line 289: "Studies also reported different findings concerning CL knowledge and age-wise association [18, 29]." It would be better to specify if the findings confirm your finding or contrast it.

Response: We accepted the comment. Comparisons to the findings are specified (lines 289 to 293).

o Ref 18 shows a relationship with age, but doesn’t show a difference in those below and above 40

Response: We revised it now (lines 289/290).

o Ref 29 doesn’t show a relationship with age.

Response: Ref 29 presents the CL knowledge and age-wise association (on page 9, Table 6 of the reference paper). In the reference paper, age >40 was associated with CL knowledge, whch contrasts our finding (lines 291/292).

o Suggestion to rewrite: A relationship between CL knowledge and age was also shown in Tigray [18], although different age categories were used.

Response: Thanks. We accepted the suggestion (lines 289/290).

• Line 300: better to replace misinterpreted with 'generalized'

Response: We accepted the suggestion (line 303).

• Line 311: campaign(s), should be plural

Response: We accepted the comment (line 313).

• Some references should be checked

o Ref 5 WHOECotCot?

o Ref 15: initials should come after the last name

o Ref 28: WHO is not an author here

Response: Thanks. References are checked. We revised the section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Alireza Badirzadeh

14 Mar 2023

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of the rural community about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia

PONE-D-22-15781R3

Dear Dr. Bereket Alemayehu,

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 authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alireza Badirzadeh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: No

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: (No Response)

**********

7. 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 #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Alireza Badirzadeh

17 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-15781R3

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of the rural community about cutaneous leishmaniasis in Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Alemayehu:

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 onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alireza Badirzadeh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Questionnaire used for the data collection.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. The dataset of KAP of CL, Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia (August to October 2020).

    (SAV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-15781_reviewer_comments.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-15781_R1_comments.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES