Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Dec 9;15(12):e0243410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243410

Knowledge of prevention of COVID-19 among the general people in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study in Rajshahi district

Md Masud Rana 1, Md Reazul Karim 1, Md Abdul Wadood 2, Md Mahbubul Kabir 3, Md Mahidul Alam 4, Farhana Yeasmin 5, Md Rafiqul Islam 6,*
Editor: Francesco Di Gennaro7
PMCID: PMC7725348  PMID: 33296403

Abstract

Background

Until now, no vaccine or effective drug is available for the control, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19. Preventive measures are the only ways to be protected from the disease and knowledge of the people about the preventive measures is a vital matter.

Objectives

The aim of the study was to assess the knowledge of the general people in Rajshahi district, Bangladesh regarding the COVID-19 preventive measures.

Methodology

This cross sectional study was conducted from March 10 to April 25, 2020. Data were collected with a semi-structured questionnaire from 436 adult respondents selected by using a mixed sampling technique. Frequency analysis, chi-square test, and logistic regression model were utilized in this study. SPSS (IBM, Version 22) was used for data analysis. 95% confidence interval and p-value = 0.05 were accepted for statistical significance.

Results

Only 21.6% of the respondents had good knowledge of the COVID-19 preventive measures. The highest 67.2% of them knew that washing hands with soap could prevent the disease, but contrarily, the highest 72.5% did not know that avoidance of touching mouth, nose, and eyes without washing hands was a preventive measure. Only 28.4% and 36.9% of the respondents knew that maintaining physical distancing and avoiding mass gatherings were measures of prevention of COVID-19 respectively. The younger age (≤25 years), low family income (≤15,000 Bangladeshi Taka (BDT), occupation others than business and service, and nuclear family had the lower odds of having no/less knowledge about the preventive measures.

Conclusions

The knowledge level of the general people regarding prevention of COVID-19 was alarmingly low in Bangladesh. The government of Bangladesh, health policy makers and donor agencies should consider the findings and take immediate steps for improving knowledge of the public about prevention of the disease.

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute respiratory disease caused by the 2019 Novel coronavirus (nCoV) that mainly affects the lungs [1]. The virus is transmitted by droplets, fomites and close contacts. The source and disease progression of this new virus are yet to be fully understood that necessitates preventive measures until effective treatment and vaccine are available [1]. The disease first broke out at Wuhan city of the Hubei Province in China [2]. It has quickly spread resulting in an epidemic across the country, followed by a pandemic with increasing number of cases in different countries throughout the world [3]. The World Health Organization (WHO) announced a public health emergency in late January 2020 and described it as a pandemic in March 2020 [4]. The pandemic has continued to cause escalating numbers of cases and death, and as of July 23, 2020, a total of 1, 53, 01,530 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 6,25,005 deaths were recorded in more than 180 countries of the world [5]. WHO and national infection prevention guideline government of Bangladesh prescribed measures for prevention of COVID-19. The guidelines emphasized on (i) maintaining physical distancing (at least one meter), (ii) washing hands with soap for at least 20 seconds or using hand sanitizers, (iii) not touching nose, mouth, and eyes with unwashed hands, (iv) staying at home, (v) avoiding crowds, and so on [6–8].

The COVID-19 situation is aggravating every day in Bangladesh. As of July 23, 2020 a total of 2, 16,110 confirmed cases were identified and 2,801 deaths were recorded [9]. The government and many non-government organizations have come out, although in late, to fight the fatal disease. The whole country has been locked down. Almost all the government and non-government offices and educational institutions have been closed. All kinds of media are campaigning for creating awareness among the general people on prevention of the disease. But media are reporting that a considerable number of people are not following the government directives and preventive guidelines. One study has assessed the knowledge, attitude, practice and perception toward COVID-19 among students in Rajshahi University, Bangladesh [10]. Another studied knowledge and perception of Bangladeshi people towards COVID-19 [11]. Both the studies were conducted in the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Bangladesh.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a very high public health threat for the country. Considering the perspective, we aimed to assess the knowledge on COVID-19 prevention among people in Rajshahi district, Bangladesh.

Methods

Design and study population

This was a cross-sectional study. Our target area of study was Rajshahi district, Bangladesh. The district comprises of nine upazilas (sub districts) and a city corporation with 2,425.37sq.km area. A total of 25, 95,197 people reside in the district which constituted our study population [12].

Sample size determination

Since our target population is known (25, 95,197), the following formula was used for determining the sample size: n = N/ (1+Nd2), where n = required sample size, N = population size (25, 95,197), d = marginal error (0.05) [12, 13]. The formula provided that the minimum sample size of 400 would be sufficient for this study. Additionally, 36 data were collected for better outcome so, our final sample size was 436.

Sampling

A mixed (probability and non-probability) sampling approach was adopted to select the samples. In the first stage, 3, out of 9 upazilas, and 1 out of 30 wards in the City were randomly selected by lottery. In the second stage, an average number of 100 people were selected purposefully from the selected upazillas and ward. But, during the survey in field level, 436 respondents were interviewed.

Data collection

Data were collected from March 10th to April 25th, 2020 using a semi-structured questionnaire. The following types of information were collected: (i) socio-demographic characteristics and (ii) knowledge on prevention of COVID-19 infection. Eight fully trained and experienced field researchers collected data from the respondents by face-to-face interview maintaining the COVID-19 preventive guidelines of WHO.

Outcome variable

The outcome variable in our study is the knowledge on prevention of COVID-19. It was assessed based on answers of four components of one question. The question was: (a) Do you know how to prevent COVID-19? The answer of this question were (i) Maintaining physical distance, (ii) Avoiding mass gatherings, (iii) Hand washing for 20 seconds by soap, and using hand sanitizer (iv) Avoiding touch of mouth, nose and eyes. The respondents were divided into two groups based on their knowledge levels: (i) Knowledgeable- those who gave correct answers to all the four questions have been considered possessing good knowledge, (ii) Not knowledgeable- those giving 0–3 correct answers.

Independent variables

We included theoretically pertinent socioeconomic and demographic factors as independent variables. In this study, we classified subject’s age into two groups: ≤25 years and ≥26 years, gender into two groups: male and female, marital status as ever-married and unmarried, and occupational group was categorized into three groups such as business, service and others. Education was classified based on the formal education system in Bangladesh: primary education, secondary, and higher. Place of residence was categorized as rural and urban. Subject’s family type was categorized as nuclear and joint. Respondent’s monthly income was categorized as ≤15000 Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) or ≥15001 BDT.

Statistical analyses

This study conducted frequency distribution of participants’ answers to items for preventive measures of COVID-19, and the chi-square test was used to investigate the association of level of knowledge among the socio-economic factors. Furthermore, binary logistic regression model was utilized to assess the effect of the associated factors on level of knowledge of preventive measured regarding COVID-19.

Ethical approval

The ethical approval was received from Institute of Biological Science (IBSc) memo no: 64/320IAMEBBC/IBSC, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh. We also received written consent from the subjects.

Results

Table 1 shows the socio-economic and demographic profiles of the respondents. Of the total 436 respondents, approximately 68.3% were below ≤25 years of age and 67.7% were male. 65.4% were unmarried, and 67.4% respondents lived in the urban area. 48.6% of the participants passed primary education level, 24.1% secondary level, and the remaining 27.3% had higher level of education. According to occupation, 23.6% of them were businessmen, 35.8% service holders, and 40.6% had others occupation. 87.4% subjects came from the nuclear family and 50.7% respondents had monthly family income of ≤15,000 BDT.

Table 1. Socio economic and demographic profile of subjects.

Variables N (%) Variables N (%)
Age in years Education
≤25 years 298 68.3 Primary 212 48.6
≥26 years 138 31.7 Secondary 105 24.1
Gender Higher 119 27.3
Male 295 67.7 Occupation
Female 141 32.3 Business 103 23.6
Marital status Service 156 35.8
Unmarried 285 65.4 Others 177 40.6
Ever Married 151 34.6 Type of family
Residence Nuclear 381 87.4
Urban 294 67.4 Joint 55 12.6
Rural 142 32.6 Monthly family income
≤15000 221 50.7
≥15001 215 49.3
Open in a new tab

Frequency of the respondents’ answers to the four items of knowledge of COVID-19 preventive measures was shown in Table 2. Only 28.4% and 36.9% of the respondents knew that maintaining social distancing and avoiding mass gatherings were measures of prevention of COVID-19 respectively. A higher number of people (67.2%) had knowledge that washing hands with soap could prevent the disease, but contrarily, only 27.5% of the respondents knew avoiding touch of mouth, nose, and eyes without washing hands was a preventive measure.

Table 2. Frequency distribution of participants’ answers to items of preventive measures.

Knowledge variables Category Number (n) Percentage (%)
Maintaining social distancing. No 312 71.6
Yes 124 28.4
Avoiding mass gatherings. No 275 63.1
Yes 161 36.9
Washing hands with soap. No 143 32.8
Yes 293 67.2
Avoiding touch of mouth, nose, and eyes with unwashed hands. No 316 72.5
Yes 120 27.5
Open in a new tab

Only 21.6% knew all the four measures of COVID-19 prevention (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Level of knowledge of preventive measures of COVID-19 among the general people in Rajshahi district, Bangladesh.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

In Table 3, association of socioeconomic and demographic factors and knowledge of prevention measures was shown. Age, occupation, type of family and monthly family income were found to have statistically significant association (p<0.001).

Table 3. Association between prevention knowledge level about COVID-19 and socio economic and demographic factors.

Variables Knowledgeable (21.60%) p-value Variables Knowledgeable (21.60%) p-value
Age 0.001 Education 0.267
≤25 years 40(13.4) Primary 45(21.2)
≥26 years 54(39.1) Secondary 18(17.1)
Gender 0.197 Higher 31(26.1)
Male 69(23.4) Residence 0.400
Female 25(17.7) Urban 60(20.4)
Marital status 0.913 Rural 34(23.9)
Unmarried 61(21.4) Type of family 0.001
Married 33(21.9) Nuclear 27(49.1)
Occupation 0.001 Joint 67(17.6)
Business 29(28.2) Monthly family income 0.001
Service 62(39.7) ≤15,000 20(9.0)
Others 03(1.7) ≥15,001 74(34.4)
Open in a new tab

Statistically significant associated factors were considered as independent variables in the binary logistic regression analysis. The findings were presented in Table 4. It was demonstrated that the subjects of ≤25 years of age were less likely to have COVID-19 prevention knowledge than the subjects of ≥26 years of age (AOR = 0.301, 95% CI: 0.165–0.547; p<0.001). Businessmen and service holders had more likelihood of being knowledgeable than the respondents of others occupation (AOR = 8.586, 95% CI: 3.400–21.681; p<0.001) and (AOR = 14.048, 95% CI: 6.459–30.551; p<0.001) respectively. Nuclear family members were less likely to have knowledge on COVID-19 preventive measures compared to the joint family members (AOR = 0.099, 95% CI: 0.048–0.204; p<0.001). The respondents with monthly family income of ≤15,000 BDT showed less chance of having prevention knowledge of COVID-19 than the subjects with monthly family income of ≥15,001 BDT (AOR = 0.321, 95% CI: 0.176–0.587; p<0.001).

Table 4. Effect on level of prevention knowledge on COVID-19 and socio economic and demographic factors.

Variables B S.E. P-value Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) 95% CI for AOR
Lower Upper
Age in years
≤25 vs ≥26 R -1.201 0.305 0.001 0.301 0.165 0.547
Occupation
Business vs Others R 2.150 0.473 0.001 8.586 3.400 21.681
Service vs Others R 2.642 0.396 0.001 14.048 6.459 30.551
Type of family
Nuclear vs Joint R -2.316 0.371 0.001 0.099 0.048 0.204
Monthly family income
≤15,000 vs ≥15,001 R -1.136 0.308 0.001 0.321 0.176 0.587
Open in a new tab

N. B.: B-Coefficient; S. E-Standard Error; AOR- Adjusted Odds Ratio; CI- Confidence Interval: R-Reference

Discussion

The present survey was conducted at the initial phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in Bangladesh. Mentionable that, by the time, the pandemic has already been a hot cake for all kinds of media, as well as the general people in the country. The government and many non-government organizations started huge campaigns on mode of transmission, signs and symptoms, and preventive measures of COVID-19. Media were giving all up-to-date information regarding the pandemic in home and abroad. Rajshahi is the divisional head quarter, city and district, famous as educational, silk and clean city in Bangladesh, so this study assumed that the population would be knowledgeable but our study found very poor knowledge on COVID-19.

Repatriation of thousands of Bangladeshi people firstly from China in January and then from all other COVID-19 affected countries, and the mismanagement of their screening, quarantine, and isolation created a huge debate both in media and the public [14]. All our respondents were educated and most of them came from urban settings. So, it was assumed that they would have sufficient knowledge of prevention of COVID-19. But our findings revealed that, unexpectedly, only 21.6% of them were knowledgeable. A recent study got similar type of findings that Bangladeshi people had poor knowledge (8.56±1.63, on a scale of 13.0) with about 50% knowing that the use of surgical masks was a way of prevention of COVID-19. Similar results were found in Saudi Arabia [15]. However, a Bangladeshi study found that 72.2% of people including a good lots of doctors and medical students knew hand hygiene, covering nose and mouth while coughing, and avoiding sick contacts could help prevention of COVID-19 transmission [10]. The knowledge level of our respondents was much lower than that of Chinese general people [16, 17]. In Nigeria, a study found 94.25% of people knew that regular hand washing and social distancing could prevent COVID-19 infection [18]. Knowledge level of the Egyptians were also found higher‒ proper hand-washing (99.6%), maintaining appropriate physical distance (99.1%), and avoiding touching eyes, nose, and mouth (97.1%) [19]. Bangladeshi people are usually less conscious about health and their practice level of good health measures is significantly poor. As for example, only 40% of people wash hands with soap and water in Bangladesh [19]. This unawareness of the general people might contribute to their poor attention to campaign on COVID-19 preventive measures ultimately resulting in their inadequate knowledge on that subject. The time of the survey might also be a factor. As the rate of infections and death from COVID-19 was still alarming, the general people might not seriously think about its grave impact and the preventive measures in spite of massive campaigns.

People of low-income family are supposed to be less conscious about health and the practice of health measures is usually insufficient among them. These factors might contribute to low level of knowledge on preventive measures for COVID-19 among our respondents. The reason behind high level of awareness among older adults (≥26 years) might be that they gather knowledge about the threats and risks as they are more resolute about their own and family members’ life. Businessmen and service holders usually meet different types of people every day and come to know current news regularly and repeatedly. This might help them gather high level of COVID-19-related perception. Egyptian respondents from low monthly income families had significantly lower level of knowledge which is consistent with our findings [19]. A Chinese study shows that older adults (30–49 years) and people doing mental labor had higher odds of getting more knowledge than the younger adults (16–29 years) and students and unemployed respectively [17].

As many days have passed in the meantime after our survey, and the COVID-19 pandemic is reaching its peak, the knowledge level of the public might change. Further study is needed.

Strengths

The strength of this research is that it is the first study to analyze the knowledge of COVID-19 among the general people in Rajshahi district Bangladesh. The standardized questionnaire format was carefully developed to ascertain accurate information from the subjects. The interviewers were trained up, and the field works was monitored during the survey by the principal authors of this study. The data contained a low proportion of missing information. The study can be generalized to other areas in Bangladesh because similar characteristics exist all over the country. This study also identified some factors regarding knowledge on COVID-19 prevention through some sophisticated statistical tools and techniques.

Limitations

We had some limitations. Due to lockdown situation, we could not follow strict random sampling technique. The sample size was small and not nationally representative. For the study design (cross sectional study), we could not look into any change in the people’s level of knowledge on COVID-19 preventive measures in course of time. We did not consider all the components of preventive measures of COVID-19. Further studies are needed.

Conclusions

The objective of this study was to assess the knowledge of preventive measures for COVID-19 among the general people in Rajshahi district, Bangladesh. We found that only 21.6% of people had good knowledge regarding COVID-19. The government of Bangladesh, Health Policy makers and donor agencies should consider these findings while promulgating and implementing principles and guidelines for control and prevention of COVID-19 in Bangladesh

Supporting information

S1 File

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file. (8KB, sav)

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Civil Surgeon Office Rajshahi District, Bangladesh for giving permission to take data from CCs catchment area. We also acknowledge Health Research Group, Department of Statistics, and University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh to help in data collection from CCs, and Our heartfelt thanks to Minara Jesmin, Graduate teaching partner, Hewens primary school. Hayes, UB4 8JP, London, UK for helping grammatical correction of this study.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

No fund for publication.

References

  • 1.WHO. Infection Prevention and Control for the safe management of a dead body in the context of COVID-19.
  • 2.World Health Organization. Interim guidance 24March 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. New coronavirus cases rise to 571 in Chinese mainland. January 23, 2020 http://en.nhc.gov.cn/2020-01/23/c_76004.htm (Accessed on January 23, 2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 4.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Geographical distribution of 2019nCov cases. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases (Accessed on January 26, 2020).
  • 5.World Health Organization. Novel coronavirus situation report-2. January 22, 2020 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200122-sitrep-22019-ncov.pdf (Accessed on January 23, 2020). 10.33321/cdi.2020.44.14 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html.
  • 7.World Health Organization. COVID_19 situation 19 March, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization. COVID_19 situation 04 May, 2020. https://www.who.int/bangladesh/emergencies/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-update. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.National guideline on infection prevention and control in healthcare settings with additional measures for COVID-19. Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) Bangladesh, Version: 3.0, 2020.9. IEDCR, 2020. Covid-19 Status Bangladesh. https://www.iedcr.gov.bd.
  • 10.Farhana KM, Mannan KA. Knowledge and perception towards Novel Coronavirus (COVID 19) in Bangladesh. International Research Journal of Business and Social Science 2020; 6(2): 76–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mamun MA, Griffiths MD. First COVID-19 suicide case in Bangladesh due to fear of COVID-19 and xenophobia: Possible suicide prevention strategies. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020; 51:102073 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.BBS.2011. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics: Rajshahi statistics census.2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rana MM, Islam MR,, Karim MR, Islam AZ, Haque MA, Shahiduzzaman M, et al. Knowledge and practices of exclusive breastfeeding among mothers in rural areas of Rajshahi district in Bangladesh: A community clinic based study. PLoS ONE 15(5): e0232027 10.1371/journal.pone.0232027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rana M, Sayem A, Karim R, Islam N, Islam R, Zaman TK, et al. Assessment of knowledge regarding tuberculosis among non-medical university students in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health (2015) 15:716 10.1186/s12889-015-2071-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mohammed K. Hanawi A, Angawi K, Alshareef N, Qattan AMN, Helmy HZ, et al. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Toward COVID-19 Among the Public in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front. Public Health 8:217 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zhong BL, Luo W, Li HM, Zhang QQ, Liu XG, Li WT, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among Chinese residents during the rapid rise period of the COVID-19 outbreak: a quick online cross-sectional survey. International Journal of Biological Sciences 2020; 16(10): 1745–1752. 10.7150/ijbs.45221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zhong B-L, Luo W, Li H-M, Zhang Q-Q, Liu X-G, Li W-T, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among Chinese residents during the rapid rise period of the COVID-19 outbreak: a quick online cross-sectional survey. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2020; 16(10): 1745–1752. 10.7150/ijbs.45221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Olapegba PO, Ayandele O, Kolawole SO, Oguntayo R, Gandi JC, Dangiwa AL, et al. A Preliminary Assessment of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Knowledge and Perceptions in Nigeria. 2020. medRxiv preprint. 10.1101/2020.04.11.20061408. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Abdelhafiz AS, Mohammed Z, Ibrahim ME, Ziady HH, Alorabi M, Ayyad M, et al. Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitude of Egyptians Towards the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID‑19). Journal of Community Health. 2020. 10.1007/s10900-020-00827-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Francesco Di Gennaro

13 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-23073

Knowledge of prevention of COVID-19 among the general people in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional survey in Rajshahi district

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rafiqul Islam,

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 30 September. 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesco Di Gennaro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

Follow reviewer suggestions to improve your article.

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. 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)

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: 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: The topic for this study is important especially in the middle of a pandemic such as the world is experiencing now. The objective of the study is equally made clear to the reader. A number of issues were noticed as the manuscript was thoroughly read. The first has to do with the grammatical errors throughout the manuscript which need to be addressed. In the methods section, the sample size determination is confusing to readers. You talked about piloting study and combining that with calculation of the sample size. This is not clear. Are you stating that your sample size included those included in the pilot study? If that is the case, it may unusual since participants in pilot studies are usual part of actual study subjects. This could have introduced bias and negatively affect content and construct validity of the study. Again, there is no description of how the pilot study was conducted.

Although you have presented the frequency of age of the participants, your categorization of the age into just 25 years and under and 26 years and above is not comprehensive enough to show the diversity of the age of participants. Age is usually grouped in either five or ten year intervals so that readers get a clear picture of the age diversity of the participants.

In knowledge assessment, you used just four knowledge variables which is not comprehensive enough to measure knowledge of COVID-19 even though the four variables are basically what are in the public domain. The background of COVID-19 was not assessed except the four basic preventive methods. The conclusion drawn based on this study could be guessed by lay persons considering the time you conducted the data collection for this study. The entire world and the scientific world itself struggled to understand COVID-19 in terms of etiology, accurate modes of spread as demonstrated in different measures recommended by different medical personnel in different countries.

This study will be more meaningful if conducted today as there is now more comprehensive information and evidence from around the world to measure comprehensive knowledge of COVID-19.

Reviewer #2: This cross-sectional study was undertaken to assess the knowledge of COVID-19 preventive measures among adults in Bangladesh.

The following suggestion may help the Authors in improving the manuscript.

Abstract

Background: the sentence “…of the people about the preventive measures is a vital issue”. Can omit “issue”

Better to mention in the abstract that enrolled participants were adults.

Results: not clear what “good” knowledge means

“Physical” distancing is a better term than “social” distancing

Introduction

Line 64-69: cite reference

Line 66: should it be washing hands with soap for at least 20 seconds or use hand sanitizer?

Line 76: only two COVID-19-76 related published articles from Bangladesh? Is so, say so.

Line 78: better to mention “another study” instead of “another article”

Line 81: Which situation? I assume the COVID-19 pandemic? Say so.

Line 82: instead of “corona virus” mention “COVID-19”

Methods

Line 102, 107: instead of “corona virus” mention “COVID-19”

Line 108-109: use of hand sanitizer was not part of the questions asked?

Line 111: I think “Not Knowledgeable” suits better instead of “No Knowledgeable”

Results

Characteristics of the respondents: avoid duplication of information in the text if presented in the Table.

Line 149-150: Better to avoid using “proper” and “complete”. Better to say, Only 21.6% knew all the four measures of COVID-19 prevention.

Effect of associated factors on knowledge of preventive measures: avoid duplication of information in the text if presented in the Table.

Discussion

This section needs to be organized better: can begin with the summary of main findings, followed by other findings, evidence in context, strengths, and limitations

Conclusion

Avoid duplication of information presented in the Results.

**********

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: 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. 2020 Dec 9;15(12):e0243410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243410.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

28 Oct 2020

Response to editor and reviewer comments

Response to editor comments/ Journals requirements:

1. It was written due to journal style.

2. All authors checked the manuscript thoroughly. Moreover, it was edited by Minara Jesmin, Graduate Teaching Partner, Hewens Primary School. Hayes,UB4 8JP, London, United Kingdom for helping grammatical correction of this study,

3. Data is available in the PLOS ONE journal website.

Response to reviewer’s comments:

1. Conclusions is revised as per reviewers-1 advice.

2. The statistical analysis has been used appropriately and rigorously according to the suggestions of reviewesrs-1.

3. Yes, data is available in the PLOS ONE journal website due to advice of reviewers-1.

4. Typographical or grammatical errors were corrected at revision by authors and Minara Jesmin, Graduate Teaching Partner, Hewens Primary School. Hayes,UB4 8JP, London, United Kingdom.

Reviewer comment’s to the authors:

Reviewer#1: The grammatical errors throughout the manuscript were corrected. The method sample size determination is revised. The word piloting omitted from the manuscript. It was noted that it was unfortunately stayed in the manuscript. Age is categories for better finding in the analysis of chi-square test and logistic regression analysis. Further study we will follow your advice. The knowledge on prevention of COVID-19 was assessed based on four components according to WHO and DGHS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bangladesh. The conclusion is revised as per your mentorship. In future, we try to comprehensive study on COVID-19.

Reviewer#2:

In Abstract:

In Background: Issue is omitted

In Methodology: We used adult respondents

In methodology: Good knowledge indicates the respondents who answered four question yes.

In results: We write physical distancing instead of social distancing

In introduction:

Line 64-69: reference is cited

Line 66: The sentence is rewritten

Line76: This sentence is deleted

Line 78: We write another study instead of another article

Line81: The sentence is corrected

Line 82: We write COVID-19 instead of corona virus

In Methods:

Line 102,107: We write COVID-19 instead of corona virus

Line 108-109: The sentence is rewritten

Line111: We write not knowledgeable instead of no knowledgeable

In Results:

Duplication is removed

Line 149-150: The sentence is revised

Duplication is omitted

In Discussion:

The discussion section is rewritten due to suggestions of reviewer’s comments

Strengths and limitations are added in the manuscript

In conclusion:

The conclusion is revised according to reviewer’s suggestions

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to editor and reviewer comments.docx

Click here for additional data file. (14.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Francesco Di Gennaro

23 Nov 2020

Knowledge of prevention of COVID-19 among the general people in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional survey in Rajshahi district

PONE-D-20-23073R1

Dear Dr.Md. Rafiqul Islam

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,

Francesco Di Gennaro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

dear authors congratulations for your great paper

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: 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 #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: Yes

**********

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: I have read the revised manuscript several times in my review process and found that the authors have worked hard and thoroughly improved the manuscript. All the concerns I raised have been adequately addressed.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed comments made by the reviewers. However, there could still be some typos (eg. COVID-9.)

**********

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

Acceptance letter

Francesco Di Gennaro

1 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-23073R1

Knowledge of prevention of COVID-19 among the general people in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study in Rajshahi district

Dear Dr. Islam:

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. Francesco Di Gennaro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES