The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.
This study intends to explore the predictors of misconceptions, knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning the COVID-19 pandemic among a sample of the Saudi population and we also assessed their approaches toward its overall impact. This online cross-sectional survey was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine, Rabigh, King Abdulaziz University (KAU) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (SA). Participants were approached via social media (SM), and 2006 participants (953 [47.5%] females and 1053 [52.5%] males) were included in this study. SM was the leading source of information for 43.9% of the study participants. Most of the participants had various misconceptions such as “females are more vulnerable to develop this infection, rinsing the nose with saline and sipping water every 15 minutes protects against Coronavirus, flu and pneumonia vaccines protect against this virus.” About one-third of participants (31.7%) had self-reported disturbed social, mental, and psychological wellbeing due to the pandemic. Many participants became more religious during this pandemic. Two-thirds of the study participants (68.1%) had good knowledge scores. Attitudes were highly positive in 93.1%, and practice scores were adequate in 97.7% of the participants. Participants’ educational status was a predictor of high knowledge scores. Male gender and divorced status were predictors of low practice scores, and aged 51–61 years, private-sector jobs, and student status were predictors of high practice scores. Being Saudi was a predictor of a positive attitude, while the male gender and divorced status were predictors of a negative attitude. Higher education was a predictor of good concepts, while the older age and businessmen were predictors of misconceptions. Overall, our study participants had good knowledge, positive attitudes, and good practices, but several myths were also prevalent. Being a PhD and a Saudi national predicted high knowledge scores and positive attitudes, respectively. A higher education level was a predictor of good concepts, and students, private-sector jobs, and aged 51–61 years were predictors of high practice scores. Study participants had good understanding of the effects of this pandemic.
In recent years, coronaviruses have become a major health hazard worldwide, and they have caused considerable human morbidity. In a short period of time, the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread globally. This infection has been transmitted to 213 countries and territories worldwide and infected 25,925,003 people causing 860,857 deaths (as of September 3, 2020) [
Saudi Arabia has witnessed a variety of disturbing Coronavirus epidemics over the last several years, such as Severe Respiratory Distress Syndrome- Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2002 and Middle Eastern Respiratory Distress Syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012 [
The control of communicable diseases depends mainly on the local population’s knowledge, attitudes, practices, and behavior [
The present cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine, Rabigh, KAU, Jeddah, SA, after obtaining ethical approval from the Unit of Biomedical Ethics of the University (Ref No. 187–20). The Raosoft sample size calculator calculated the sample size; considering the margin of error at 5%, confidence level of 95%, and population size 3000000, the required sample size was 385. However, we submitted the questionnaire to 3000 individuals. The sample size was expanded owing to the predicted lower turnover in an online questionnaire. The convenience sample technique was used, and no monetary benefit was offered to any participants. An online questionnaire was constructed with the help of the World Health Organization (WHO) myth-buster document and a published study [
The questionnaire was translated and back-translated (English/Arabic) by two bilingual experts, and the questionnaire was modified according to their suggestions. Two senior faculty members validated the questionnaire. In order to assess the convenience and interpretation of the questionnaire, we carried out a pilot study on 35 participants from the general population and modified the questionnaire accordingly. The reliability of the questionnaire was 0.81 (Cronbach’s alpha). People younger than 18 years of age and residing outside Jeddah were excluded from the study. We included only residents of Jeddah to keep the study focused on a cosmopolitan area.
Our questionnaire had several parts, and the first part consisted of demographic questions like age, education, job, marital status, etc. In SA, general education comprises kindergarten, six years of primary school, and three years each of intermediate and high school. Higher education in SA is four years in the humanities and social sciences and five or six years in the medical, engineering, and pharmacy fields. Fourteen knowledge questions, four attitudes, six practices, 19 misconceptions, and six impact questions were also on the questionnaire. Questions regarding knowledge, attitudes, misconceptions, and impact of the outbreak were true/false/not sure types, while the practice questions were yes/no/sometimes types. One score was awarded for true, and zero for false and not sure, and an individual score less than 50% (1–7 score), 51%–75% (8–10 score), and 76%–100% (11–14 score) were considered poor, moderate, and good, respectively. For attitudes, marking ranged from −4 to +4 (true answer +1 and false and not sure −1). An individual’s positive score indicated a positive attitude, while a negative or zero scores indicated a negative attitude. The practice score ranged from 0 to 12 (yes = 2 points, sometimes = 1, and no = 0), and a score of ≥6 was considered adequate while <6 was considered inadequate. The misconception questions score ranged from 1 to 19 (correct [true] answer = 1 score, wrong [false] answer = 0 score, not sure = 0 score) and scores ≤50% (1–9) were considered to be poor concepts, and individuals with a >50% score (10–19) were considered high scorers, indicated good concepts.
The collected data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 26 (SPSS-26). It includes an integrated set of computer programs that allow users to read questionnaire survey data and other sources to modify data in different ways to generate a wide variety of statistical analyses or reports.
For various variables, the descriptive analysis is represented as frequency and percentage. We used chi-square test to investigate the comparison between demographic variables. The dependent variables (knowledge and practice) were considered numeric variables, and independent variables (age, education, nationality, job, marital status) were categorical variables, so we used multiple linear regression analysis to compute association. Dependent variables (misconception and attitude) were considered binominal categorical, and independent variables (age, education, nationality, job, marital status) were also categorical; thus, logistic regression analysis was applied to explore association. Additionally, p<0.05 was considered to be significant.
A total of 2117 participants completed the questionnaire, and after removing incomplete responses, 2006 participants ([47.5%] females and [52.5%] males) were included in the study. The general characteristics of the study participants are shown in
Variables | N | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 1046 | 52.1 |
Female | 960 | 47.9 | |
Age (years) | 18–28 | 771 | 38.4 |
29–39 | 524 | 26.1 | |
40–50 | 499 | 24.9 | |
51–61 | 175 | 8.7 | |
>61 | 37 | 1.8 | |
Nationality | Saudi | 1710 | 85.2 |
Non-Saudi | 296 | 14.8 | |
Education level | Primary school | 22 | 1.1 |
High school graduate | 360 | 17.9 | |
College | 1375 | 68.5 | |
Master’s | 176 | 8.8 | |
Ph.D. | 66 | 3.3 | |
Job | Government job | 808 | 40.3 |
Private-sector job | 296 | 14.8 | |
Business owner | 63 | 3.1 | |
Housewife | 293 | 14.6 | |
Student | 538 | 26.8 | |
Marital Status | Married | 1172 | 58.4 |
Unmarried | 771 | 38.4 | |
Divorced | 55 | 2.7 |
The participants’ responses regarding knowledge, attitudes, and practices are shown in
A few common misconceptions were “females are more vulnerable to develop this infection” (56.2%), “sipping water every 15 minutes protects against Coronavirus” (43.5%), and “flu and pneumonia vaccines protect against this virus” (50.9%). About half of the respondents (46.3%) were terrified of COVID-19. About one-third (31.7%) of the study participants had self-reported disturbed social, mental, and psychological wellbeing resulting from the pandemic’s circumstances. Many participants became more religious (
Two-thirds of the study participants (68%) had good knowledge of COVID-19, and 26.6% had moderate knowledge. The attitude of the majority of the participants (93.1%) was highly positive, and the practice score was adequate in 97.7% of the participants. Two-thirds of the study participants (66%) had misconceptions (score <50 [poor]), while one-third of the participants (34%) had good concepts (score >50 [good]) as shown in
Knowledge score <50% = poor knowledge, 50–75% score = moderate knowledge, >75% score = good knowledge. A positive score indicates a positive attitude, while negative and zero scores indicate negative attitudes. A practice score of ≥6 was considered adequate, and <6 was considered inadequate. A misconception score ≤50% = poor concepts, while > 50% = good concepts.
Significant differences were found in knowledge scores according to age groups (p = 0.037) and educational status (p < 0.001). A significant difference in attitudes was observed according to gender (females were more positive), nationality (Saudis were more positive), education (except Master’s degrees were more positive), and marital status (married were more positive). A significant difference in the practice score was observed between age groups (p = 0.041) and gender (p <0.001). More participants in the age groups 18–28 years and 29–39 years showed a good understanding of pandemic concepts compared to the other age groups (p <0.001), and males also showed good concepts as compared to females (p <0.001). Highly educated people (college, Master’s degrees, PhD) showed good concepts compared to people with primary school and high school education (p <0.001). Students and people in private-sector and government jobs had good concepts compared to housewives and businessmen (p <0.001). According to marital status, unmarried people had better concepts than married and divorced people (p <0.001), as shown in
Variables | Knowledge | Attitude | Practice | Misconception | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poor | Moderate | Good | Negative | Positive | Inadequate | Adequate | ≤ 50 score | > 50 score | ||
N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | ||
Age (years) | 18–28 | 37 (5) | 162 (22) | 536 (72.9) | 55 (7.1) | 716 (92.9) | 22 (2.9) | 743 (97.1) | 403 (55.4) | 324 (44.6) |
29–39 | 29 (5.7) | 142 (28) | 337 (66.3) | 44 (8.4) | 480 (91.6) | 17 (3.3) | 499 (96.7) | 316 (64.6) | 173 (35.4) | |
40–50 | 23 (5) | 138 (29.8) | 302 (65.2) | 33 (6.6) | 466 (93.4) | 7 (1.4) | 486 (98.64) | 370 (77.4) | 108 (22.6) | |
51–61 | 10 (6.3) | 52 (32.5) | 98 (61.3) | 6 (3.4) | 169 (32.5) | 0 (0) | 174 (100) | 132 (78.1) | 37 (21.9) | |
>61 | 1 (3.2) | 11 (35.5) | 19 (61.3) | 1 (2.7) | 36 (97.3) | 0 (0) | 37 (100) | 29 (82.9) | 6 (17.1) | |
p-value | 0.037* | 0.183 | 0.041 | < 0.001* | ||||||
Gender | Male | 60 (6) | 269 (27) | 668 (67.0) | 89 (8.5) | 957 (91.5) | 41 (3.9) | 1004 (96.1) | 614 (61.6) | 382 (38.4) |
Female | 40 (4.4) | 236 (26.2) | 624 (69.3) | 50 (5.3) | 901 (94.7) | 5 (0.5) | 928 (99.5) | 630 (70.8) | 363 (29.5) | |
p-value | 0.259 | 0.004* | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | ||||||
Nationality | Saudi | 79 (4.9) | 429 (26.4) | 1114 (68.7) | 102 (6) | 1608 (94) | 43 (2.5) | 1649 (97.5) | 545 (33.8) | 1614 (100) |
Non-Saudi | 21 (7.6) | 76 (27.6) | 178 (64.7) | 36 (12.5) | 251 (87.5) | 3 (1.1) | 281 (98.9) | 101 (36.7) | 275 (100) | |
p-value | 0.130 | <0.001* | 0.125 | 0.339 | ||||||
Education | Primary school | 2 (11.1) | 7 (38.9) | 9 (50) | 1 (4) | 21 (95.5) | 0 (0) | 22 (100) | 18 (94.7) | 1 (5.3) |
College | 58 (4.4) | 318 (24.3) | 932 (71.3) | 86 (6.3) | 1289 (93.7) | 27 (2) | 1334 (98) | 811 (62.3) | 491 (37.7) | |
High school graduate | 19 (5.6) | 132 (38.9) | 188 (55.5) | 16 (4.4) | 344 (95.6) | 8 (2.2) | 348 (97.8) | 281 (81.4) | 64 (18.6) | |
Master | 15 (8.9) | 33 (19.6) | 120 (71.4) | 30 (17) | 146 (83) | 8 (4.6) | 166 (95.4) | 102 (61.8) | 63 (38.2) | |
Ph.D | 6 (9.4) | 15 (23.4) | 43 (67.2) | 6 (9.1) | 60 (90.9%) | 3 (4.6) | 62 (95.4) | 36 (59) | 25 (41) | |
p-value | < 0.001 | < 0.001* | 0.153 | < 0.001* | ||||||
Job | Government job | 40 (5.2) | 215 (28) | 513 (66) | 52 (6.4) | 756 (93.6) | 23 (2.9) | 779 (97.1) | 520 (68) | 245 (32) |
Private sector job | 16 (5.6) | 76 (26.4) | 196 (68.1) | 23 (7.8) | 273 (92.2) | 4 (1.4) | 291 (98.6) | 173 (62.0) | 106 (38) | |
Business owner | 3 (5.8) | 18 (34.6) | 31 (59.6) | 6 (9.5) | 57 (90.5) | 3 (4.7) | 61 (95.3) | 52 (82.5) | 11 (17.5) | |
Housewife | 16 (5.9) | 84 (31.2) | 169 (62.8) | 16 (5.5) | 277 (94.5) | 1 (0.4) | 283 (99.6) | 220 (80) | 55 (20) | |
Student | 25 (4.8) | 112 (21.5) | 383 (73.7) | 41 (7.6) | 497 (92.4) | 15 (2.8) | 518 (97.2) | 278 (54.7) | 230 (45.3) | |
p-value | 0.090 | 0.614 | 0.055 | < 0.001* | ||||||
Marital Status | Married | 60 (5.4) | 308 (27.8) | 739 (66.8) | 74 (6.3) | 1098 (93.7) | 19 (1.6) | 1141 (98.4) | 797 (71.9) | 312 (28.1) |
Unmarried | 36 (4.9) | 179 (24.1) | 527 (71.0) | 56 (7.3) | 715 (92.7) | 25 (3.3) | 740 (96.7) | 406 (55.7) | 323 (44.3) | |
Divorced | 4 (8.3) | 18 (37.5) | 26 (54.2) | 9 (16.4) | 46 (83.6) | 2 (3.8) | 50 (96.1) | 40 (76.9) | 12 (23.1) | |
p-value | 0.084 | 0.015* | 0.052 | < 0.001* |
Total number of responses is not same in all categories because of few missing responses.
Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the participants' educational status (Ph.D.) was a predictor of high knowledge scores. Male gender and divorced status were predictors of low practice scores, and aged 51–61 years, private-sector jobholders, and students were predictors of the high practice scores (
Variables | Knowledge |
Practice |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | P-value | 95% CI for B | 95% CI for B | |||
Lower Bound -Upper Bound | B | P-value | Lower Bound -Upper Bound | |||
Age (years) | ||||||
29–39 | -0.087 | 0.605 | -3.012–1.685 | 0.056 | 0.707 | -0.235–0.347 |
40–50 | -0.041 | 0.825 | -2.942–2.202 | 0.169 | 0.295 | -0.148–0.486 |
51–61 | -0.271 | 0.232 | -5.243–1.085 | 0.462 | 0.074–0.851 | |
>61 | 0.091 | 0.813 | -4.849–5.971 | 0.609 | 0.061 | -0.028–1.247 |
Gender | ||||||
Male | -0.197 | 0.051 | -2.826 - -0.002 | -1.115 | -1.290 - -0.940 | |
Nationality | ||||||
Saudi | 0.118 | 0.402 | -0.158–0.395 | -0.217 | 0.083 | -0.463–0.028 |
Educational status | ||||||
College | 0.852 | 0.067 | -0.375–12.637 | -0.405 | 0.234 | -1.071–0.262 |
High school graduate | 0.343 | 0.468 | -4.065–9.154 | -0.340 | 0.328 | -1.021–0.342 |
Master | 0.738 | 0.129 | -1.626–11.980 | -0.612 | 0.092 | -1.322–0.099 |
Ph.D. | 1.215 | 1.055–15.707 | -0.240 | 0.554 | -1.036–0.556 | |
Job status | ||||||
Private job | 0.028 | 0.852 | -2.082–1.876 | 0.413 | 0.152–0.675 | |
own business | -0.356 | 0.210 | -6.717–1.174 | 0.275 | 0.242 | -0.186–0.735 |
housewife | -0.227 | 0.156 | -4.004–0.391 | 0.031 | 0.826 | -0.247–0.310 |
Student | 0.180 | 0.305 | -1.261–3.632 | 0.337 | 0.036–0.639 | |
Marital status | ||||||
Unmarried | -0.043 | 0.780 | -2.501–1.865 | -0.179 | 0.188 | -0.446–0.087 |
Divorced | -0.559 | 0.052 | -7.996–0.083 | -0.503 | -0.994 - -0.011 |
a Numeric variable
Binary regression analysis revealed that being a Saudi national was a predictor of having positive attitudes, while the male gender and divorced status were predictors of negative attitudes. Higher education was a predictor of good concepts, while older age and business owners were predictors of misconceptions (
Variables | Attitude | Misconception | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | P-value | 95% CI for B | OR | P-value | 95% CI for B | |
Lower limit—Upper limit | Lower limit—Upper limit | |||||
18–28 (years) | Reference | |||||
29–39 (years) | 0.777 | 0.447 | 0.405–1.491 | 0.857 | 0.406 | 0.597–1.232 |
40–50 (years) | 1.061 | 0.873 | 0.511–2.206 | 0.483 | 0.319–0.730 | |
51–61 (years) | 2.522 | 0.089 | 0.868–7.328 | 0.432 | 0.254–0.737 | |
>61 (years) | 3.571 | 0.244 | 0.420–30.36 | 0.330 | 0.115–0.947 | |
Female | Reference | |||||
Male | 0.503 | 0.328–0.770 | 1.236 | 0.063 | 0.988–1.546 | |
Non-Saudi | Reference | |||||
Saudi | 2.354 | 1.451–3.818 | 0.791 | 0.145 | 0.577–1.084 | |
Primary school | Reference | |||||
College | 0.843 | 0.870 | 0.109–6.515 | 7.512 | 0.053 | 0.974–57.924 |
High school graduate | 1.139 | 0.903 | 0.140–9.245 | 3.103 | 0.281 | 0.396–24.312 |
Master | .254 | 0.195 | 0.032–2.022 | 9.657 | 1.224–76.185 | |
Ph.D | 0.536 | 0.582 | 0.058–4.946 | 12.092 | 1.467–99.661 | |
Govt job | Reference | |||||
Private job | 1.193 | 0.562 | 0.657–2.167 | 0.988 | 0.944 | 0.706–1.382 |
Own business | 0.647 | 0.374 | 0.247–1.693 | 0.295 | 0.127–0.684 | |
Housewife | 0.674 | 0.276 | 0.331–1.371 | 0.671 | 0.052 | 0.449–1.003 |
Student | 0.578 | 0.119 | 0.290–1.152 | 1.074 | 0.711 | 0.736–1.566 |
Married | Reference | |||||
Unmarried | 0.965 | 0.908 | 0.532–1.753 | 1.244 | 0.202 | 0.889–1.741 |
Divorced | 0.287 | 0.129–0.639 | 1.181 | 0.613 | 0.620–2.248 |
Awareness and a positive response by society are critical to the successful handling of emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Among our participants, the leading source of information about COVID-19 was SM, followed by government websites, television, newspapers, and others. Our results are similar to another study [
Several misconceptions were present among two-thirds of the study participants. Limited data is available about the association of misconceptions with demographic variables. Our results revealed that high education levels (Master’s degrees and PhD) were predictors of good concepts while being a businessman and old age were predictors for having misconceptions. Similar to our results, a few other studies have also reported misconceptions among their study participants [
Educated people have more exposure and access to knowledge, which explains why they had clear concepts. We could not find any plausible explanation for the association of misconceptions with old age and businessmen. Continuous efforts are needed to clarify the peoples’ misconceptions, and in some cases, this process should involve religious leaders, especially in Muslim countries. The most important parameter is sustained awareness campaigns by government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to dispel these myths because some of these myths are harmful to people.
About half of the respondents were terrified of COVID-19, and about one-third of the study participants had self-reported disturbed social, mental, and psychological wellbeing. Most participants said that they realized the importance of life because of this pandemic, and one-third were committed to becoming more religious. Most of our respondents stated that this pandemic’s worst impact would be on the country’s economic conditions, followed by the healthcare system and the peoples’ financial status.
Another study reported inclinations of people to gravitate toward religion during this pandemic issue. They also embraced a healthy lifestyle, stayed away from the mass gatherings, and prayed at home instead of attending mosques [
In our study, two-thirds of the participants had good knowledge, and one-quarter had moderate knowledge scores. More participants in the younger age and educated groups had high knowledge scores. The participants’ educational status (PhD) was a predictor of high knowledge scores. Our results are similar to several other studies [
Our results found no significant association between participants’ knowledge scores and other variables. In contrast to our results, a few studies found a significant association between knowledge and demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and occupation [
Similar to our study, most Malaysian populations had good knowledge, positive attitudes, and good practicing behavior regarding COVID-19. The researchers credit this awareness to an effective campaign by the health authorities and government [
Most of our study participants had positive attitudes and believed that society has a social responsibility to implement safety measures to control the spread of this infection. Malaysian and Chinese studies have also reported positive attitudes among participants for similar questions [
Being a Saudi was a predictor of having positive attitudes, while the male gender and divorced status were predictors of negative attitudes. One reason for this difference could be that Saudi nationals have a better living style and more exposure to awareness campaigns in the local language on SM and local TV networks. Most of the expatriates belong to the working class, and they are not highly educated. Thus, they had relatively insufficient knowledge regarding the disease compared to Saudi nationals, which is also reflected in their attitudes. Interestingly, this finding has also been highlighted in other studies in which females showed more concern and positivity toward their families and society with respect to any infectious pandemic [
Education and marriage modify individual responses resulting in responsible attitudes and overall positiveness [
Our study found good practices, and these results are similar to a few other studies [
Several explanations for the study participants’ good practices can be described, including implementing strict curfew and lockdown across the country. People were not allowed to go to their neighboring areas and other cities during lockdown breaks. Because of the rapid spread and thousands of deaths worldwide, so much apprehension has already been generated among the populace. All mass media sources have been full of COVID-19 news, and SM has also been swiftly disseminating information. Thus, the knowledge and practice scores were good, and attitudes were more positive among our study participants.
Our results suggest that most of the study population have responded to this pandemic situation in a very responsible way; however, certain sections of society need more education and mass awareness programs. Because the development of a vaccine against COVID-19 will take time, people will have to learn to live with COVID-19 in society. Recently, WHO officials have announced that it is the probability that “this coronavirus may become just another endemic virus in our communities, and this virus may never go away” [
There are a few limitations to our study, including the use of an online questionnaire, so we could not reach the section of society that didn’t use the internet. We used a convenience sampling technique, and in such studies, the respondents’ biases cannot be ignored. Besides, our study sample was not representative of the total population and all segments of society. Moreover, the study design employed was cross-sectional. Hence the results need to be reviewed with caution.
Overall, our study participants had good knowledge, positive attitudes, and good practices; however, several myths were also prevalent. Having a PhD and being a Saudi national predicted high knowledge scores and positive attitudes, respectively. Higher education was a predictor of good concepts, and students, private-sector jobs, and aged 51–61 years were predictors of high practice scores. Study participants had good understanding of the effects of this pandemic. It seems that despite all the measures, the only chance of success against this highly infectious disease is coordinated and consistent efforts to increase public concern against the disease. Moreover, people should follow the government-issued standard operating procedures when performing their daily tasks.
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(SAV)
We are thankful to our medical students, Mahmood Abdullah Eid, Jinan Hikmat Msallati, Abdulelah Mugbil Hajer Alnafie, Nouf Khaleel Althagafi, Sultan Abdu Madkhali, Abdulrahman Omar Alzahrani, for their help in collecting data.
Submitted filename:
PONE-D-20-26398
Predictors of misconceptions, knowledge, attitudes, and practices of COVID-19 pandemic among a sample of Saudi population
PLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Baig,
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 22-October-2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at
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:
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Ritesh G. Menezes, M.B.B.S., M.D., Diplomate N.B.
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
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Partly
**********
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: No
**********
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
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: No
**********
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: The article is well written and is comprehensive overall. However, there are some minor corrections needed to be addressed.
The first line in the abstract should be 'The study intends to explore'
In the introduction, line 71, mentioning words like 'severely' 'deadly' makes the sentence look very dramatic. either remove severely or deadly. Again in line 82 and 94 words like 'war against COVID-19' and 'battle against COVID-19' is very dramatic. Use of more subtle words is recommended.
Line 240, in the misconceptions part of discussion, it should be 'Limited data is available..', not are.
Again in line 364, I think the use of the word 'deadly' is not appropriate as COVID-19 has a spectrum of presentations, from being asymptomatic to having pneumonia etc. it does not always cause critical illness. Line 368, use COVID-19 patients instead of corona-infected patients.
Reviewer #2: Comments to the authors
This manuscript focuses on a relevant issue in the current scenario and the research question is novel. Authors have written the objectives of the study clearly. Abstract gives the summary of the manuscript in a concise manner.
However, there are few concerns with respect to this manuscript which need to be addressed by the authors.
Abstract
• Line 52 – Authors can mention some of the prevailing myths in the abstract as well.
Methodology What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria?
• Line 125 – what score was given to the responses as not sure?
• Did the scores have weightage based on the type of questions?
• Line 146 – why did authors recruit 2117 participants while the estimated sample size was 385? In that case, there is no need to mention about sample size estimation, I believe.
• It would be appropriate to mention the socio-economic status of the participants instead of mentioning education and occupation separately (table 1).
• The category Misconception could be classified as Present or Absent instead of Good and Poor.
Results
• Presentation of results within the text is not appropriate. For example …A few common misconceptions were “females are more vulnerable to develop this infection 1067(56.2%), instead it is better to mention only the percentages within the brackets as
A few common misconceptions were “females are more vulnerable to develop this infection (56.2%)
• The significant predictors could be mentioned in bold within the tables so that it will easy for the readers to understand the associations between the variables.
• How did the authors assess the mental and psychological wellbeing of the participants? This aspect needs to be mentioned clearly in the methodology.
Discussion
• Line 270-281 mentions only about other study findings. Authors should highlight their findings and compare it with other study findings and discuss the similarities or differences observed.
• Line 281 – Is it participants’ reasons or reasons for knowledge among participants. Meaning of both would be entirely different. Grammatical errors need to be corrected in many parts of the manuscript.
• Line 300-301 –What is the relevance of this sentence in the given context? It is not clear what the authors are trying to convey.
Reviewer #3: • The authors have discussed the study findings which are relevant in the current context.
• The authors need to acknowledge that the sample was not representative & the study design employed was cross-sectional. Hence the results need to be reviewed with caution.
• Overall English language editing needs to be done & grammatical errors need to be corrected.
• Predictors & Impact are not appropriate terms for cross –sectional study design. Need to be corrected.
• Study participants had a proper realization of the impact of this pandemic. – needs to be corrected
• people causing 860,857 mortalities – mortalities is not correct usage – needs to be rectified.
• Cases have been recorded in almost all the regions with pocketing of cases in multiple cities – needs to be reworded.
• on pg 10, 82-95 lines in the later part of introduction is repetitive, needs to be condensed & revised.
• Complete the online questionnaire was considered consent for participation in the survey.-reword. Was there a check box available for the participants to check - I consent
• pilot study consisting of 35 people from the general public was conducted to determine the convenience and comprehension of the questionnaire, - -reword
• what was the basis of grading the scores as good, inadequate poor? Was it based on the consensus of experts or the authors or based on published literature?
• The frequency and percentages were computed for different variables. A chi-squared test was used to explore the comparison between different variables. – needs to be more explicit
• Table 1 – class intervals for age group to be kept uniform
• Define primary school, college etc in educational level categories as footnotes or in methods section as educational classification varies between countries.
• one-third 637 (31.7%) of the study participants had disturbed social, mental, and psychological wellbeing – how was this assessed?
• It is preferable not to repeat results in tables & text.
• Table 2,3,4 titles to be reworded. The table titles need to be stand alone & self explanatory. Preferable to depict total n in the table title.
• Table 3,4 B values not required, 95% CI can be depicted as -0.235, 0.347 in a single column
• Table 4 – preferable to write it as unadjusted OR
• The statistically significant values can be highlighted in bold in tables.
• Univariate analysis should be followed by multivariate analysis. The tables have described it in reverse order.
• The same dependant variables used in univariate analysis have to be used for multivariate analysis & different variables cannot be used as shown in Table 3 & 4.
• Initial part of the discussion is mainly focussing on use of SM for source of knowledge on COVID – needs to be condensed. Discussion should compare & contrast the current study findings with available literature
• one-third of the study participants had disturbed social, mental, and psychological wellbeing as mentioned in discussion has not been discussed in the results section
• categorization of misconceptions, basis for the classification of misconceptions is important to discuss in results rather than only p value or 95% CI
• mental health/illness was not assessed in the present study nor was it part of the objectives – hence it is not wise to put it in discussion & state it in conclusions
• Our results are similar to several other studies [8,22,23]. An Australian study described the general public’s good knowledge in Australia, but they had knowledge gaps for a few questions [17] – discussion needs to be more explicit.
• knowledge scores and practicing behaviours were not up to the mark in terms of fighting the spread of COVID-19 [34]. –reword the statement
• Our study’s high-level positive attitude may be attributed to the excellent campaign conducted by the MOH for the Saudi population’s awareness – high level positive attitude – words may be used in moderation
• Practices: Almost all the participants attained adequate scores regarding adopting protective measures. Our study participants maintained social distancing and avoided meeting with friends and relatives. Most of the participants frequently used soap for handwashing and used face masks outside the home – most of these statements are pertaining to results of the present study – these need to be described in the results section & not in the discussion.
• Overall the results & discussion have to be reworked on. The discussion section needs to be condensed. Most of the results stated in the discussion section needs to be moved to results section.
• 12,22,26,27,37 citation of references is incomplete & not in standard format
• Fig 2 – axis & axis title to be provided
• Our study results can be used by policymakers to set priorities in information campaigns on COVID-19 by the MOH/public health authorities and the mass media. – is not appropriate as the study is not based on a representative sample & as authors have acknowledged that only internet users were included. In addition, COVID situation being very dynamic, the study recommendations have to be in moderation.
**********
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Reviewer #1:
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,
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:
Q. The article is well written and is comprehensive overall. However, there are some minor corrections needed to be addressed.
The first line in the abstract should be 'The study intends to explore'
Reply:
We have modified the sentence as suggested.
Q. In the introduction, line 71, mentioning words like 'severely' 'deadly' makes the sentence look very dramatic. either remove severely or deadly.
Reply:
We have modified the sentences as suggested.
Q. Again in line 82 and 94 words like 'war against COVID-19' and 'battle against COVID-19' is very dramatic. Use of more subtle words is recommended.
Reply:
We modified the sentences as suggested.
Q. Line 240, in the misconceptions part of discussion, it should be 'Limited data is available..', not are.
Reply:
We have modified the sentence as suggested.
Q. Again in line 364, I think the use of the word 'deadly' is not appropriate as COVID-19 has a spectrum of presentations, from being asymptomatic to having pneumonia etc. it does not always cause critical illness.
Reply:
We have modified the sentence as suggested.
Q. Line 368, use COVID-19 patients instead of corona-infected patients.
Reply:
We have modified the sentence as suggested.
Reviewer #2: Comments to the authors
This manuscript focuses on a relevant issue in the current scenario and the research question is novel. Authors have written the objectives of the study clearly. Abstract gives the summary of the manuscript in a concise manner. However, there are few concerns with respect to this manuscript which need to be addressed by the authors.
Q. Abstract
• Line 52 – Authors can mention some of the prevailing myths in the abstract as well.
Reply:
We have incorporated the few myths in line number 40-43, as suggested.
Q. Methodology What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria?
Reply:
Inclusion and exclusion criteria are given in line 124-126 in methodology.
Q. • Line 125 – what score was given to the responses as not sure?
Reply:
One score was awarded for true, and zero for false and not sure.
Q• Did the scores have weightage based on the type of questions?
Reply:
No. All questions had equal weightage.
Q• Line 146 – why did authors recruit 2117 participants while the estimated sample size was 385? In that case, there is no need to mention about sample size estimation, I believe.
Reply:
We have removed the sample size calculation, as suggested.
Q• It would be appropriate to mention the socio-economic status of the participants instead of mentioning education and occupation separately (table 1).
Reply
It's a nice suggestion, but we have used these variables in regression analysis separately, so it is difficult to replace them with socioeconomic status. So we sorry that we are unable to incorporate this suggestion.
Q• The category Misconception could be classified as Present or Absent instead of Good and Poor.
Reply:
Actually, if we will write misconceptions absent or present, then it will give a different impression.
There were several misconceptions present and after calculating their scores, we categorized them as good concepts and poor concepts.
Q. Results
• Presentation of results within the text is not appropriate. For example …A few common misconceptions were “females are more vulnerable to develop this infection 1067(56.2%), instead it is better to mention only the percentages within the brackets as
A few common misconceptions were “females are more vulnerable to develop this infection (56.2%)
Reply:
Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated this suggestion and changed the results accordingly.
Q. • The significant predictors could be mentioned in bold within the tables so that it will easy for the readers to understand the associations between the variables.
Reply:
Thank you for the suggestion. We have mentioned the significant predictors values in bold in the table.
Q • How did the authors assess the mental and psychological wellbeing of the participants? This aspect needs to be mentioned clearly in the methodology.
Reply:
We didn’t use any inventory for this. This was the self-reported disturbed social, mental, and psychological wellbeing due to the pandemic. We have mentioned this in the methods.
Discussion
• Line 270-281 mentions only about other study findings. Authors should highlight their findings and compare it with other study findings and discuss the similarities or differences observed.
Reply:
We have modified the discussion as suggested and removed a few sentences, and added a new reference.
Q• Line 281 – Is it participants' reasons or reasons for Knowledge among participants. Meaning of both would be entirely different.
Reply:
The sentence has been modified.
Q. Grammatical errors need to be corrected in many parts of the manuscript.
Reply:
A professional editing service has done the language editing.
Q• Line 300-301 –What is the relevance of this sentence in the given context? It is not clear what the authors are trying to convey.
Reply:
The sentence has been removed.
Reviewer #3: •
The authors have discussed the study findings which are relevant in the current context.
• The authors need to acknowledge that the sample was not representative & the study design employed was cross-sectional. Hence the results need to be reviewed with caution.
Reply:
Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated this suggestion in the limitations.
• Overall English language editing needs to be done & grammatical errors need to be corrected.
Reply:
A professional editing service has done the language editing.
Q• Predictors & Impact are not appropriate terms for cross –sectional study design. Need to be corrected.
Reply:
Multiple Linear Regression and Logistic Regression analyses are considered predictive analysis. Therefore, we have used the term predictive. In our study impact, related questions were self-reflective questions that's why we had used these terminologies. In literature, a few other studies found that they have used word predictive in cross-sectional studies.
Q• Study participants had a proper realization of the impact of this pandemic. – needs to be corrected
Reply:
We have modified the sentence as suggested.
Q• people causing 860,857 mortalities – mortalities is not correct usage – needs to be rectified.
Reply:
We have replaced the mortalities with deaths.
Q• Cases have been recorded in almost all the regions with pocketing of cases in multiple cities – needs to be reworded.
Reply:
We have modified the sentence as suggested.
Q• on pg 10, 82-95 lines in the later part of introduction is repetitive, needs to be condensed & revised.
Reply:
We have removed a few sentences.
Q• Complete the online questionnaire was considered consent for participation in the survey.-reword. Was there a check box available for the participants to check - I consent
Reply:
We are sorry that there was no check box for consent.
Q• pilot study consisting of 35 people from the general public was conducted to determine the convenience and comprehension of the questionnaire, - -reword
Reply:
We have modified the sentence as suggested.
Q• what was the basis of grading the scores as good, inadequate poor? Was it based on the consensus of experts or the authors or based on published literature?
Reply:
It was based on the consensus of the researchers.
Q• The frequency and percentages were computed for different variables. A chi-squared test was used to explore the comparison between different variables. – needs to be more explicit
Reply:
We have modified the sentence as suggested.
Q• Table 1 – class intervals for age group to be kept uniform
Reply:
Thank you for the suggestion. We have modified the age group intervals and these are uniform now.
Q• Define primary school, college etc in educational level categories as footnotes or in the methods section as educational classification varies between countries.
Reply:
We have written a description of SA education system in the methods.
Q• one-third 637 (31.7%) of the study participants had disturbed social, mental, and psychological wellbeing – how was this assessed?
Reply:
We didn’t use any inventory for this. This is the respondents self-reported statement. We have mentioned this in the methods.
Q• It is preferable not to repeat results in tables & text.
Reply:
We have reduced a few results from the text.
Q• Table 2,3,4 titles to be reworded. The table titles need to be stand alone & self explanatory. Preferable to depict total n in the table title.
Reply:
The title has been modified as per suggestion.
Q• Table 3,4 B values not required, 95% CI can be depicted as -0.235, 0.347 in a single column
Reply:
In Table 3, Knowledge and practice are numeric variables and B values indicate the change in knowledge and practice score by one-unit change in dependents variables used in multiple regression model. In Table 4, B values have been removed.
Q• Table 4 – preferable to write it as unadjusted OR
Reply:
In table 4, adjusted OR was given because we used multiple logistic regression model.
Q• The statistically significant values can be highlighted in bold in tables.
Reply:
We have modified as suggested.
Q• Univariate analysis should be followed by multivariate analysis. The tables have described it in
reverse order.
Reply:
Univariate analysis data was not given in tables.
Q• The same dependant variables used in univariate analysis have to be used for multivariate analysis & different variables cannot be used as shown in Table 3 & 4.
Reply:
Table 3 & 4 have no link with each other. In table 3, dependent variables are Knowledge and practice, and both were taken as numeric, while in table 4, dependent variables are attitude and misconception and both were taken as binary variables (categorical variables).
Q• Initial part of the discussion is mainly focussing on use of SM for source of Knowledge on COVID – needs to be condensed. Discussion should compare & contrast the current study findings with available literature
Reply:
We have modified as suggested.
Q• one-third of the study participants had disturbed social, mental, and psychological wellbeing as mentioned in discussion has not been discussed in the results section
Reply:
This has been described in the result section in line number 208-210.
Q• categorization of misconceptions, basis for the classification of misconceptions is important to discuss in results rather than only p value or 95% CI.
Reply:
In the results section, in the legends of figure 2 it has been described.
Q• mental health/illness was not assessed in the present study nor was it part of the objectives – hence it is not wise to put it in discussion & state it in conclusions
Reply:
We have removed most of the statements and references related to mental health.
Q• Our results are similar to several other studies [8,22,23]. An Australian study described the general public's good Knowledge in Australia, but they had knowledge gaps for a few questions [17] – discussion needs to be more explicit.
Reply:
We have explained this point.
Q• knowledge scores and practicing behaviours were not up to the mark in terms of fighting the spread of COVID-19 [34]. –reword the statement
Reply:
We have modified as suggested.
Q• Our study’s high-level positive attitude may be attributed to the excellent campaign conducted by the MOH for the Saudi population’s awareness – high level positive attitude – words may be used in moderation
Reply:
We have modified the sentence as suggested.
Q• Practices: Almost all the participants attained adequate scores regarding adopting protective measures. Our study participants maintained social distancing and avoided meeting with friends and relatives. Most of the participants frequently used soap for handwashing and used face masks outside the home – most of these statements are pertaining to results of the present study – these need to be described in the results section & not in the discussion.
Reply:
We have deleted these sentences from the discussion as suggested.
Q• Overall the results & discussion have to be reworked on. The discussion section needs to be condensed. Most of the results stated in the discussion section needs to be moved to results section.
Reply:
We have modified as suggested. The discussion section has been condensed, and most of the description of the results have been removed from the discussion.
Q• 12,22,26,27,37 citation of references is incomplete & not in standard format
Reply:
Few references have been updated and two are preprints, so we have given their ODI.
Q• Fig 2 – axis & axis title to be provided
Reply:
We have modified the figure as suggested.
Q• Our study results can be used by policymakers to set priorities in information campaigns on COVID-19 by the MOH/public health authorities and the mass media. – is not appropriate as the study is not based on a representative sample & as authors have acknowledged that only internet users were included. Besides, COVID situation being very dynamic, the study recommendations have to be in moderation.
Reply:
We have modified our recommendations, as suggested.
Submitted filename:
PONE-D-20-26398R1
Predictors of misconceptions, knowledge, attitudes, and practices of COVID-19 pandemic among a sample of Saudi population
PLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Baig,
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 25-November-2020. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to
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:
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Ritesh G. Menezes, M.B.B.S., M.D., Diplomate N.B.
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
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
Reviewer #3: 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
Reviewer #3: Yes
**********
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
Reviewer #3: Yes
**********
4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: (No Response)
Reviewer #3: 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: No
Reviewer #3: 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: As suggested previously, the manuscript was very comprehensive except a few minor changes which have been addressed by the authors in this current revision.
Reviewer #2: Authors have addressed all the queries raised by the reviewers and edited the manuscript accordingly.
Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed the queries previously raised. Few minor corrections & grammatical errors to be corrected.
In the section on Statistical analysis
The collected data were analyzed using SPSS-26. – provide the details of the software.
To investigate the comparison between demographic variables, a chi-squared test was used. It should be chi-square test. The test was employed to assess the association between variables – to reword the statement.
Sample size calculation, basis & rationale for the numbers included needs to be described.
Table 2. Comparison of knowledge, attitude, practice, and misconceptions scores according to age, gender, nationality, education, job and marital status (n=2006).
n mentioned in results & n in title is different.
reword the title & mention it as socio-demographic variables, instead of naming all the variables in the title.
n (%) to be used in column header in table 2, so that % symbol need not be used in every cell of the table.
Table 3 & 4 - zero needs to precede the decimal point in the tables for better readability.
Pg 17 lines-60-62
People have been scared and have mental distress, and these factors are understandable because health is a serious matter for most people. The sentence may be deleted
Pg 19 – lines 113 -114
Practices - Our study found good practicing behaviour – to be reworded as good practices & not good practicing behaviour
Pg 20 - lines 150-152
Conclusion
Overall, our study participants had good knowledge, highly positive attitudes, and excellent
practicing behavior; however, several myths were also prevalent. – to moderate the sentences & avoid usage of highly positive, excellent practice etc
**********
7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Reviewer #1: No
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,
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: As suggested previously, the manuscript was very comprehensive except a few minor changes which have been addressed by the authors in this current revision.
Reply:
Thanks
Reviewer #2: Authors have addressed all the queries raised by the reviewers and edited the manuscript accordingly.
Reply:
Thanks
Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed the queries previously raised. Few minor corrections & grammatical errors to be corrected.
Reply:
Several grammatical and punctuation errors have been corrected.
In the section on Statistical analysis. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS-26. – provide the details of the software.
Reply:
Details have been added.
To investigate the comparison between demographic variables, a chi-squared test was used. It should be chi-square test. The test was employed to assess the association between variables – to reword the statement.
Reply:
Corrections have been done as suggested.
Sample size calculation, basis & rationale for the numbers included needs to be described.
Reply:
Sample size calculation and rationale have been added as suggested.
Table 2. Comparison of knowledge, attitude, practice, and misconceptions scores according to age, gender, nationality, education, job and marital status (n=2006).
n mentioned in results & n in title is different.
Yes, you are right. That's why we didn't include the total number of participants in the table's title in the original manuscript. After the suggestion of one of the reviewers, we included the number of participants. We have deleted the number of study subjects from the title of the study to remove the discrepancy. To further clarify, we have included the sentence "Total number of responses is not same in all categories because of few missing responses” below the table. This discrepancy is due to the fact that few people didn't reply to a few questions.
Reword the title & mention it as socio-demographic variables, instead of naming all the variables in the title.
Reply:
Corrections have been done as suggested and socio-demographic variables have replaced all variable names.
n (%) to be used in column header in table 2, so that % symbol need not be used in every cell of the table.
Reply:
Corrections have been done as suggested.
Table 3 & 4 - zero needs to precede the decimal point in the tables for better readability.
Reply:
Corrections have been done as suggested.
Pg 17 lines-60-62
People have been scared and have mental distress, and these factors are understandable because health is a serious matter for most people. The sentence may be deleted
Reply:
The sentence has been deleted as suggested.
Pg 19 – lines 113 -114
Practices - Our study found good practicing behaviour – to be reworded as good practices & not good practicing behaviour
Reply:
The sentence has been reworded as suggested.
Pg 20 - lines 150-152
Conclusion
Overall, our study participants had good knowledge, highly positive attitudes, and excellent practicing behavior; however, several myths were also prevalent. – to moderate the sentences & avoid usage of highly positive, excellent practice etc
Reply:
The sentence has been reworded as suggested.
Submitted filename:
Predictors of misconceptions, knowledge, attitudes, and practices of COVID-19 pandemic among a sample of Saudi population
PONE-D-20-26398R2
Dear Dr. Baig,
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
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
Kind regards,
Ritesh G. Menezes, M.B.B.S., M.D., Diplomate N.B.
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
Reviewers' comments:
PONE-D-20-26398R2
Predictors of misconceptions, knowledge, attitudes, and practices of COVID-19 pandemic among a sample of Saudi population
Dear Dr. Baig:
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
If we can help with anything else, please email us at
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
Kind regards,
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Prof. Dr. Ritesh G. Menezes
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE