A survey of patient and public perceptions and awareness of SARS-CoV-2-related risks among participants in India and South Africa

INTRODUCTION

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted the importance of infection prevention at individual and community levels. The World Health Organization (WHO) has indicated that for public health infection prevention measures to be successful, all members of society (communities and professional groups included) should be fully engaged [1]. These measures include but are not limited to physical distancing, masking, hand hygiene, avoiding poorly ventilated indoor spaces, and isolation/quarantine if infected or exposed. For efficient buy-in and contribution to these measures, individuals should understand the risks, mode of viral transmission, and consequences of infection. As such, the success of infection prevention measures depends on individual and community-level awareness and the adoption of infection prevention behaviours, which in turn depends on their perceptions and cognizance of risk.

While effective public engagement has been highlighted as key to gaining buy-in [2-4], additional research is needed to explore public awareness, perceptions and behaviours about SARS-CoV-2 and how these may influence adherence to public health measures, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). India (lower-middle-income) and South Africa (upper-middle-income) [5] are countries with emerging economies where the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had a significant impact [6]. Redeploying the capacity within an existing research collaboration across participating sites in these two countries [7, 8], we investigated the public’s perceptions and awareness of SARS-CoV-2-related risks and infection prevention practices through analysis of data contributed by participants across the two countries.

METHODS

RESULTS

Knowledge and concerns of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and infection

Reported sources of SARS-CoV-2 information, completed by 652 and 172 participants in India and South Africa, respectively, are shown in Figures 1a and 1b. Media and journal publications were the most common sources of information, along with social media, family and friends, and government websites. On social media across both countries, Facebook®, WhatsApp® and YouTube® were the most frequently used sites for information about the pandemic.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1a

Respondents’ sources of SARS-CoV-2 information (traditional and social media) in India (n=652)

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1b

Respondents’ sources of SARS-CoV-2 information (traditional and social media) in South Africa (n=172)

In Table 2, the respondents’ knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes, infection course and prevention/management options is summarised. The primary route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission identified was nasal/oral droplets, airborne particles, and infected body fluids. More than half of the respondents also demonstrated knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 incubation and symptom manifestation, quarantine objectives, and general duration of isolation for infected patients.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 2

Respondent’s knowledge and experiences of the pandemic

More frequent hand washing was reported across both countries (90.0%); however, a higher percentage of respondents in South Africa (13.8%) than in India (2.9%) noted no difference in their hand hygiene practices. Overall, 75.0% of all the respondents indicated their willingness to receive vaccination when it becomes available; however, the percentages were higher in India (82.1%) than in South Africa (49.1%). The most common reasons cited for apathy to vaccination were perceptions of rushed vaccine development and the futility of vaccines for what respondents considered a self-limiting flu-like illness.

Self-efficacy: perceptions of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention measures

Respondents’ perceptions and concerns about their ability to cope with SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention measures are presented in Figure 2, given their perceived knowledge and awareness of the pandemic and infection risks. More than half of respondents in each country reported that they have sufficient knowledge of SARS-CoV-2, understood available information on the pandemic, would know what to do or questions to ask if they or someone else contracted SARS-CoV-2, and have access to healthcare were they to become ill with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and would be able to cope with extended containment measures such as a lockdown. Compared to South Africa, more respondents in India reported concern over infection, its financial implications and associated stigma. On the intent to wear a face mask, 8.6% and 26.2% of respondents in India and South Africa reported dissatisfaction with this measure while outdoors, respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Respondents’ perceptions of self-efficacy in relation to coping with the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa (SA) and India

There was no statistical significance between hand washing and water supply (Table 3), as even those without access to water supply reported that they washed their hands more frequently since the pandemic (p = 0.2168 and p = 0.7970 in India and South Africa, respectively). Water supply showed a mixed relationship with employment as some full-time workers had no access to water. The test highlights a difference between participants in the two countries; p = 0.008 and 0.4471 for India and South Africa, respectively.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 3

Relationships between selected variables

Our results show that some respondents avoided healthcare facilities during this pandemic. Some participants in this study, particularly in India, reported avoiding healthcare facilities because of a fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus; this was affected by employment status, more in India (p = 0.0002) than in South Africa (p = 0.4076).

DISCUSSION

This study provides insight into the public’s awareness and perspectives of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and risks in two middle-income countries hard hit by the pandemic [6]. The aim was to gain some understanding of the knowledge and views about the pandemic, particularly when considering the expected roles that the public have in this pandemic regarding social distancing and infection prevention through hand hygiene, mask use and vaccination uptake.

At the time of the study, these two countries were at different phases of the pandemic infection curves with no viable vaccines available. Although these data are somewhat dated, these findings add to the body of knowledge on the public’s perceptions of the pandemic. Also, how a better understanding of this information can be leveraged for improved infection prevention and behavioural interventions and promotions for this and the future infectious disease pandemics. Such knowledge will be helpful in infectious disease pandemic control and mitigation, including in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The insight from this study can assist with measures to address continued vaccine hesitancy and inequity when many countries are dealing with a fourth or subsequent infection wave.

From the onset of the pandemic, efforts have been communicated to inform the public of infection risks and required containment/mitigation measures. The need for public engagement and hygiene intervention, behaviour change, and consideration of socio-cultural aspects in public awareness initiatives in India and South Africa has been noted in the literature [10-14]. The volume of news media dedicated to the pandemic may also have served to provide education and awareness among the public. Conversely, it may have fuelled confusion and panic, particularly on the diverse online channels where unbridled and unverified evidence and opinions compete for attention with information from local and global health authorities.

Survey respondents demonstrated awareness of the pandemic, with most identifying the primary routes of transmission, incubation period, symptoms of infection, and recommended measures for infection prevention and management of mild conditions, including the reason for and duration of isolation. Information on the pandemic was generally gained from traditional and social media, family and friends, and government websites. Respondents’ reliance on general and social media as sources of pandemic-related information highlights the role played by the media in pandemic containment and mitigation.

The information landscape has changed extensively in the last three decades, prompting the need to address not only the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic but also its related infodemic [15]. While the main aspects of an infodemic refer to inaccurate and misleading information shared through digital and physical environments during disease outbreaks, disinformation refers to the deliberate spread of false information. In this pandemic, we are increasingly witnessing a growing infodemic driven by misinformation, including a worrying trend in the escalation of disinformation through traditional and social/digital media [16-18]. The role of the media, traditional and digital alike, in framing and rapidly disseminating information is evident in this pandemic, particularly when related to influencing behaviours and empowering individuals with the accurate information to make informed decisions regarding IPC [15, 19-21].

Family and friends were noted as sources of SARS-CoV-2 information by respondents in the survey. Word of mouth presented face-to-face or through various communication channels within families and among friends, though not specifically a media source, is an essential source of information. It is also a key route for spreading misinformation, mainly because of the trust between the source and the recipient. Thus, the prominence of influencers (in the community and on digital platforms alike) in disseminating pandemic-related information is highlighted.

The findings of this study underscore the importance of various media as sources of information for informed decision-making among the public. It also draws attention to the relevance of social media, and family and friends, as sources of pandemic-related information for the public. Given the infodemic that has trailed the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on all media [21, 22], there is a need for evidence-informed and timely communication in continually addressing pandemic-related misinformation and disinformation. Infodemic management is multifaceted, requiring different disciplines to address it. Beyond communication, factors influencing an individual’s behaviours may relate to external pressures, including the economy, politics, education, health literacy and religious or cultural beliefs.

Some respondents in this study considered SARS-CoV-2 to be food- or water-borne. Such beliefs may impact infection prevention measures; while there has been research into transmission by these routes [23, 24], they have not been noted as primary transmission routes for the viral infection. Droplet and airborne transmission have been noted as some primary transmission routes, with the use of face masks a significant intervention in reducing the spread of the infection [25, 26].

Across both countries, some respondents expressed somewhat reluctance to mask-wearing, despite their concern about contracting the infection, which may be related to the stigma or discomfort of masks. Stigma, known to influence/compromise infection prevention behaviours [27, 28], needs to be addressed, locally and globally, not only for the current pandemic but also for future ones, and improved adherence to optimised infection prevention practices.

Among other options to reduce infection risk, hand hygiene has been prioritised in public health messages for pandemic mitigation [29]. Access to clean water is critical for hand hygiene and is among the tools to address and mitigate the impact of the pandemic, as highlighted in the literature [29, 30]. While water supply did not affect hand hygiene frequency among respondents, it highlighted a difference between study participants in the two countries. Infection prevention measures such as hand hygiene and physical distancing may pose a challenge in some LMIC (India and South Africa are examples), especially in under-resourced sections of rural areas or densely populated urban settings [29, 30].

Isolation and quarantine of infected and exposed individuals are underlying measures for infectious disease control, though this may prove challenging. Responses to SARS-CoV-2-related isolation/quarantine duration reflect respondents’ perceptions of SARS-CoV-2 incubation. While there was an initial consensus on a 14-day isolation/quarantine period for infected/affected individuals, there have been shifts and debates on the optimum incubation period of the virus, hence, the duration of isolation and quarantine measures [31]. Respondents’ responses reflected this, more so in India, where discussions about extended isolation periods have been reported [32].

Lockdown measures instituted in various parts of the world following the spread of SARS-CoV-2 served as another infectious disease mitigation strategy. With the rise of infection transmission and the attendant lockdown measures, it was expected that individuals would have avoided visiting healthcare facilities. Some participants in this study, particularly in India, reported avoiding healthcare facilities because of a fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus; this was influenced by employment status, more in India than in South Africa. Employed participants may be more likely motivated to maintain good health or hesitant to confirm illness, for fear of losing money or work, resulting in fewer visits to healthcare facilities, than those unemployed. While lockdown measures can reduce patient presentation to healthcare facilities [33, 34], such a decline in presentation may also be associated with later presentations with more severe consequences. Initiatives are required to address gaps in patient care necessitated by public health promotion strategies such as lockdowns in this and future pandemics.

Across the two countries, attitudes to the vaccination were positive. However, the country analysis showed this was driven by higher vaccine acceptance in India, with respondents in South Africa more cautious regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Reasons cited for hesitancy or a negative attitude to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were related to mistrust in the vaccine development process and the futility of vaccines for what respondents considered a self-limiting flu-like illness.

This survey was, however, conducted before SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were available. Hesitancy towards the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine had been noted earlier in the pandemic, fuelled by infodemic on communication channels and the public’s belief in SARS-CoV-2-related conspiracies [35, 36]. The notion that the pandemic has been grossly exaggerated and reported, with unnecessary financial and other stresses on populations, was expressed by some participants who provided additional free text information. As the pandemic evolves, research to better understand infection and vaccine-related concerns among the general population is needed to support targeted and contextually appropriate strategies promoting vaccine uptake and optimised infection prevention behaviours.

Among individuals with opposing opinions about vaccination, using social science methods to study underlying reasons and contexts for their views, along with highlighting the individual rather than the collective advantages of vaccination, may provide helpful and relatable insight [36, 37]. This could be particularly important when considered in light of recent research and noted factors that may influence vaccine perception and uptake [38-40]. More recent research has provided insight into dealing with vaccine-hesitancy as well as the challenges associated with anti-vaxxers [41]. Public health campaigns and vaccination promotions should therefore understand and leverage social listening techniques to comprehend public perceptions concerning communication gaps. A similar method of social listening should be developed for community and traditional settings to understand why various beliefs and behaviours related to COVID-19 emerged.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

Our study provides unique insights into the public’s attitudes and practices across two LMIC during the early stages of this pandemic. The findings are subject to some limitations, which should be considered in its interpretation.

First, being a cross-sectional study, the relevance of the findings may change over time and with interventions, especially as subsequent waves of COVID-19 have been reported. Second, the online distribution of the survey and the limited paper version may have limited its reach, particularly under-representing individuals from diverse socio-economic levels. Third, data collection across both sites did not rely on the same methods, given the COVID-19 restrictions at the time of data collection, which likely influenced the sample sizes across the sites. Sample size may also have been influenced by survey fatigue, challenges with Internet access in LMIC, and other limitations associated with accessing and participating in the survey at the time of the survey roll-out.

Survey respondents are therefore not representative of the public in either of the two countries, limiting the generalizability of findings. In addition, this survey was conducted between September and December 2020, when both countries were at different phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The differences in experiences across the countries may have influenced the responses provided.

Nevertheless, this paper fills a gap in the knowledge, awareness and attitudes of the public in India and South Africa towards IPC practices in the context of COVID-19 within the first year of the pandemic. It will be beneficial for charting public understanding and perception of the COVID-19 pandemic and provide informative data that can be employed for public engagement in other infectious disease control and mitigation across both sites and similar contexts. While this research presents the data for each country separately, it is not its intention to make any statistical comparisons between participants in the two countries. Despite that, the individual test on how employment affects water supply and the avoidance of healthcare settings during lockdown provided some insight on differences between participants in the two countries. Thus, the need for pandemic mitigation efforts to consider differences in context and subjects for the delivery of context-specific and appropriate interventions is highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents socio-economic and demographic data, which may influence public awareness and behaviour and further be explored in pandemic mitigation initiatives among the public in both countries. Survey respondents correctly identified public health promotion measures for SARS-CoV-2. Reported disinclination to mask-wearing and reported hesitancy for the uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination highlight gaps that can be addressed for improved pandemic mitigation efforts. Further research to explore the outlook towards mask use and vaccination across both countries can provide more insight on factors influencing infection prevention and vaccine apathy. Vaccination campaigns should consider robust public engagement and more targeted communication strategies using tactics like social listening, with multimodal, participatory online and offline initiatives to address the infodemic that drives public concerns. Furthermore, this can contribute to developing a better understanding of the driving force behind vaccine hesitancy among different populations.

Author contributions

OM conceptualised and wrote the initial protocol for the study, with additional input and revision from CB, VC, HL, RA, SSingh and overall oversight by EC and MM. OM, SSurendran and EC coordinated the data collection with input from NZ, SSurendran, VN, and FE contributed to data capturing; OM, FE and ES contributed to the data analysis. OM wrote the first draft of the manuscript, with input from SSurendran and oversight from EC and MM. All authors contributed to subsequent revisions and approval of the final draft.

Funding sources

The work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) as part of the Antimicrobial Cross Council Initiative supported by the seven UK research councils, the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) as part of the ASPIRES project (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/arc/aspires/), the National Institute for Health Research, UK Department of Health [HPRU-2012-10047] in partnership with Public Health England and the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant Number: 129755). The funders did not have any role in the study design and conduct, review or approval of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Declarations