Perceptions and compliance with COVID-19 preventive measures in Southern and Central regions of Mozambique: a quantitative in-person household survey in the districts of Manhica and Quelimane

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led countries into urgent implementation of stringent preventive measures at the population level. However, implementing these measures in low-income countries like Mozambique was incredibly difficult, coupled with lack of scientific evidence on the community understanding and compliance with these measures. This study assessed the perceptions and implementation of COVID-19 preventive measures recommended by Mozambican authorities in Manhica and Quelimane districts, taking confinement, social distancing, frequent handwashing, mask wearing, and quarantine as the key practices to evaluate. Methods A quantitative survey interviewing households heads in-person was conducted in October 2020 and February 2021; collecting data on perceptions of COVID-19, symptoms, means of transmission/prevention; including self-evaluation of compliance with the key measures, existence of handwashing facilities, and the ratio of face-masks per person. The analysis presents descriptive statistics on perceptions and compliance with anti-COVID-19 measures at individual and household levels, comparing by district and other variables. T-test was performed to assess the differences on proportions between the districts or categories of respondents in the same district. Results The study interviewed 770 individuals of which 62.3% were heads of households, 18.6% their spouses, and 11.0% sons/daughters. Most participants (98.7%) had heard of COVID-19 disease. The most difficult measure to comply with was staying at home (35.8% of respondents said they could not comply with it at all); followed by avoiding touching the month/nose/eyes (28.7%), and social distancing at home (27.3%). Mask wearing in public places was the measure that more respondents (48.8%) thought they complied 100% with it, followed by avoiding unnecessary traveling (40.0%), avoiding crowed places (34.0%), and social distancing outside home (29.0%). Only 30.4% of households had handwashing devices or disinfectant (36.7% in Manhica and 24.1% in Quelimane); and of those with devices, only 41.0% had water in the device, 37.6% had soap, and 22.6% had other disinfectant. The ratio of masks per person was only 1, which suggests that people may have used the same mask for longer periods than recommended. Conclusions Community members in Manhica and Quelimane were aware of COVID-19 but they lacked understanding for implementing the preventive measures. This, together with socio-economic constraints, led to lower levels of compliance with the key measures. Understanding and addressing the factors affecting proper implementation of these measures is crucial for informing decision-makers about ways to improve community knowledge and practices to prevent infectious diseases with epidemic potential.

Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic disease (1), different approaches to contain the 90 spread of the virus have been adopted around the world, with countries taking stringent 91 measures which included, among others, closing the borders, banning incoming flights, 92 shutting down institutions and non-essential services, curfews, restriction on opening 93 hours of major services, enforcing quarantines to the infected and potential contacts, as 94 well as extreme measures such as complete population lock-down (2) (3). While the 95 implementation of these measures in high-income countries was already challenging, in 96 low-income countries like Mozambique they represented an incredible conundrum. 97 Mozambique initially declared level 3 State of Emergency, which included measures such 98 as closing down educational institutions, interrupting visa services, limiting mobility, 99 limiting gatherings to a maximum of 50 people and recommending a minimum distance of 100 1.5 meters between individuals. Later on, gatherings were limited to a maximum of 10 101 people and the use of masks was recommended on crowed places and public transport 102 vehicles (4). The Mozambican Government focused on prevention, recognising that the 103 health care system was far from being capable of responding to a massive number of 104 COVID-19 patients, should the pandemic reach its peak early and abruptly (4). 105 However, and even during the harshest restriction periods, while facing hard 106 confinement measures, there were reports, on the media, of crowded public transports, 107 markets and streets, and of people not having interrupted activities such as working, or 108 trading or travelling for the sake of their families' livelihood (5). For the same reasons of 109 self and family survival, there were indications that the "stay at home" principle was 110 challenging to an important segment of the population, who lives on the basis of a daily 111 income (6). Little is known about whether and how the communities understood and . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022 implemented the measures recommended for preventing or reducing the spread of COVID-113 19 in Mozambique. 114 Understanding the gaps in knowledge and compliance with measures against the 115 spread of COVID-19 in Southern and Central Mozambique would confer the opportunity to 116 develop more effective and socio-culturally appropriate sensitization initiatives to address 117 the need of COVID-19 prevention. This study aimed to assess the perceptions and 118 implementation of the measures recommended by the government of Mozambique to 119 prevent COVID-19 in rural and urban settings of Southern and Central Mozambique 120 (Manhiça and Quelimane districts), taking confinement, social distancing, hand washing, 121 mask wearing, and quarantine as the key practices to assess. Data such as these, from both 122 rural and urban areas and from two socio-economically different region of the country, 123 were crucial for informing decision-makers about ways to improve community knowledge 124 and practices regarding prevention of COVID-19 or any other future infectious disease with 125 epidemic potential. This study was a cross-sectional quantitative household survey designed to collect data 130 both at individual and household level, through interviews administered in-person to the 134 The study took place in two locations: (i) Manhiça district, a mainly rural setting located in 135 Province Maputo, in the Southern region of Mozambique; and (ii) Quelimane district, in 136 the Central province of Zambézia, which comprises urban and rural settings (Figure 1). 137 Manhiça district is 85 km North of Maputo City, the capital of Mozambique, and was 138 purposively selected because of the presence of the Manhiça Health Research Center 139 (CISM). CISM has been conducting biomedical research in the district over nearly 25 years, 140 which has facilitated the implementation of the study in a context of emergency with 141 relatively less challenges than it would have been elsewhere in rural Mozambique. 142 Similarly, the district of Quelimane was chosen because CISM has been conducting 143 biomedical research there for 5 years, particularly on causes of deaths using minimally 144 invasive tissue sampling (7). Currently, CISM is establishing an HDSS in the district. 145 Quelimane is located along the river Rio dos Bons Sinais in the Southern part of Zambézia 146 province. The district has urban and rural settings. The urban area comprises the City of 147 Quelimane (the capital of Zambézia province), where live 71.7% of the total 349,842 district 148 population (8). 149 The study population comprised heads of households or their representatives that 150 were residents in the study area, as defined by the CISM's HDSS, i.e. those who live in a 151 household in Manhiça or in Quelimane districts for three or more months or are entering 152 the district with intention for that (9). The survey adopted, also, the HDSS definition of 153 household, as a group of one or more individuals who live together in the same house or 154 group of houses, eat together, share domestic expenses, and acknowledge one of them as 155 their head or leader (9). The head of a household is the member who takes the most 156 important day-to-day decisions in the household and is the reference member (9). In Manhiça, the survey used the HDSS database as a sampling frame to randomly select a 163 sample of households that was representative at the level of Administrative Posts. In 164 Quelimane the sampling frame was a list of households given by the local authorities. 165 Although the study had multiple outcomes of interest at household level, the presence of 166 a handwashing facility with water and soap was considered as the main variable for 167 estimating the minimum sample size of households for this study. A handwashing facility 168 was defined as a device to contain, transport or regulate the flow of water to facilitate 169 handwashing (11) -a commonly used proxy indicator of actual handwashing practice, 170 which has been found to be more accurate than other proxies such as self-reports of hand 171 washing practices. Because there were no data on the proportion of households with a 172 handwashing facility during the pandemic in Mozambique, the sample size was calculated 173 to estimate a proportion of 50% with a margin of error of 5% and confidence level of 95% 174 (12). Thus, it was estimated that a sample size of 385 households for each district would 175 be sufficient to estimate this proportion (a sample size calculated this way is also suitable 176 to estimate proportions ranging from 10% to 90%) (12). At the individual level, the main 177 outcome was defined as the proportion of individuals who wash their hands at critical 178 points in time, but because there were no data for the pandemic period, the sample size 179 was calculated to estimate a proportion of 50% of people washing their hands, with a 180 margin of error of 5% and confidence level of 95%, which resulted in a sample size of 385 181 individuals for each district. Thus, because the sample size for households coincided with . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022 182 that of individuals, the data for the two units of analysis (individual and household) were 183 collected by asking the questions to the same respondent, i.e. one respondent per 184 household. 185 2.4. Data collection and quality assurance 186 The data were collected in October 2020 in Manhiça and in February 2021 in Quelimane, 187 using paper-based questionnaires that were verified by demographers for consistencies 188 and completeness, and were double-entered to reduce typing errors at CISM's Data is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint 205 means?"; "what it means to avoid crowded places?"; "what it means to avoid travelling?". 206 This included questions for self-evaluation of compliance with the key measures 207 considered in this study. The respondents were asked to grade themselves in a scale of 0% 208 to 100%, where 0% meant that they did not comply at all with a specific measure, and 100% 209 when they thought they complied completely with a given measure. Most of the questions 210 had pre-defined answers for the interviewer to mark all the respondent's answers (multiple 211 options). The interviewers were instructed to ask the respondent "anything else?"  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022 about anyone with such symptoms in their neighbourhoods. The date when COVID-19 was 230 first declared in South Africa was used as starting point because there were reports, on the 231 media, of unprecedented inflow of Mozambicans returning from South Africa as the South 232 African government had announced that would close the borders due to and 233 this inflow was seen as a potential source for importing Coronavirus into Mozambique (5). 234 Perceived hardships due to COVID-19 -the respondents were asked "in this problem is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint 253 including in their own home (16). Confinement or staying at home was defined as making 254 all the efforts to stay at home and avoid travelling, leaving home only for cases of strong 255 motives (13). Frequent hand washing was defined as washing hands with water and soap 256 or disinfecting with alcohol every time that a person has contact with objects or other items 257 that have or may have been touched by somebody else (13). 258 The analysis presents descriptive statistics on perceptions and levels of compliance is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint 273 3. RESULTS 275 The study interviewed 770 individuals, of which 62.3% were heads of households, 18.6%, 276 their spouses, 11.0% their sons or daughters, and 8.1% others. Table 1 shows that 64.2% 277 of participants were living in urban areas, with a higher percentage of urban residents in 278 Quelimane (88.9%) than in Manhiça (39.3%), which is consistent with the urban-rural 279 differences between the two study sites, as described earlier. The majority (65.7%) of the 280 respondents were females, also with large differences between the two districts -more 281 females in Manhiça (76.0%) than in Quelimane (55.4%), which is in line with the sex 282 composition of the population in the Southern and Central regions of the country (more 283 female-headed households in the South than in the Center), (18). By education, 17.5% of 284 participants were illiterate, and 43.4% had only primary education, and 39.1% had 285 secondary or higher education. In relation to occupation, the majority (68.4%) were 286 unemployed and were engaged on subsistence family activities such as farming, fishing, 287 production of fire wood/charcoal, followed by public sector officers and students (12.5%), 288 and vendors in formal and informal sectors (9.5%). With regards to access to drinking 289 water, 48.2% of households had their sources of water within the household premises, 290 either piped water or wells, but Manhiça (a district that has only a small town) had higher 291 percentage of households using piped water (59.6%) than Quelimane (36.8%), a district 292 that has a major city) -probably because in Manhiça there are many private water 293 suppliers who pump underground water through electric pumps and distribute by pipe to 294 their clients, while in Quelimane the fewer private suppliers that exist do it by buying water 295 from government sources and sell it in trucks, from one neighbourhood to another (19). is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

Socio-demographic profile of participants and their households
The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint 296 Private suppliers may find it difficult to invest in water in Quelimane because the 297 underground water is salty (19) 298 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10. 1101/2022   is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint  Table 4 presents the results on how people understand the COVID-19 preventive measures. 358 The majority of respondents knew that social distancing refers to keeping some distance 359 between each other (62.0%) [62.0% comes from summing "keeping 1.5-2 meters from others" 360 (43.9%) and "to be away/be distant from others" (18.1%)], but 19.9% gave incomprehensive or 361 vague answers, and 17.5% said that they did not know. In relation to hand washing in the 362 context of COVID-19, 32.9% of respondents gave vague responses, 28.6% said that they 363 wash their hands when leaving or arriving at home; 26.0%, after touching something or 364 someone; and 7.7%, after using the toilet or when the hands are dirty or when they are 365 about to eat something. Quarantine was defined as staying at home or in the same place 366 by 36.6% of respondents; 26.5% defined it comprehensively as isolating someone who is 367 sick or suspected or who had contact with positive or suspected cases (some respondents 368 in this group indicated the period of 14 days); but 29.2% said that they did not know what 369 is was. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

381
The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022   is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101/2022 doi: medRxiv preprint 403 and 74.4% had no ash in these devices. In addition to hand washing facilities, it was asked  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101/2022 doi: medRxiv preprint 413 3.6. Prevalence of symptoms of respiratory illness 414 The results on symptoms of respiratory illness show that 93 (12.1%) respondents have had 415 symptoms sometime since COVID-19 was announced first in South Africa (05 March 2020), 416 and 38.1% of them had symptoms in two or more episodes. However, only 6 households 417 (0.8%) had a person with symptoms at the date of interview, of which 4 had only one 418 person and 2 had two people with symptoms. By district, Quelimane had significantly 419 higher number of (past and current) cases with symptoms 80 (20.7% of respondents) than 420 Manhiça 13 (3.4%), (p=0.000). is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint 437 support or other means of solidarity involving money saving which is rotatively paid to one 438 member of the group. Often it involves social gathering in the household of the member 439 that is receiving the group's savings (20), (21).

440
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022  new to the general public, and most importantly, some concepts were changing over the 455 course of the pandemic, for example, the term "social distancing" has changed to "physical 456 distancing", and "crowed places" were venue-and time-variant and the maximum number 457 of people allowed to gather together in one place changed continually as the disease was 458 evolving. Also, the study required visiting hundreds of households (with more than 3,500 459 people) to study a disease that had forced people to refrain from moving or visiting each 460 other to avoid transmission. Even the IRB at CISM was puzzled on whether this study could 461 be approved due to safety issues and the request made by the study team for using oral is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022 or who were illiterate were excluded; and it ended up with only 13% of participants from 470 rural areas and 87% from urban areas (24). to mean the same disease. Even the term "novel Coronavirus" was not as popular as the 487 two, let alone the term SARS-CoV-2. Likewise, even some apparently obvious terms like 488 confinement, stay at home, immobility, and quarantine had not been well communicated 489 to the public in Mozambique. This leads to a recommendation that in public emergencies 490 such as these, policy makers should be cautious to use the same terms consistently, and 491 avoid similar but not equal terms, for example, it has never been very clear whether 492 confinement, isolation, staying at home, and immobility meant the same or they were . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022 493 different within the context of Coronavirus. Later on, a new term started to be publically 494 used without a clear definition, e.g. "the new normal" -intended to advise the population 495 to adapt to this new context for longer periods of time -but none knows how this was 496 interpreted because sometimes it was used simultaneously with relaxation of anti-COVID-497 19 measures. Further, at the time this survey was conducted, some respondents in rural 498 and urbans areas of Central Mozambique did not believe that COVID-19 existed, and others 499 said that fighting for food was of high priority than following anti-COVID-19 measures 500 (Chaimite, 2020); and in Maputo city, misinformation was considered an important issue 501 for policy makers to deal with (PERC, 2020) -this study showed that 72% of respondents 502 believed hot climate prevents COVID-19, 41% believed COVID-19 is a germ weapon created 503 by a government; and 39% said they would like more information, particularly on COVID-504 19 protection, causes and cure (PERC, 2020). 505 This study shows highs percentages of vague or inconclusive responses (ranging from 506 5.1% in the definition of quarantine, to 64.8% in the definition of avoiding travelling). 507 Adding the "don't knows" to these vague responses leads to the conclusion that most 508 respondents did not understand very well the meaning of most of the anti-COVID-19 509 measures. This weakness needs to be addressed not only from the perspective of the 510 population, but also from how such measures were defined by the government. For 511 example the measure of keeping distance from each other was disseminated as "social 512 distancing" first, but later it changed to "physical distancing", and the minimum distance 513 was between 1 and 1.5 meters before 2 meters came out (but the 2 meters was seldom 514 disseminated). These changes occurred also in regard to "crowded places"-it was defined 515 depending on whether the people are in a closed or open space, which was used to define 516 the maximum number of people that could gather (including for funeral), and these . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint 517 numbers have been changing constantly. These unclear and/or constantly changing 518 measures may have confused the population. 519 Compliance with anti-COVID-19 measures at individual and at household levels is 520 low, both in Manhiça and in Quelimane -below 50% in most of the indicators used in this 521 study -see percentage of "Yes" in table 7 and of those implementing a certain measure at 522 100% in table 6. A similar result (55.5% of overall level of compliance) was found in a study 523 on the compliance with COVID-19 preventive measures among food and drink 524 establishments in Ethiopia, in 2020 (25). Our study found that even the apparently easiest 525 measure (mask wearing in public places), most people (50.8%) confessed that they did not 526 comply with it when they think they should. Only 40.0% of the respondents said that they 527 were avoiding unnecessary travels in 100% of the times, 34.0% were avoiding crowed 528 places, and 29.1% were doing social distancing outside the household. Structural and 529 personal factors may have contributed to lower compliance as most people live on daily-530 income activities and even those with a monthly income had to go for work using crowed 531 public transports. This indicates that these measures could have been followed better by 532 the population if the government had invested on public transports system to reduce 533 overcrowding in the bus-stops and within the public transport vehicles. 534 The prevalence of symptoms of respiratory illness in the households was very low, 535 and most respondents did not know anyone with such symptoms in their communities. 536 However, the meaning or usefulness of these findings must be taken cautiously because of 537 the bias involved in self-report of symptoms, when compared to medically diagnosed 538 disease, particularly because some studies indicated that 80% of infected people in 539 Mozambique were asymptomatic (13); six in seven COVID-19 infections went undetected 540 in Africa (26), and that 75% of infected people in India were asymptomatic (27). is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022 With regards to hardships imposed to people and their households by the pandemic, 542 the study shows that the closure of educational institutions, fear of being infected, hunger, 543 fear of death and of uncertainty of the future, and the closure of churches were the main 544 hardships -and these responses seem expected, particularly for Manhiça and Quelimane 545 where little or no social services exist for the most pre-COVID-9 vulnerable populations, 546 whose suffering has increased due to Coronavirus. A study in Philippines on how COVID-19 547 impacted vulnerable communities, reported increased lack of income opportunities and 548 insufficient food supply that existed before COVID-19 but had worsened due to the 549 pandemic (28). One aspect deserving further research is why people are worried about the is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint 565

566
The awareness about Coronavirus was high both in Manhiça and in Quelimane districts 567 (98.7% of participants had heard of Coronavirus), although the term COVID-19 was not as 568 popular as that of Coronavirus (89.2%). Most participants knew about the disease and its 569 transmission and prevention dynamics, but the level of understanding of anti-COVID-19 570 measures was low, as measured by the higher proportion of respondents that could not 571 define the key measures accurately or fairly and of those who said that did not know how 572 to define these measures. These low levels of perceptions suggest that the messages may 573 not have been transmitted in an explanatory way enough for the general population to 574 digest, particularly because some terms and rules were changing constantly over time, 575 which may have confused the population. 576 The level of compliance with anti-COVID-19 measures was low (below 50% in most 577 of the indicators used in this study) even for groups of individuals or of households that 578 one would expect to find higher levels of compliance, such as urban population and 579 households that have piped water. The measures that most people failed to comply with 580 are social distancing within the household (77.4% of respondents said that they could not 581 comply with it at all), followed by avoiding touching the month, nose, and eyes; staying at 582 home, and frequent hand washing. The ratio of face masks per person aged 6 years or more 583 is too low (1 mask per person), which suggests that people may be using the same mask 584 for longer periods and/or repeatedly without replacing it, which is particularly worrying 585 when considering that most people were using clothe masks whose efficacy is lower than 586 medical masks. Structural and personal factors may have contributed for this lower 587 compliance as most people live on daily-income activities and even those with a monthly 588 income had to go for work using crowed public transports. This indicates that these . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint 589 measures could have been followed better by the population if the government had 590 invested on public transports system to reduce overcrowding in the bus-stops and within 591 the public transport system. There is a need to respond to these findings with provision of 592 more detailed information which way increase the people's awareness and adherence to 593 the efforts to fight this pandemic. These data are not openly accessible in a web address, but they may be obtained through 610 a formal request sent to Godifre Capinga (godifre.capinga@manhica.net), accompanied by 611 a proposal that will be analysed by CISM's internal scientific and ethical committees. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted November 18, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282473 doi: medRxiv preprint 635 KM: Conceived the study, participated in the study design interpretation of results 636 and writing of this article; 637 All authors read and approved the final manuscript. 638