©2023 IJOSH All right reserved. Open access under CC BY NC–SA license doi:10.20473/ijosh.v12iSI1.2023.25-34 Received October 25, 2022; 1st revision December 30, 2022; 2nd revision January 17, 2023; Accepted February 6, 2023, Published:
February 2023. Published by Universitas Airlangga.
Indonesian Community Risk Perception of COVID-19 in 2022
Mila Tejamaya, Amelia Anggarawati Putri, Ira Safhira, Sapto Budi Nugroho
Department of Occupational Health and Safety, Faculty of Public Health, University of Indonesia, Indonesia Building C, 1st Floor Faculty of Public Health Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java 16424, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
Introduction: In line with the increasing number of COVID-19 cases from July to early August 2022, this paper aimed
to analyze the perception of COVID-19 among Indonesians. Methods: A cross-sectional online study on COVID-19 risk perception was conducted in the first week of July 2022. A questionnaire adapted from ECOM (Effective Communication in Outbreak Management for Europe) was distributed online through social media to obtain information about the respondents’ knowledge, behavior, and risk perceptions on COVID-19. Results: There were 775 respondents. Most of them were female (61.3%), lived in the eight most targeted areas (84.1%), were unmarried (52.5%), held a bachelor’s degree (38.5%), and were Muslims (80.8%). The percentages of respondents who had been infected with COVID-19 were (43.8%). Most participants believed that their knowledge level of the disease was average and above average (>91%). Of the respondents, 83.6% perceived the seriousness of COVID-19 as serious and very serious. However, the anxiety level among these respondents was moderate (slightly and quite anxious). This indicates that even though most respondents still see COVID-19 as a serious disease, their level of fear is decreasing. Compared to a previous study, most respondents in the current study were more confident of their ability to control the risks associated with the transmission of the virus.
Nevertheless, they still believe that outdoor activity and not using a face mask can significantly increase the probability of getting infected. Conclusion: The risk perception of COVID-19 in Indonesian community among our study population was appropriate.
Keywords: COVID-19, ECOM standard, Indonesia, online questionnaire, risk perception Corresponding Author:
Mila Tejamaya
Email: [email protected] Telephone: +628111810100
Cite this as: Tejamaya, M. et al. (2023) ‘Indonesian Community Risk Perception of COVID- 19 in 2022’, The Indonesian Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, 12(SI1), pp. 25-34.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Indonesian Journal of Occupational Safety and Health 2023, 12 SI(1): 25-34
p ISSN: 2301 8046, e ISSN: 2540 7872 http://doi.org10.20473/ijosh.v12iSI1.2023.25-34
INTRODUCTION
China first reported having found a cluster of new pneumonia cases in Wuhan, Hubei Province—
caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus—on December 31st, 2020 (Schulman, 2020). On March 31st, 2020, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic (WHO, 2020). In Indonesia, the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed on March 2nd, 2020 (Natalia, 2020).
After this case, Indonesian’s COVID-19 cases began to gradually increase, which can be tracked through Indonesia’s COVID-19 task force portal (Satuan Tugas Penanganan COVID-19, 2022).
Behavior change in the community plays a crucial role in reducing the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and preventing future pandemics (Betsch, Wieler and Habersaat, 2020; Seale et al., 2020; West et al., 2020). According to Health Belief
Model, changes in health behavior is significantly influenced by each individual’s risk perception over health issues (Gaube, Lermer and Fischer, 2019). Thus, to be able to understand the ability of Indonesian society in changing their health behavior and following health protocol, risk perception on COVID-19 amongst Indonesian society needs to be explored. There are several studies on COVID- 19 risk perception in Indonesia and this study is a follow up study from Tejamaya (2021).
Risk perception studies people’s ability to recognize health-related choices for themselves and society as a whole. Risk perception for the public that affects their health behavior can be shaped by the media rather than epidemiological evidence.
A study in the early COVID-19 period indicated a critical relationship between the higher use of media and the higher rate of trust, which are linked with higher COVID-19 risk perception (Vai et al., 2020).
Risk perception is widely accepted as a main
concept in navigating people toward achieving
26
Mila Tejamya, et al., Indonesian Community Risk Perception of COVID-19 in 2022…
suitable health behavior. At the same time, however, risk tolerance, a feeling of individual capability to control the risks, may lead to optimism bias and cause a person to become more relaxed toward an unsafe behavior. Hence, balancing the levels of risk perception and risk tolerance is crucial in controlling risk.
METHODS
This study was conducted using a self- administered online questionnaire. The study participants were Indonesian residents aged 18 years and above. The questionnaire was developed based on standardized questionnaires from ECOM (Effective Communication in Outbreak Management for Europe) and was used to obtain information about the respondents’ knowledge, behavior, and risk perceptions. The link to the questionnaire was distributed through the researchers’ social media.
The sampling method used for this survey was snowballing.
The study population was 112,200 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in July 2022 that were from all Indonesian provinces (34 provinces). Of these, 97,714 confirmed cases were from DKI Jakarta (61,096), West Java (21,993), and Banten (14,625).
By applying Slovin’s formula (assuming 112,200 population, 95% CI, and 5% error margin), the minimum sample size for the present study was 399 participants.
The differences in the group prevalence of responses to all questions were assessed using the chi-square test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0. This study has been ethically reviewed by The Research and Communitee Engagement Ethical Committee Faculty of Public Health Universitas Indonesia Number 545/UN2.F10.
D11/PPM.00.02/2022.
RESULT
The survey results are described in the following paragraphs, and the associations between perceptions and sociodemographic variables are provided in Supplementary Materials.
Characteristics of the Survey Respondents A total of 775 respondents, spread across 28 of the 34 provinces in Indonesia, participated in this
study. Most of them resided in West Java (20.6%), DKI Jakarta (19.2%), and South Sulawesi (15.7%).
Out of the 775 respondents, 38.7% (n = 300) were male and 61.3% (n = 475) were female. In terms of their marital status, 47.5% (n = 368) were married and 52.5% (n = 408) were unmarried. In terms of their occupational status, 32.3% (n = 250) were working at a private company, 28.3% (n = 219) were working as students, 19.9% (n = 154) were working as civil servants, 5.7% (n = 44) were housewives, and 7.9% (n = 108) chose “not working” and
“others” options. Most of the respondents were Muslims [80.8% (n = 626)], followed by Hindus [10.3% (n = 80)], Protestants [6.1% (n = 47)], Catholics [1.9% (n = 15)], and Buddhists [0.3%
(n = 2)]; some of them decided not to reveal their religion [0.6% (n = 5)]. More details about the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.
Level of Knowledge about COVID-19
The respondents were grouped into four categories according to their knowledge levels of COVID-19: not knowing at all, know a little, know enough, and know a lot. Most respondents chose
“know enough” [66.8% (n = 518)], followed by
“know a lot” [24.8% (n = 192)], “know a little”
[8.1% (n = 63)], and “not knowing at all” [0.3% (n
= 2)]. There was a significant relationship between sex and the level of knowledge about COVID 19 (p < 0.05). Likewise, occupation and the level of knowledge about COVID-19, as well as the history of being infected with COVID-19 and the level of knowledge about COVID-19 (p < 0.05) (Tables S1 and S2).
Source of Information
Most of the respondents knew about COVID-19 from social media (87.2%, n = 676) and online news (79.2%, n = 614), followed by television (58.8%, n
= 456) and word of mouth (58.7%, n = 455). Less
than 20% of the respondents retrieved information
about COVID-19 from newspapers (13.7%, n = 106)
and radio (11.6%, n = 90). A questionnaire asking
about the source of information about COVID-19
was prepared, and the respondents were allowed to
select multiple answers for each question. Sex and
social media as the source of COVID-19 information
were related (p < 0.05). Similarly, marital status and
online media, social media, and word of mouth as
the sources of COVID-19 information (p < 0.05)
27
The Indonesian Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, Volume 12, Special Issue 1, Februari 2023: 25-34were related. Detailed information is presented in Table S1 and S2.
Disease Background Information
In the study, 99% (n = 767) of the respondents chose virus as a cause of COVID-19, and only 1% (n
= 8) chose bacteria. Meanwhile, for the mechanism of transmission, 94.7% (n = 734) respondents thought that COVID-19 can be transmitted
through droplets, 77.5% (n = 601) thought that it can be transmitted through contaminated surfaces, 19.4% (n = 150) thought that it can be transmitted through food, 18.3% (n = 142) thought that it can be transmitted through water, and 4.1% (n = 32) thought that it can be transmitted through animal bite. Most of our respondents agreed that COVID-19 is an emerging disease (74.6%, n = 578). In addition, 97.7% (n = 757) of our respondents agreed that mask use can reduce the risk of infection. More than one answer could be selected for each question in the questionnaires about the mechanism of transmission and ways to decrease the risk of infection.
Perception of COVID-19
The respondents’ levels of anxiety toward COVID-19 were closely distributed among slightly anxious (30.2%, n = 234), quite anxious (42.3%, n
= 328), and very anxious (19.7%, n = 153) (Figure 1). The combination of fear and anxiety, which is related to respondent risk perception and risk tolerance, was assessed to describe these findings.
Perceptions of newness, severity, infectiousness, contagiousness, seriousness, and total cases of the Table 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of the
Respondents
Characteristics Participants
n %
Sex
Male 300 38.7
Female 475 61.3
Marital Status
Married 368 47.5
Unmarried 407 52.5
Religion
Muslim 626 80.8
Catholic 15 1.9
Protestants 47 6.1
Buddhist 2 0.3
Hindu 80 10.3
Kong Hu Cu 0 0.0
Refuse to reveal 5 0.6
Occupation
Civil Servants 154 19.9
Private Company 250 32.3
Students 219 28.3
Housewives 44 5.7
Not Working 36 4.6
Others 72 9.3
Educational Background
Senior High School 264 34.1
Bachelor’s Degree 376 38.5
Post Graduate Degree 135 17.4 Residencies
Banten 42 5.4
West Java 160 20.6
DKI Jakarta 149 19.2
Central Java 72 9.3
Bali 96 12.4
East Kalimantan 11 1.4
South Sulawesi 122 15.7
Others 123 15.9
Advanced Table 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Respondents
Characteristics Participants
n %
Physical Contact with COVID-19
Yes 53 6.8
No 707 91.2
Not Knowing 15 1.9
Location of Physical Contact
Hospital 7 14.6
Workplaces 23 47.9
School/University 6 12.5
Home Environment 3 6.3
Inside the house 6 12.5
Not Knowing 3 6.3
Others 0 0.0
Frequency of getting infected with COVID-19
Never 360 47.4
Once 281 37.0
More Than Once 52 6.8
Not Knowing 67 8.8
28
Mila Tejamya, et al., Indonesian Community Risk Perception of COVID-19 in 2022…
diseases were assessed to obtain the respondents’
risk perception of COVID-19 (Figure 2).
According to the results, most respondents considered COVID-19 to be an emerging disease (74.6%, n = 578). They agreed that COVID-19 is severe, with the severity perception mainly falling into the categories of quite severe (42.1%, n = 326) and very severe (39.9%, n = 309). The majority of respondents also believed that COVID-19 is a very serious (48.6%, n = 377) and very infectious disease (63.2%, n = 490), which spreads very fast (64.8%, n = 502). Most of them also agreed that the total number of COVID-19 cases up until the time of data collection remained relatively high (64.1%, n = 497).
In this study, risk perception was associated with several individual factors, of which sex, marital status, occupation, residency, and frequency of being infected with COVID-19 were the most influential (Tables S5 and S6).
The level of risk tolerance was moderate to high (Figures 3 and 4), where over half of the respondents (51.7%, n = 401) were convinced that they were quite prepared to face the spread of COVID-19.
They were also sure that their ability to control the risk was “quite able” (56.6%, n = 439) to “very able” (25.0%, n = 194). Almost half (47.4%) of the respondents perceived that they were quite prepared to face COVID-19. Almost all of them (more than 90%) were willing to take preventive actions to control the spread of the virus, such as hand washing (99.1%, n = 768), physical distancing (93.5%, n
= 721), and wearing face masks (99.5% n = 771).
Interestingly, even though 89.5% (n = 694) of the respondents agreed that staying at home brings efficacy, only 72% (n = 558) were willing to take this action.
The data collection for this study was conducted during, if not after, the school semester holidays in Indonesia. Even though the Indonesian government has adjusted the travel regulations, such as using the Peduli Lindungi App to monitor the virus spread and allowing citizens to travel as long as they have been vaccinated with the 3
rddose, approximately 72%
(n = 558) respondents were still willing to stay at home and 89.5% (n = 694) still believed that it helps prevent the spread of COVID-19 (Figure 4).
Figure 1. Level of Anxiety toward COVID-19 in Indonesia (n = 775)
Figure 2. Perception: (A) Newness, (B) Severity,
(C) Infectiousness, (D) Contagiousness,
(E) Seriousness, and (F) Total Cases of
COVID-19 in Indonesia (n = 775)
29
The Indonesian Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, Volume 12, Special Issue 1, Februari 2023: 25-34As in the case of risk perception, risk tolerance was also associated with sociodemographic variables (Table S7 and S8).
Motivation and Hindering Factors in Carrying Out Control Measures
Motivation plays an important role in ensuring that the control measures are effectively implemented. In general, we found that the most common motivating factors for following health protocols were responsibility toward their own health, intention to prevent the spread of COVID- 19 to people around them, and trust in the benefits of implementing these measures (Table 2 and Table 3). In particular, specific answers were also found
as main motivation such as “My job enables me to work from home” as motivation to work for home;
and “none of their immediate family lived in their hometown” that motivates them to not visiting home town during festive holiday (Table 3).
On the other hand, less than 10% of participant will not perform health protocols. The most dominant factors that hinder the respondents from carrying out the control measures, especially for physical distancing and staying at home, were not belief that these measures would help in preventing the spreading of COVID-19 and believed that others would not carry out the measures. “Job requirement”
was also another dominant hindering factors for staying at home (Table 4 and 5).
Figure 3. Perception: (A) Preparedness and (B) Ability to Control the Risk (n = 775)
Figure 4. Perception: (A) Efficacy of Control Measures and (B) Willingness
to Carry Out Control Measures (n = 775)
30
Mila Tejamya, et al., Indonesian Community Risk Perception of COVID-19 in 2022…
DISCUSSION
Disease Background Information and Level of Knowledge about COVID-19
According to the results of this study, most of the respondents (>85%) believed that they had descent knowledge about COVID-19. Female was shown to be more confident with their knowledge on COVID-19. Almost 100% of respondents understood that COVID-19 was caused by virus and transmitted Table 2. Motivation to Carry Out Control Measures
(Hand Sanitizing, Physical Distancing, and Face Mask)
Perception H a n d
Sanitizing P h y s i c a l
Distancing Wearing a Face Mask
n % n % n %
Easy to find handwashing facilities with soap
482 63.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
I have face mask N/A N/A N/A N/A 470 60.9 My job enables
me to work from
home N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
My supervisor suggested me to
work from home N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A None of my
immediate family lives in my hometown
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
None of my extended family lives in my hometown
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
I am often ill 22 2.9 25 3.4 36 4.7 COVID-19 is
a very serious
disease 453 59.5 450 61.2 488 63.2 I am responsible
for my own
health 676 88.8 626 85.2 690 89.4
I am at risk of contracting
COVID-19 403 53.0 457 62.2 498 64.5 I want to prevent
spreading COVID-19 to people around me
653 85.8 608 82.7 652 84.5
I trust that control
measures help 568 74.6 570 77.6 593 76.8 I am following
government
recommendations 171 22.5 209 28.4 232 30.1 If I do not take
these measures, I
may regret it later 200 26.3 182 24.8 223 28.9 Others in my
environment will also carry out the control measures
159 20.9 140 19.0 190 24.6
Others 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Table 3. Motivation to Carry Out Control Measures (Staying at Home and Not Visiting Hometown)
Perception Staying at
Home Not Visiting Hometown
n % n %
Motivation to Carry Out Control Measures (Staying at Home and Not Visiting Hometown)
482 63.3 N/A N/A
I have face mask N/A N/A N/A N/A
My job enables me to work
from home N/A N/A N/A N/A
My supervisor suggested me to
work from home N/A N/A N/A N/A
None of my immediate family
lives in my hometown N/A N/A N/A N/A None of my extended family
lives in my hometown N/A N/A N/A N/A
I am often ill 22 2.9 25 3.4
COVID-19 is a very serious
disease 319 51.7 2 0.4
I am responsible for my own
health 439 71.2 118 25.5
I am at risk of COVID-19 312 50.6 168 36.3 I want to prevent spreading
COVID-19 to people around
me 390 63.2 123 26.6
I trust that control measures
help 364 59.0 202 43.6
I am following government
recommendations 156 25.3 160 34.6
If I do not take these measures,
I may regret it later 137 22.2 87 18.8 Others in my environment
will also carry out the control
measures 100 16.2 42 9.1
Others 0 0.0 0 0.0
31
The Indonesian Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, Volume 12, Special Issue 1, Februari 2023: 25-34through droplets (94.7%) and contaminated surfaces (77.5%). However, female respondents also believed that COVID-19 was transmitted via water/
waterborne (P<0.01). This finding emphasized the discrepancy of COVID-19 knowledge over sex.
Not only knowledge on COVID-19 transmission mode, perception on control measures (proper hand
washing, physical distancing, wearing a face mask, staying at home and eating nutricional food) was associated with sex (P<0.05). We found that more female believe in those measures. This finding was in accordance with a research conducted in Kalimantan, a province in Indonesia, on the significant relationship between sex and knowledge on COVID-19 prevention also found that women showed better perception over health protocols (Anggun et al., 2021). Sultana et al (2020) found that in Bangladesh females had higher levels of correct knowledge about staying at home during the pandemic to minimize transmission. In contrast, a study from India found that women were less likely to know the main symptoms of COVID-19 and less likely to practice key preventive behaviors compared to men (Pinchoff et al., 2020).
Since sex can be linked with health knowledge and behavior, effective health promotion and Table 4. Hindering Factors to Carry Out Control
Measures (Hand Sanitizing, Physical Distancing, and Face Mask)
Perception H a n d
Sanitizing P h y s i c a l
Distancing Wearing a Face Mask
n % n % n %
Difficult to find handwashing facilities with soap
2 16.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Absence of face
mask N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 33.3
Job requirement N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Financial cause N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A My immediate
family lives in
my hometown N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A My extended
family lives in
my hometown N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I am never ill 3 25.0 1 2.2 1 33.3 COVID-19 is not
a serious disease 0 - 5 11.1 1 33.3 I am not worried
about my health 0 - 0 - 0 0
I do not think I am at risk of contracting COVID-19
1 8.3 3 6.7 0 0
I do not think that I would spread COVID-19 to others
3 16.7 3 6.7 0 0
I doubt that the control measures
will help 5 41.7 13 28.9 1 33.3
Takes too much
effort 1 8.3 13 28.9 1 33.3
I feel that too little information is provided about the control measures
1 8.3 3 6.7 0 0
People in my environment will also not carry out the measures
0 - 16 35.6 1 33.3
Others 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Table 5. Hindering Factors to Carry Out Control Measures (Staying at Home and Not Visiting Hometown)
Perception Staying at
Home Not Visiting Hometown
n % n %
Difficult to find handwashing
facilities with soap N/A N/A N/A N/A Absence of face mask N/A N/A N/A N/A
Job requirement 188 87.0 N/A N/A
Financial cause 79 36.6 N/A N/A
My immediate family lives in
my hometown N/A N/A 124 29.1
My extended family lives in
my hometown N/A N/A 269 63.1
I am never ill 3 1.4 0 -
Covid-19 is not a serious
disease 7 3.2 11 2.6
I am not worried about my
health 4 1.9 12 2.8
I do not think I am at risk of
contracting Covid-19 5 2.3 9 2.1
I do not think that I would
spread Covid-19 to others 3 1.4 24 5.6 I doubt that the control
measures will help 43 19.9 37 8.7 Takes too much effort 13 6.0 28 6.6 I feel that too little information
is provided about the control
measures 8 3.7 12 2.8
People in my environment will
also not carry out the measures 41 19.0 15 3.5
Others 0 0.0 0 0.0
32
Mila Tejamya, et al., Indonesian Community Risk Perception of COVID-19 in 2022…
communication need to be more specialized toward the target demographic, which the World Health Organization (2018) calls the sex approach.
In addition to sex, occupation and history of being infected with COVID-19 were also related with the level of knowledge about COVID-19 (P
< 0.01) (Table S1) Working and having history of COVID-19 increased their perception on COVID-19 knowledge.
Consistent with our findings, In Alreshidi (2021) found that occupation was associated with knowledge on COVID-19. Workers in private sector were more knowledgeable in COVID-19 compare to other occupation. This might be related with access to health information.
Source of Information about COVID-19
Many of our respondents used social media (87.2%) to obtain information about COVID-19.
Previous studies have shown that social media became a highly accessible source for finding information about COVID-19 (Farhana, 2020;
Sultana et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2020; Tejamaya et al., 2021). This is followed by online media, television, word of mouth, newspapers, and radio.
Living in this era is advantageous because it is easy to access and get information related to the issues or problems that are being discussed.
However, Sultana et al. (2022) proved that social media can also spread misleading and false information, which results in people being poorly educated about the disease. For example, some of the respondents in their research did not know that diarrhea, fatigue, muscle pain, and vomiting are COVID-19 symptoms. Since knowledge and behavior are found to be related, poor knowledge can lead to poor behavior and reduce the effectiveness of controlling the disease. Thus, the Indonesian government and risk communicators should be aware of potential hoax news and clarify the misinformation spread through online platforms, since social media and online news are the most accessed sources of information about COVID-19.
Risk Perception and Risk Tolerance
Almost all our respondents perceived COVID- 19 as an emerging disease that is serious, infectious, and contagious, with a high number of cases.
In addition, most of them believed that they are moderately prepared and able to control the risk. A recent survey on society behavior during COVID-
19 conducted by the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics, widely known as BPS, in 2022 found results similar to this study’s findings. The majority of their respondents implemented control measures, such as wearing face masks, hand washing, physical distancing, and reduced mobility (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2022). Their respondents believed in the efficacy of the control measures and were willing to follow them, which is in line with our previous study (Tejamaya et al., 2021) and the result of the survey conducted by the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics during 2020–2022, which showed that nationally, most Indonesian citizens have complied with the government regulations on COVID-19, such as wearing masks, hand washing, and physical distancing (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2021; Badan Pusat Statistik RI, 2020). This result is also supported by the theory that a high perception of efficacy will influence perceptions of threat, hence affecting adaptive behavior in an attempt to control the threat (Chen and Yang, 2019). Sociodemographic factors, such as sex, occupation and infection history, had statistically significant associations with most of the risk perception and risk tolerance variables.
Perception of efficacy and willingness to carry out the control measures in this study are comparable with the observations in several previous studies, such as those conducted in Saudi Arabia and Hong Kong (Kwok et al., 2020; Alkhaldi et al., 2021). An equivalent level of risk perception and risk tolerance was found in this study as has also been found in previous studies (Tejamaya, 2021). It indicates that the respondents were aware of the spread of COVID- 19 in general but also believe in their ability to control the risk. Therefore, most of respondents had moderate anxiety toward COVID-19. In managing risk and emotions, there should be a balance between the levels of risk perception and risk tolerance.
In this study, similar level of risk perception and risk tolerance were found which indicates that the respondents feared the spread of COVID-19 in general. Most respondents had moderate to high anxiety toward COVID-19, which ranged from slightly anxious, quite anxious, to very anxious.
In managing risk and emotions, there should be a balance between the levels of risk perception and risk tolerance.
CONCLUSION
Most of our respondents gained information
about COVID-19 from social media and perceived
33
The Indonesian Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, Volume 12, Special Issue 1, Februari 2023: 25-34that their level of knowledge was sufficient.
Moderate level of anxiety due to COVID-19 in Indonesia society was contributed by positive risk perception and positive risk tolerance. Main factors associated with perception on knowledge, risk perception and risk tolerance that need to be considered for a more effective health promotion were sex, occupation, and infection history. More extensive health promotion on COVID-19 must be available for not working and never been infected by COVID-19 population.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Directorate of the Research and Community Service at the University of Indonesia for funding this study according to Contract Number NKB-624/UN2.RST/
HKP.05.00/2022.
REFERENCES
Alkhaldi, G. et al. (2021) ‘Perceptions towards COVID-19 and Adoption of Preventive Measures among the Public in Saudi Arabia: A Cross Sectional Study’, BMC Public Health, 21(1), pp. 1-21
Alreshidi, M.S. and Gonzales, F. (2021) ‘Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Saudi Citizens on COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-region Survey’, Makara Journal of Health Research, 25(3), pp.
146−152.
Anggun, W. (2021) ‘Hubungan Karakteristik Individu Dengan Pengetahuan Tentang Pencegahan Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pada Masyarakat Di Kalimantan Selatan’, Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat, 15(1), pp. 42–46.
Badan Pusat Statistik (2021) Perilaku Masyarakat Pada Masa PPKM Darurat, Badan Pusat Statistik Republik Indonesia.
Badan Pusat Statistik (2022) Perilaku masyarakat pada masa pandemi covid-19; Hasil survei perilaku masyarakat pada masa pandemi covid- 19 periode 16-25 Februari 2022, Badan Pusat Statistik Republik Indonesia.
Badan Pusat Statistik RI. (2020) Perilaku Masyarakat Di Masa Pandemi Covid-19, Perilaku Masyarakat di Masa Pandemi Covid-19 BPS RI.
Betsch, C., Wieler, L.H. and Habersaat, K. (2020)
‘Monitoring Behavioural Insights Related to COVID-19’, The Lancet, 395(10232), pp. 1255- 1256.
Chen, L. and Yang, X. (2019) ‘Using EPPM to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Fear Appeal Messages Across Different Media Outlets to Increase the Intention of Breast Self-Examination Among Chinese Women’, Health Communication, 34(11), pp. 1369–1376.
Farhana, K. (2020) ‘Knowledge and Perception Towards Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Bangladesh’, SSRN Electronic Journal, 6(April), pp. 76–79.
Gaube, S., Lermer, E. and Fischer, P. (2019)
‘The Concept of Risk Perception in Health- Related Behavior Theory and Behavior Change BT - Perceived Safety: A Multidisciplinary Perspective’, in M. Raue, B. Streicher, and E.
Lermer (eds). Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 101–118.
Kwok, K.O. et al. (2020) ‘Community Responses during the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Epidemic in Hong Kong: Risk Perception, Information Exposure and Preventive measures’, Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(7), pp. 1575–1579.
Lotfi, M., Hamblin, M.R. and Rezaei, N. (2020)
‘COVID-19: Transmission, prevention, and potential therapeutic opportunities’, Clinica Chimica Acta, 508(April), pp. 254–266.
Natalia, L. (2020) ‘Presiden: ibu anak warga Indonesia positif covid 19’. Jakarta: Antara.
Pinchoff, J. et al (2020) ‘Gender specific differences in COVID-19 knowledge, behavior and health effects among adolescents and young adults in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, India’, PLoS ONE, 15(12), pp. 1–13.
Sultana, M. et al. (2020) ‘Gender differences in Knowledge, Attitude and Preparedness to Respond to COVID-19 among adult population in Bangladesh: A Cross-sectional Study’, Population Medicine, 4(January), pp. 1–11.
Satuan Tugas Penanganan COVID-19 (2022) SITUASI COVID-19 NASIONAL.
Schulman, J.S. (2020) ‘Coronavirus Disease Covid- 19’,)
Seale, H. et al. (2020) ‘COVID-19 is Rapidly
Changing: Examining Public Perceptions
34
Mila Tejamya, et al., Indonesian Community Risk Perception of COVID-19 in 2022…
and Behaviors in Response to this Evolving Pandemic’, PLoS ONE, 15(6), pp. 1–13.
Tejamaya, M. et al. (2021) ‘Risk Perception of COVID-19 in Indonesia During the First Stage of the Pandemic’, Frontiers in Public Health, 9(October), pp. 1–10.
Vai, B. et al. (2020) ‘Risk Perception and Media in Shaping Protective Behaviors: Insights From the Early Phase of COVID-19 Italian Outbreak’, Frontiers in Psychology, 11, pp. 1-8.
West, R. et al. (2020) ‘Applying Principles of Behaviour Change to Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Transmission’, Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), pp. 451–459.
World Health Organization (2020) WHO Timeline - COVID-19.
World Health Organization (2020b) WHO Director- General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19.
Zhong, B.L. et al. (2020) ‘Knowledge, attitudes, and
practices towards COVID-19 among Chinese
Residents during the Rapid Rise Period of the
COVID-19 Outbreak: A Quick Online Cross-
Sectional Survey’, International Journal of
Biological Sciences, 16(10), pp. 1745–1752.
Supplementary Table
Table S1. Association between Knowledge on COVID-19 with Sex, Marital Status, Religion, and Occupation (N=775; %)
Risk Perceptio
n Key Element
Sex Marital Status Religion Occupation
Male Femal e
P- value
Marri ed
Unmar ried
P- value
(x <
0.05) Musli
m
Cath olic
Protest ants
Budd hist
Hind u
Ko ng Hu Cu
Refu se to Reve
al
P- value
(x <
0.05) Civil Serva nt
Privat e Comp
any
Stude nts
House wife
Not work ing
Othe rs
P- val ue
A. Knowledge on COVID-19
1
Level of Knowledge on COVID-19 None 2 (0.7) 0 (0.0)
0.0001
1 (0.3) 1 (0.3)
0.273
1 (0.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1.2)
0
(0) 0 (0)
0.622
0 (0.0) 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
1 (1.4)
0.0 00 Little 34
(11.3) 29 (6.1)
37 (10.1)
26 (6.4)
53 (8.5)
1
(6.7) 2 (4.3) 0 (0) 6 (7.5)
0 (0)
1 (20.0
)
8 (5.2) 21 (8.4)
10
(4.6) 3 (6.8) 8 (22.2
)
13 (18.1
) Avera
ge
176 (58.7)
342 (72.0)
237 (64.4)
281 (69.0)
422 (67.4)
11 (73.3
)
29 (61.7)
2 (100)
53 (66.2
) 0 (0)
1 (20.0
)
100 (64.9)
159 (63.6)
150 (68.5)
35 (79.5)
24 (66.7
)
50 (69.4
) Above
Avera ge
88 (29.3)
104 (21.9)
93 (25.3)
99 (24.3)
150 (24.0)
3 (20.0
)
16
(34.0) 0 (0) 20 (25.0
) 0 (0)
3 (60.0
)
46 (29.9)
69 (27.6)
59 (26.9)
6 (13.6)
4 (11.1
) 8 (11.1
)
2
Source of Information Online
News
229 (76.3)
385 (81.1)
0.137
266 (72.3)
348
(85.5) 0.0001 498 (79.6)
13 (86.7
)
38 (80.9)
2 (100.
0) 58 (72.5
) 0 (0)
5 (100.
0)
0.459 119 (77.3)
194 (77.6)
196 (89.5)
33 (75.0)
23 (63.9
)
49 (68.1
) 0.0
00 Social
Media 246 (82.0)
430 (90.5)
0.001
300 (81.5)
376
(92.4) 0.0001 552 (88.2)
14 (93.3
)
40 (85.1)
2 (100.
0) 64 (80.0
) 0 (0)
4 (80.0
)
0.360
131 (85.1)
208 (83.2)
212 (96.8)
34 (77.3)
32 (88.9
)
59 (81.9
) 0.0
00 Televi
sion
174 (58.0)
282 (59.4)
0.706
215 (58.4)
241 (59.2)
0.881
365 (58.3)
12 (80.0
)
25 (53.2)
2 (100.
0) 48 (60.0
) 0 (0)
4 (80.0
)
0.323
95 (61.7)
136 (54.4)
145 (66.2)
24 (54.5)
18 (50.0
)
38 (52.8
) 0.0
74 Newsp
aper
50 (16.7)
56 (11.8)
0.069
60 (16.3)
46 (11.3)
0.550
82 (13.1)
2 (13.3
)
8
(17.0) 0 (0) 14 (17.5
) 0
(0) 0 (0) 0.743
35 (22.7)
35 (14.0)
20 (9.1)
8 (18.2)
0 (0.0)
8 (11.1
) 0.0
01
Radio 37
(12.3) 53 (11.2)
0.702
51 (13.9)
39 (9.6)
0.081
73 (11.7)
1 (6.7)
5
(10.6) 0 (0) 10 (12.5
) 0 (0)
1 (20.0
)
0.957
25 (16.2)
35 (14.0)
19 (8.7)
5 (11.4)
1 (2.8)
5 (6.9)
0.0 58 Word
of Mouth
172 (57.3)
283 (59.6)
0.587
197 (53.5)
258 (63.4)
0.006
368 (58.8)
9 (60.0
)
33 (70.2)
2 (100.
0) 40 (50.0
) 0 (0)
3 (60.0
)
0.261
81 (52.6)
137 (54.8)
160 (73.1)
26 (59.1)
18 (50.0
)
33 (45.8
) 0.0
00
Others 0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0
(0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) -
Table S2. Association between Knowledge on COVID-19 with Education, Residency, Physical Contact, and Frequency of Getting COVID-19 (N=775; %)
Risk Perception Key Element
Education Residency Physical Contact Frequency of Getting COVID-19
<=Se nior Highs
chool Bach elor's
Degr ee
Post Gra duat e
P- va lu e
Ban ten
West Java
DKI Jaka rta
Cen tral Jav
a
Bali
East Kalim antan
Sout h Sula wesi
Othe rs
P- va lu e
Yes No Not kno win g
P- value
Neve r
Onc e
Mor e tha
n Onc
e
Not kno win g
P- val ue
A. Knowledge on COVID-19
1
Level of Knowledge on Covid-19?
None
1 (0.4)
1 (0.3)
0 (0.00
)
0.
13 0
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.7)
0 (0.0)
1
(1.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0.
05 3
0 (0.0)
2 (0.3)
0 (0.0)
0.125
2
(0.6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
0.0 00
1 Little
30 (11.4)
29 (7.7)
4 (3.0)
5 (11.
9) 7 (4.4)
15 (10.1
) 2 (2.8)
10 (10.
4)
0 (0.0) 18 (14.8
) 6 (4.9)
4 (7.5)
59 (8.3)
0 (0.0)
40 (11.1
)
18 (6.4)
4 (7.7)
1 (1.5) Average
178 (67.4)
256 (68.1 )
84 (62.2
)
26 (61.
9)
113 (70.6 )
87 (58.4
)
55 (76.
4) 62 (64.
6) 6 (54.5)
76 (62.3
)
93 (75.6
)
28 (52.
8)
481 (68.0 )
9 (60.
0)
243 (67.5 )
193 (68.7 )
20 (38.
5) 53 (79.
1) Above
Average 55 (20.8)
90 (23.9
)
47 (34.8
)
11 (26.
2) 40 (25.0
)
46 (30.9
)
15 (20.
8) 23 (24.
0) 5 (45.5)
28 (23.0
)
24 (19.5
)
21 (39.
6)
165 (23.3 )
6 (40.
0)
75 (20.8
)
70 (24.9
)
28 (53.
8) 13 (19.
4)
2
Source of Information
Online
News
204 (77.3)
300 (79.8 )
110 (81.5 )
0.
57 7
34 (81.
0)
129 (80.6 )
119 (79.9 )
67 (93.
1) 67 (69.
8)
10 (90.9)
100 (82.0 )
88 (71.5
) 0.
06 0
39 (73.
6)
564 (79.8 )
11 (73.
3)
0.479
272 (75.6 )
230 (81.9 )
43 (82.
7) 58 (86.
6) 0.0 81
Social Media
234 (88.6)
329 (87.5 )
113 (83.7 )
0.
36 8
31 (73.
8)
147 (91.9 )
130 (87.2 )
68 (94.
4) 75 (78.
1) 9 (81.8)
108 (88.5 )
108 (87.8 )
0.
00 4
44 (83.
0)
619 (87.6 )
13 (86.
7)
0.633
307 (85.3 )
248 (88.3 )
44 (84.
6) 64 (95.
5) 0.1 14
Televisio n
165 (62.5)
213 (56.6 )
78 (57.8
) 0.
32 2
22 (52.
4) 92 (57.5
)
87 (58.4
)
58 (80.
6) 50 (52.
1) 7 (63.6)
73 (59.8
)
67 (54.5
) 0.
01 3
30 (56.
6)
417 (59.0 )
9 (60.
0)
0.940
220 (61.1 )
157 (55.9 )
28 (53.
8) 42 (62.
7) 0.4 35
Newspap er
23 (8.7)
55 (14.6
)
28 (20.7
) 0.
00 3
5 (11.
9) 22 (13.8
)
14 (9.4)
8 (11.
1) 16 (16.
7)
0 (0.0) 19 (15.6
)
22 (17.9
) 0.
37 7
3 (5.7)
100 (14.1 )
3 (20.
0)
0.172
49 (13.6
)
40 (14.2
) 8 (15.
4) 6 (9.0)
0.6 89
Radio
19 (7.2)
51 (13.5
)
20 (14.8
) 0.
02 1
7 (16.
7) 22 (13.8
)
13 (8.7)
11 (15.
3) 11 (11.
5)
0 (0.0) 13 (10.7
)
13 (10.6
) 0.
58 8
4 (7.5)
85 (12.0
) 1 (6.7)
0.515
39 (10.8
)
38 (13.5
) 9 (17.
3) 3 (4.5)
0.1 06
Word of Mouth
166 (62.9)
211 (56.1 )
78 (57.8
) 0.
22 5
23 (54.
8)
101 (63.1 )
82 (55.0
)
50 (69.
4) 45 (46.
9) 9 (81.8)
75 (61.5
)
70 (56.9
) 0.
04 6
27 (50.
9)
418 (59.1 )
10 (66.
7)
0.415
209 (58.1 )
169 (60.1 )
25 (48.
1) 42 (62.
7)
0.3
69
Others 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) -
Tabel S3. Association between Disease Background Information on COVID-19 with Sex, Marital Status, Religion, and Occupation (N=775; %)
Risk Perception
Key Element
Sex Marital Status Religion Occupation
Male Fema le
P- value
Marr ied
Unma rried
P- value
(x <
0.05) Musli
m
Cath olic
Protes tants
Budd hist
Hind u
Ko ng Hu Cu
Refu se to Reve
al P- value
(x <
0.05)
Civil Serva nt
Priva te comp
any
Stude nts
House wife
Not work ing
Other s
P- valu
e B. Disease Background Information
1
Cause of COVID-19 Virus
298 (99.3)
469 (98.7)
0.718
365 (99.2)
402
(98.8) 0.728
618 (98.7)
15 (100.0
)
47 (100.0)
2 (100.
0)
80 (100.0
) 0 (0)
5 (100.
0) 0.860
154 (100.0
)
249 (99.6)
216 (98.6)
41 (93.2)
35 (97.2
)
72 (100.0
) 0.00
2 Bacteria
2 (0.7) 6
(1.3)
3
(0.8) 5 (1.2) 8
(1.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0
(0) 0 (0) 0 (0.0) 1
(0.4)
3
(1.4) 3 (6.8) 1 (2.8)
0 (0.0) Fungi
0 (0.0)
0
(0.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0
(0) 0 (0) -
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0
(0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0) Nemato
da 0 (0.0) 0
(0.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) -
0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0
(0) 0 (0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0
(0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
2
Transmission
Droplet
279 (93.0)
455 (95.8)
0.127 354 (96.2)
380 (93.4)
0.107
588 (93.9)
14 (93.3)
45 (95.7)
2 (100.
0)
80 (100.0
) 0 (0)
5 (100.
0)
0.329
152
(98.7) 229 (91.6)
213 (97.3)
40 (90.9)
31 (86.1
)
69 (95.8)
0.00 2 Contami
nated Surface
227 (75.7)
374 (78.7)
0.363 287 (78.0)
314 (77.1)
0.796
483 (77.2)
12 (80.0)
37 (78.7)
2 (100.
0)
65 (81.2)
0 (0)
2 (40.0
)
0.369
125
(81.2) 193 (77.2)
172 (78.5)
36 (81.8)
31 (86.1
)
44 (61.1)
0.01 3
Food- borne
55 (18.3)
95 (20.0)
0.632 62
(16.8)
88
(21.6) 0.102
125 (20.0)
4 (26.7)
10
(21.3) 0 (0) 9 (11.2)
0 (0)
2 (40.0
)
0.307 18
(11.7)
53 (21.2)
54 (24.7)
10 (22.7)
5 (13.9
)
10 (13.9)
0.02 7
Water- borne
41 (13.7)
101 (21.3)
0.008 61
(16.6)
81 (19.9)
0.265
112 (17.9)
4 (26.7)
11 (23.4)
1 (50.0)
11 (13.8)
0 (0)
3 (60.0
)
0.080
16
(10.4) 37 (14.8)
54 (24.7)
18 (40.9)
7 (19.4
)
10 (13.9)
0.00 001
Animals Bite
12 (4.0)
20 (4.2)
1.000
16 (4.3)
16 (3.9)
0.857
29 (4.6)
1
(6.7) 1 (2.1) 0 (0) 1 (1.2)
0
(0) 0 (0)
0.685 2 (1.3) 13 (5.2)
7 (3.2)
5 (11.4)
4 (11.1
)
1 (1.4)
0.00 7
Tabel S4. Association between Background Disease on COVID-19 with Education, Residency, Physical Contact, and Frequency of Getting COVID-19 (N=775; %)
Risk Perception
Key Element
Education Residency Physical Contact Frequency of Getting COVID-19
<=Sen ior Highs
chool Bache
lor's Degre e
Post Grad uate
P- val ue
Bante n
West Java
DKI Jakar ta
Cent ral Java
Bali East Kalim antan
South Sula wesi
Other s
P- val ue
Yes No Not know
ing P- value
Neve r
Once Mor e than Onc
e
Not know ing
P- val ue
B. Background Disease on COVID-19
1
Cause of COVID-19 Virus
257 (97.3)
375 (99.7)
135 (100.0
) 0.0
06 42 (100.
0)
158 (98.8)
147 (98.7)
70 (97.2
)
96 (100.
0)
11 (100.0)
120 (98.4)
123 (100.0
) 0.5
82 51 (96.2
)
701 (99.2)
15 (100.
0)
0.117
356 (98.9)
278 (98.9)
51 (98.1
)
67 (100.
0) 0.7
76 Bacteria
7 (2.7) 1 (0.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
2 (1.3)
2 (1.3)
2 (2.8)
0
(0.0) 0 (0.0) 2
(1.6) 0 (0.0) 2
(3.8) 6 (0.8)
0 (0.0)
4 (1.1)
3 (1.1)
1
(1.9) 0 (0) Fungi
0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0
(0.0) 0 (0.0) 0
(0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 0 0
0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Nemato
da 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0
(0.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0
(0.0) 0 (0.0) 0
(0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 0 0
0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
2
Transmission
Droplet
247 (93.6)
354 (94.1)
133 (98.5)
0.0 89
38 (90.5)
151 (94.4)
141 (94.6)
69 (95.8
)
92 (95.8)
11 (100.0)
115 (94.3)
117 (95.1)
0.9 14
47 (88.7
)
672 (95.0)
15 (100.
0)
0.089 338
(92.9) 266 (94.7)
51 (98.1
)
64 (95.5)
0.6 36 Contam
inated Surface
192 (72.7)
300 (79.8)
109 (80.7)
0.0 67
30 (71.4)
128 (80.0)
113 (75.8)
57 (79.2
)
75 (78.1)
9 (81.8)
100 (82.0)
89 (72.4)
0.6 33
34 (64.2
)
556 (78.6)
11 (73.3)
0.047 279
(77.5) 218 (77.6)
38 (73.1
)
55 (82.1)
0.7 07
Food- borne
61 (23.1)
71 (18.9)
18 (13.3)
0.0 62
5 (11.9)
34 (21.3)
31 (20.8)
16 (22.2
)
11 (11.5)
4 (36.4)
23 (18.9)
26 (21.1)
0.2 84
8 (15.1
)
136 (19.2)
6 (40.0)
0.094 66
(18.3) 52 (18.5)
11 (21.2
)
15 (22.4)
0.8 48
Water- borne
64 (24.2)
61 (16.2)
17 (12.6)
0.0 06
6 (14.3)
40 (25.0)
25 (16.8)
11 (15.3
)
14 (14.6)
3 (27.3)
23 (18.9)
20 (16.3)
0.3 54
7 (13.2
)
130 (18.4)
5 (33.3)
0.203 68
(18.9) 52 (18.5)
5 (9.6)
12 (17.9)
0.4 38
Animals Bite
14 (5.3)
17
(4.5) 1 (0.7) 0.0 83
1 (2.4)
11 (6.9)
7 (4.7)
1 (1.4)
4
(4.2) 1 (9.1) 5
(4.1) 2 (1.6) 0.3 80
6 (11.3
)
25 (3.5)
1 (6.7)
0.020 22
(6.1) 6 (2.1)
1 (1.9)
2 (3.0)
0.0 62
Tabel S5. Association between Risk Perception on COVID-19 with Sex, Marital Status, Religion, and Occupation (N=775; %)
Risk Perception Key Element
Sex Marital Status Religion Occupation
Male Fema le
P- value
Marr ied
Unma rried
P- value
(x <
0.05) Musli
m
Cath olic
Protes tants
Budd hist
Hind u
Ko ng Hu Cu
Refu se to Reve al
P- value
(x <
0.05) Civil Serva nt
Priva te comp
any
Stude nts
Hous ewife
Not worki
ng
Othe rs
P- valu
e C. Risk Perception
1
Covid-19 Prevention Proper
hand- washing
278 (92.7)
461 (97.1)
0.008 348
(94.6) 39.1 (96.1)
0.393
592 (94.6)
14 (93.3)
46 (97.9)
2 (100.
0) 80 (100.
0) 0 (0)
5 (100.
0)
0.314
152
(98.7) 234 (93.6)
214 (97.7)
41 (93.2)
36 (100.
0) 62 (86.1
)
0.000 174
Physical Distancing
288 (96.0)
469 (98.7)
0.025 362
(98.4) 395 (97.1)
0.243
610 (97.4)
15 (100.
0)
46 (97.9)
2 (100.
0) 79 (98.8)
0 (0)
5 (100.
0)
0.955
154 (100.0
)
242 (96.8)
215 (98.2)
42 (95.5)
34 (94.4)
70 (97.2
)
0.191
Wearing face mask
269 (89.7)
456 (96.0)
0.001 337
(91.6) 388 (95.3)
0.040
583 (93.1)
14 (93.3)
46 (97.9)
2 (100.
0) 75 (93.8)
0 (0)
5 (100.
0)
0.831
147
(95.5) 226 (90.4)
215 (98.2)
40 (90.9)
33 (91.7)
64 (88.9
)
0.007
Staying at home
153 (51.0)
288 (60.6)
0.009 193 (52.4)
248 (60.9)
0.020
356 (56.9)
13 (86.7)
30 (63.8)
1 (50.0
)
36 (45.0)
0 (0)
5 (100.
0)
0.011 85
(55.2) 125 (50.0)
154 (70.3)
26 (59.1)
22 (61.1)
29 (40.3
)
0.000 018
Exercising at home
146 (48.7)
264 (55.6)
0.071 175
(47.6) 235 (57.7)
0.005
329 (52.6)
7 (46.7)
28 (59.6)
1 (50.0
)
42 (52.5)
0 (0)
3 (60.0
)
0.943
79
(51.3) 117 (46.8)
148 (67.6)
19 (43.2)
14 (38.9)
33 (45.8
)
0.000 026 Eating
nutritional food
226 (75.3)
401 (84.4)
0.002 291
(79.1) 336 (82.6)
0.255 507
(81.0) 10 (66.7
0
39 (83.0)
2 (100.
0) 64 (80.0) 0
(0) 5 (100.
0)
0.579
126
(81.8) 196 (78.4)
189 (86.3)
26 (81.8)
29 (80.6)
51 (70.8
)
0.076
2
Newness New emerging disease
211 (70.3)
367 (77.3)
0.034
274 (74.5)
304 (74.7)
1.000
455 (72.7)
15 (100.
0)
34 (72.3)
1 (50.0
) 70 (87.5)
0 (0)
3 (60.0
) 0.012
118 (76.6) 187
(74.8) 167 (76.3)
31 (70.5)
24 (66.7)
51 (70.8
) 0.773 Reemerging
disease 89
(29.7) 108
(22.7) 94
(25.5)
103 (25.3)
171
(27.3) 0 (0) 13 (27.7)
1 (50.0
) 10 (12.5)
0 (0)
2 (40.0
)
36 (23.4) 63
(25.2) 52 (23.7)
13 (29.5)
12 (33.3)
21 (29.2
)
3 A
Total cases
No cases 11
(3.7) 11 (2.3)
0.001
11 (3)
11 (2.7)
0.000 1
20
(3.2) 0 (0) 1 (2.1) 0 (0)
1 (1.2)
0 (0) 0 (0)
0.862
4 (2.6) 7
(2.8) 4
(1.8) 0 (0.0)
3 (8.3)
4 (5.6)
0.000 Low
50 (16.7)
38
(8.0) 60
(16.3)
28 (6.9)
74 (11.8)
1 (6.7)
5 (10.6)
0 (0) 8 (10.0)
0 (0) 0(0)
21 (13.6) 30
(12.0) 7 (3.2)
8 (18.2)
2 (5.6)
20 (27.8
) Quite high
67 (22.3)
101
(21.3) 89
(24.2)
79 (19.4)
130 (20.8)
4 (26.7)
15 (31.9)
1 (50.0
) 18 (22.5)
0
(0) 0(0) 35
(22.7) 66 (26.4)
30 (13.7)
10 (22.7)
10 (27.8)
17 (23.6
) High
172 (57.3)
325
(68.4) 208
(56.5)
289 (71.0)
402 (64.2)
10
(66.7) 26
(55.3) 1 (50.0
) 53 (66.2)
0 (0)
5 (100.
0)
94 (61.0) 147
(58.8) 178 (81.3)
26 (59.1)
21 (58.3)
31 (43.1
) 3
B Severity
Not severe
13 (4.3)
13 (2.7)
0.000 13
14 (3.8)
12 (2.9)
0.010
21
(3.4) 0 (0) 3 (6.4) 0 (0) 2 (2.5)
0 (0) 0 (0)
0.458
8 (5.2)
10 (4.0)
4
(1.8) 0 (0.0)
1 (2.8)
3 (4.2)
0.002 Slightly
severe
64 (21.3)
50
(10.5) 70
(19.0)
44 (10.8)
92
(14.7) 2
(13.3)
5 (10.6 ) 0 (0)
15 (18.8)
0 (0) 0 (0)
23 (14.9)
42 (16.8)
14 (6.4)
9 (20.5)
5 (13.9)
21 (29.2
) Quite
severe
108 (36.0)
218
(45.9) 147
(39.9)
179 (44.0)
260
(41.5) 9
(60.0)
25 (53.2)
2 (100.
0) 29 (36.2)
0 (0)
1 (20.0
)
63 (40.9)
108 (43.2)
93 (42.5)
19 (43.2)
17 (47.2)
26 (36.1
)
Very severe
115 (38.3)
194
(40.8) 137
(37.2)
172 (42.3)
253 (40.4)
4 (26.7)
14
(29.8) 0 (0) 34 (42.5)
0 (0)
4 (80.0
)
60 (39.0)
90 (36.0)
108 (49.3)
16 (36.4)
13 (36.1)
22 (30.6
)
3 C
Infectiousness Not
infectious
10 (3.3)
6 (1.3)
0.001
11
(3.0) 5 (1.2)
0.001
15
(2.4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1.2)
0 (0) 0 (0)
0.870
4 (2.6) 7 (2.8)
1
(0.5) 0 (0.0)
1 (2.8)
3 (4.2)
0.000 Slightly
infectious
49 (16.3)
40
(8.4) 56
(15.2)
33 (8.1)
75
(12.0) 1
(6.7)
7 (14.9) 0 (0)
6 (7.5)
0 (0) 0 (0)
18 (11.7)
28 (11.2)
10 (4.6)
7 (15.9)
6 (16.7)
20 (27.8
) Quite
Infectious
66 (22.0)
114
(24.0) 92
(25.0)
88 (21.6)
149 (23.8)
4 (26.7)
10
(21.3) 0 (0) 17 (21.2)
0
(0) 0 (0) 36
(23.4) 67 (26.8)
39 (17.8)
13 (29.5)
11 (30.6)
14 (19.4
) Very
infectious
175 (58.3)
315
(66.3) 209
(56.8)
281 (69.0)
387 (61.8)
10 (66.7)
30 (63.8)
2 (100.
0) 56 (70.0)
0 (0)
5 (100.
0)
96 (62.3)
148 (59.2)
169 (77.2)
24 (54.5)
18 (50.0)
35 (48.6
)
3 D
Contagiousness
Not fast
15 (5.0)
4 (0.8)
0.000 147
11
(3.0) 8 (2.0)
0.003
17
(2.7) 0 (0) 1 (2.1) 0 (0) 1 (1.2)
0 (0) 0 (0)
0.942
4 (2.6) 8 (3.2)
1
(0.5) 0 (0.0)
1 (2.8)
5 (6.9)
0.000 Slightly fast
42 (14.0)
41
(8.6) 54
(14.7)
29 (7.1)
71 (11.3)
1 (6.7)
5
(10.6) 0 (0) 6 (7.5)
0
(0) 0 (0) 17
(11.0) 26 (10.4)
10 (4.6)
7 (15.9)
4 (11.1)
19 (26.4
)
Quite fast
58 (19.3)
113
(23.8) 84
(22.8)
87 (21.4)
137 (21.9)
4 (26.7)
13 (27.7)
0 (0) 17 (21.2)
0
(0) 0 (0) 39
(25.3) 53 (21.2)
45 (20.5)
12 (27.3)
10 (27.8)
12 (16.7
)
Very fast
185 (61.7)
317
(66.7) 219
(59.5)
283 (69.5)
401 (64.1)
10
(66.7) 28
(59.6) 2 (100.
0) 56 (70.0)
0 (0)
5 (100.
0)
94 (61.0)
163 (65.2)
163 (74.4)
25 (56.8)
21 (58.3)
36 (50.0
)
3 E
Seriousness
Not serious
14 (4.7)
8 (1.7)
0.000 305
11 (3.0)
11 (2.7)
0.025
17 (2.7)
1
(6.7) 2 (4.3) 0 (0) 2 (2.5)
0 (0) 0 (00
0.206
6 (3.9) 9 (3.6)
4
(1.8) 0 (0.0)
1 (2.8)
2 (2.8)
0.000 Slightly
serious
56 (18.7)
49
(10.3) 64
(17.4)
41 (10.1)
91 (14.5)
1 (6.7)
6 (12.8)
0 (0) 7 (8.8)
0 (0) 0 (0)
19 (2.3)
34 (13.6)
14 (6.4)
8 (18.2)
7 (19.4)
23 (31.9
) Quite
serious
91 (30.3)
180
(37.9) 126
(34.2)
145 (35.6)
222 (35.5)
8 (53.3)
20 (42.6)
1 (50.0
) 20 (25.0)
0
(0) 0 (0) 52
(33.8) 94 (37.6)
72 (32.9)
15 (34.1)
13 (36.1)
25 (34.7
) Very
serious
139 (46.3)
238
(50.1) 167
(45.4)
210 (51.6)
296 (47.3)
5 (33.3)
19 (40.4)
1 (50.0
) 51 (63.7)
0 (0)
5 (100.
0)
77 (50.0)
113 (45.2)
129 (58.9)
21 (47.7)
15 (41.7)
22 (30.6
) Preparedness
