SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An online questionnaire in a Google form link was circulated among the target population via various online platforms. It consisted of 14 close-ended questions assessing these students' knowledge and source of COVID-19-related information. SPSS software version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to compute descriptive statistics, Chi-square test, independent t-test, and ANOVA tests for comparing various variables, and a p-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: The study yielded 809 responses from dental undergraduate students from India, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Turkey. Dental students from Turkey reported a higher mean knowledge score of 7.91±1.34 and 7.88±0.58 for Malaysian dental students. In contrast, the lower scores were achieved by Saudi Arabia (7.36±1.22) and India (7.37±1.21) dental students, and the findings were statistically significant (p<0.05). The study population used various sources to attain information regarding COVID-19. Most respondents (63.1%) utilized information regarding COVID-19 from multiple sources rather than single sources (36.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: Reliable and validated information sources resulted in higher knowledge scores. Turkey and Malaysia dental students reported a higher mean knowledge score and the lowest for Saudi Arabia and India dental students. There is increased popularity of social media platforms as information sources.
METHODS: The development phase consists of both literature and expert panel review. The validation phase consists of content validity, face validity, and construct validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to verify internal consistency. The development phase produced a questionnaire with 3 domains: perception, attitude, and practice consisting of 60 items (PAP-PCP questionnaire). Item response theory analysis for perception demonstrated the difficulty and discrimination values were acceptable except for 3 items. Exploratory factor analysis for attitude and practice domains showed the psychometric properties were good except for 3 items in practice domain. Experts judgement was used to decide on the final selection of questionnaire which consists of 59 items.
RESULTS: The final validated questionnaire has 3 domains with 59 items. All domains had Cronbach's alpha above 0.65 which was reliable. 302 physicians completed the questionnaire. 98% PCPs diagnosed AR based on clinical history. Although, majority agree AR guidelines is useful (67%), they had difficulty in using it to classify AR (54.9%) and determine AR severity (73.9%). Oral anti-histamines (first and second generation) were the most prescribed (>75%) followed by intranasal corticosteroids (59%) and combined intranasal corticosteroid and oral anti-histamine (51%). Majority agreed that treatment efficacy (81.8%), adverse effects (83.8%), fear of adverse effects (73.5%), route of administration (69.4%), dosing frequency (72.5%), taste (64.6%) and cost (73.5%) affect treatment compliance.
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed and validated questionnaire is a promising instrument in understanding the treatment gap in AR. Although further testing and refinement are needed, it provides an initial means for evaluating knowledge and understanding of PCPs in treating AR.