In this study, we aimed to investigate KAP regarding leishmaniasis among 104 health volunteers from East Azerbaijan, Khorasan Razavi and Ilam provinces during 2016 - 2017.
The inter-group and intra-group comparisons of KAP before and after the intervention are shown on
Table 1. As can be observed, the mean values obtained for the variables of KAP prior to the intervention were lower than their counterparts after the intervention in all these three provinces. Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in attitude and knowledge scores among the provinces, but there was a significant difference in terms of practice between the subjects from Azerbaijan and Ilam provinces. A significant increase in knowledge, attitude and practice of all the groups was noted post-intervention. After the intervention, there was also a significant difference between the provinces. The results of the pos-hoc test showed that the post-intervention knowledge scores in Ilam were significantly higher compared to those obtained from Khorasan Razavi and Azerbaijan provinces. However, post-intervention attitude scores in subjects from Khorasan Razavi province were significantly lower compared to those of the subjects from Ilam and East Azerbaijan provinces. In case of practice, the results showed that Azerbaijan and Khorasan Razavi provinces scores were significantly different after the intervention. Azerbaijan province had the lowest practice scores before and after the intervention. Improvement of practice was higher in Khorasan Razavi province compared to Ilam province.
| Variables/Provinces | Beforea | Aftera | P Value |
|---|
| On the Scale of the Data |
| Knowledge (0 - 11) | | | |
| Khorasan Razavi | 6.90 ± 1.56 | 9.59 ± 1.34 | < 0.01 |
| Ilam | 7.00 ± 2.02 | 10.50 ± 0.91 | < 0.01 |
| East Azerbaijan | 6.49 ± 1.86 | 9.29 ± 1.05 | < 0.01 |
|
P value (comparison of the provinces)
| 0.451 | 0.000 | |
| Attitude (0 - 10) | | | |
| Khorasan Razavi | 6.49 ± 1.55 | 8.02 ± 1.23 | < 0.01 |
| Ilam | 6.23 ± 1.74 | 9.14 ± 1.17 | < 0.01 |
| East Azerbaijan | 6.76 ± 1.50 | 9.00 ± 0.84 | < 0.01 |
|
P value (comparison of the provinces)
| 0.358 | 0.000 | |
| Practice (0 - 13) | | | |
| Khorasan Razavi | 7.98 ± 2.83 | 11.61 ± 1.59 | < 0.01 |
| Ilam | 8.77 ± 2.39 | 11.32 ± 0.89 | < 0.01 |
| East Azerbaijan | 7.32 ± 1.85 | 10.54 ± 1.34 | < 0.01 |
|
P value (comparison of the cities)
| 0.017 | 0.000 | |
| On a Scale of 100 |
| Knowledge (0 - 100) | | | |
| Khorasan Razavi | 62.75 ± 14.20 | 87.14 ± 12.19 | < 0.01 |
| Ilam | 63.64 ± 18.40 | 95.45 ± 8.30 | < 0.01 |
| East Azerbaijan | 58.98 ± 16.90 | 84.48 ± 9.59 | < 0.01 |
|
P value (comparison of the provinces)
| 0.415 | 0.000 | |
| Attitude (0 - 100) | | | |
| Khorasan Razavi | 64.88 ± 15.51 | 80.24 ± 12.35 | < 0.01 |
| Ilam | 62.27 ± 17.44 | 91.36 ± 11.67 | < 0.01 |
| East Azerbaijan | 67.56 ± 14.96 | 90.00 ± 8.37 | < 0.01 |
|
P value (comparison of the cities)
| 0.358 | 0.000 | |
| Practice (0 - 100) | | | |
| Khorasan Razavi | 61.35 ± 21.79 | 89.31 ± 12.27 | < 0.01 |
| Ilam | 67.48 ± 18.39 | 87.06 ± 6.87 | < 0.01 |
| East Azerbaijan | 56.29 ± 14.23 | 81.05 ± 10.33 | < 0.01 |
|
P value (comparison of the cities)
| 0.017 | 0.000 | |
aValues are expressed as Mean ± SD.
Generally, the survey indicated that the mean scores (in the two measuring scales) of the knowledge, attitude and practice variables before the intervention were lower than the values post-intervention. In the post-intervention phase, there was a significant increase in KAP. We noted that the mean levels of knowledge, attitude and practice in all the provinces before the intervention were generally higher than 56% (moderate), and these scores increased to higher than 80% after the intervention. Overall, these scores improved from a moderate level to a good level. Also, another categorization was carried out on the KAP indexes. In this categorization, the scores below 33.33% were weak, the scores ranging from 33.33% to 66.66% were average and the scores above 66.66% were considered as good.
| Variables | Before | After | P Value |
|---|
| On the scale of the data | | | | | |
| Knowledge | 6.76 | 1.78 | 9.66 | 1.23 | < 0.01 |
| Attitude | 6.54 | 1.57 | 8.64 | 1.18 | < 0.01 |
| Practice | 7.88 | 2.43 | 11.13 | 1.45 | < 0.01 |
| On a scale of 100 | | | | | |
| Knowledge | 61.45 | 16.20 | 87.85 | 11.16 | < 0.01 |
| Attitude | 65.38 | 15.70 | 86.44 | 11.82 | < 0.01 |
| Practice | 60.65 | 18.70 | 85.58 | 11.12 | < 0.01 |
Survey of the level of knowledge based on provinces and in general showed that before the intervention, there was only one subject with low level of knowledge in East Azerbaijan and there was one subject in Ilam, whose knowledge improved after intervention, such that there were no cases of weak knowledge in the three provinces. Before the intervention, 63.4% of the subjects had moderate knowledge and 36.6% had high knowledge, but the high level of knowledge increased to 90.2% and the average knowledge level decreased to 9.8% after the intervention. Before the intervention, 50% in Ilam had an average level of knowledge, 45.5% had high level of knowledge and only 4.5% of the subjects had weak knowledge. After the intervention, the knowledge level increased. Before the intervention, the knowledge levels in East Azerbaijan province were weak, average and high in 2.4%, 63.4% and 34.1% of the subjects, respectively, but after the intervention, most of the subjects (95.2%) had a high level of knowledge and only 4.8% had moderate knowledge. In the overall survey, it was observed that 9.1%, 60.6% and 37.5% of the subjects had weak, moderate and high knowledge levels, respectively. These levels changed to 94.2% with high knowledge level and 5.7% with average knowledge level after the intervention, which shows the enhancement in the knowledge level of the subjects. In general and in each province separately, the changes in knowledge status were significant after the intervention compared to before the intervention, and the probability values obtained from Fisher’s exact test were indicative of the significant changes after the intervention.
| Province | Before the Intervention | After the Interventiona | P Value |
|---|
| Weak | Moderate | Good | Total |
|---|
| Khorasan Razavi | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 3 (7.3) | 23 (56.1) | 26 (63.4) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.4) | 14 (34.1) | 15 (36.6) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 4 (9.8) | 37 (90.2) | 41 (100.0) | |
| Ilam | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.5) | 1 (4.5) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 11 (50.0) | 11 (50.0) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 10 (45.5) | 10 (45.5) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 22 (100.0) | 22 (100.0) | |
| East Azerbaijan | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.4) | 1 (2.4) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.4) | 25 (61.0) | 26 (63.4) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.4) | 13 (31.7) | 14 (34.1) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 2 (4.8) | 39 (95.2) | 41 (100.0) | |
| Total | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.9) | 2 (1.9) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 4 (3.8) | 59 (56.7) | 63 (60.6) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.9) | 37 (35.6) | 39 (37.5) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 6 (5.7) | 98 (94.2) | 104 (100.0) | |
aValues are expressed as No. (%).
The study of attitude level based on province and in general showed that there was only one subject in East Azerbaijan and one in Ilam who had low attitudes before the intervention, whose attitude scores increased after the intervention. There was no weak attitude towards the infection after the intervention. Prior to the intervention, the attitude level of 48.8% of the subjects was average and in 51.2% it was high, which changed to 7.3% with average and 92.7% with high attitude scores after the intervention. The attitude level in Ilam was average in 50% of the subjects, high in 45.5% of the subjects and weak in 4.5% of the subjects before the intervention. All these rates increased after the intervention. In addition, the attitude level in East Azerbaijan was weak in 2.4% of the subjects, average in 36.6% of the subjects and high in 61% of the subjects before the intervention, all of which increased to 100% after the intervention. In the overall survey, it was observed that 1.9%, 44.2%, and 53.8% of the subjects had weak, average and high attitudes, respectively, which changed to 97.1% high and 2.9% average at the end of the intervention. In overall results and the results related to each province, the variation of attitude status was significant after the intervention compared to before the intervention, and the probability values obtained from Fisher’s exact test were indicative of significant changes after the intervention.
Table 4 shows the attitude levels before and after the intervention in the overall results and the results related to each province.
| Province | Before the Intervention | After the Interventiona | P Value |
|---|
| Weak | Moderate | Good | Total |
|---|
| Khorasan Razavi | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 2 (4.9) | 18 (43.9) | 20 (48.8) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.4) | 20 (48.8) | 21 (51.2) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 3 (7.3) | 38 (92.7) | 41 (100.0) | |
| Ilam | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.5) | 1 (4.5) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 11 (50.0) | 11 (50.0) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 10 (45.5) | 10 (45.5) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 22 (100.0) | 22 (100.0) | |
| East Azerbaijan | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.4) | 1 (2.4) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 15 (36.6) | 15 (36.6) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 25 (61.0) | 25 (61.0) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 41 (100.0) | 41 (100.0) | |
| Total | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.9) | 2 (1.9) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.9) | 44 (42.3) | 46 (44.2) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.0) | 55 (52.9) | 56 (53.8) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 3 (2.9) | 102 (97.1) | 104 (100.0) | |
aValues are expressed as No. (%).
The level of practice in each province and the overall subjects (
Table 5) showed that in 9.8% it was weak, in 41.5% average, and in 48.8% high in Khorasan Razavi before the intervention, which changed to 4.3% average and 95.5% high at the end of the intervention. Prior to the intervention, the practice status in Ilam was average in 22.7%, high in 68.2% and weak in 9.1%, which improved to be high in all the subjects after the intervention. In East Azerbaijan province, before the intervention, the practice level in 7.3% of the subjects was weak, in 63.4% it was average and in 29.3% it was high. However, it was average in 7.3% and high in 92.7% after the intervention. In general, it was observed that the practice scores were weak in 8.7%, moderate in 46.2% and high in 45.2% before the intervention. These scores were moderate in 4.8% and high in 95.2% after the intervention. The results of overall scores and the results of each province showed that the changes in practice scores were significant after the intervention compared to before the intervention, and the probability values obtained from Fisher’s exact test indicated significant changes after the intervention.
| Province | Pre-Intervention | Post-Interventiona | P Value |
|---|
| Weak | Moderate | Good | Total |
|---|
| Khorasan Razavi | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (9.8) | 4 (9.8) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.4) | 16 (39.0) | 17 (41.5) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.4) | 19 (46.3) | 20 (48.8) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 2 (4.8) | 39 (95.2) | 41 (100.0) | |
| Ilam | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (9.1) | 2 (9.1) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (22.7) | 5 (22.7) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 15 (68.2) | 15 (68.2) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 22 (100.0) | 22 (100.0) | |
| East Azerbaijan | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (7.3) | 3 (7.3) | |
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 3 (7.3) | 23 (56.1) | 26 (63.4) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 12 (29.3) | 12 (29.3) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 3 (7.3) | 38 (92.7) | 41 (100.0) | |
| Total | | | | | | < 0.01 |
| Weak | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 9 (8.7) | 9 (8.7) | |
| Moderated | 0 (0.0) | 4 (3.8) | 44 (42.3) | 48 (46.2) | |
| Good | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.0) | 46 (44.2) | 47 (45.2) | |
| Total | 0 (0.0) | 5 (4.8) | 99 (95.2) | 104 (100.0) | |
aValues are expressed as No. (%).