Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study

Beliefs on social distancing and face mask... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206" }, "headline": "Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income...", "datePublished": "2022-02-17T16:49:40", "dateModified": "2026-03-05T15:29:04", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Harapan Harapan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Amanda Yufika" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Samsul Anwar" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Youdiil Ophinni" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Chika Yamada" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Khan Sharun" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mahir Gachabayov" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Marhami Fahriani" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Milda Husnah" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rawan Raad" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Namareg ME. Khiri" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rashed YA Abdalla" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Wajdi Kacem" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Zeineb Teyeb" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Khaoula Aloui" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Manel Ferjani" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Dalia A. Deeb" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Dina Emad" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kirellos S Abbas" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Suhrud Panchawagh" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sunil Anandu" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Md Ariful Haque" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Lirane ED. Ferreto" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "María FC. Briones" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rocío BI. Morales" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sebastián Lazcano-Díaz" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Abiodun Durosinmi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Esther N. Adejumo" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Elham Babadi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Edris Kakemam" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Irfan Ullah" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Najma I. Malik" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Francesco Rosiello" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Talha B. Emran" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Firzan Nainu" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Guilherme W. Wendt" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Morteza Arab-Zozani" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Abram L. Wagner" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mudatsir Mudatsir" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "Introduction: Social distancing and wearing a face mask are highly recommended to mitigate the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the success of these strategies relies on individuals’ adherence and public compliance. This study was conducted to assess the level of belief in social distancing and face mask practices in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to identify their possible determinants. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in ten LMICs countries in Asia, Africa, and South America from February to May 2021. A questionnaire was used to assess the belief, practice, and their plausible determinants. Identification of the associated determinants was performed using a logistic regression model. Results: Our data revealed that only 62.6% and 66.9% of the participants had good beliefs in social distancing and good face mask practices, respectively. Residing in the Americas, having a healthcare-related job, knowing people in immediate social environment who are or have been infected and exposure to information of COVID-19 cases on social media or TV were factors significantly associated with good belief in social distancing. Residing country, gender, monthly household income, type of job and exposure to information of COVID-19 cases were significantly associated with face mask wearing practice. Conclusion: The proportion of participants having good beliefs in social distancing and good face mask practices is relatively low (<75%). Hence, sustained health campaigns regarding social distancing benefits and face mask-wearing practices during COVID-19 are critical in LMICs." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2", "name": "Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19..." } } ] } Home Browse Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Harapan H, Yufika A, Anwar S et al. Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.79534.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] Harapan Harapan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7630-8413 1-3 , Amanda Yufika 4 , Samsul Anwar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3165-2151 5 , [...] Youdiil Ophinni https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9443-1538 6,7 , Chika Yamada 8 , Khan Sharun https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1040-3746 9 , Mahir Gachabayov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9200-1304 10 , Marhami Fahriani https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0452-3485 3 , Milda Husnah 3,11 , Rawan Raad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4060-3378 12 , Namareg ME. Khiri 13 , Rashed YA Abdalla https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7841-4807 14 , Wajdi Kacem 15 , Zeineb Teyeb https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2871-9773 16 , Khaoula Aloui https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1594-3429 17 , Manel Ferjani https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1039-0500 17 , Dalia A. Deeb https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4434-947X 18 , Dina Emad 19 , Kirellos S Abbas 20 , Suhrud Panchawagh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8606-4202 21 , Sunil Anandu 22 , Md Ariful Haque https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4632-5153 23 , Lirane ED. Ferreto 24 , María FC. Briones 25 , Rocío BI. Morales https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3473-4654 25 , Sebastián Lazcano-Díaz 25 , Abiodun Durosinmi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5382-5108 26 , Esther N. Adejumo 27 , Elham Babadi 28 , Edris Kakemam 29 , Irfan Ullah 30 , Najma I. Malik https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3521-1014 31 , Francesco Rosiello https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6532-1185 32 , Talha B. Emran https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3188-2272 33 , Firzan Nainu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0989-4023 34 , Guilherme W. Wendt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9014-6120 35 , Morteza Arab-Zozani https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7223-6707 36 , Abram L. Wagner https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4691-7802 37 , Mudatsir Mudatsir https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5643-9384 1-3 Harapan Harapan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7630-8413 1-3 , Amanda Yufika 4 , [...] Samsul Anwar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3165-2151 5 , Youdiil Ophinni https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9443-1538 6,7 , Chika Yamada 8 , Khan Sharun https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1040-3746 9 , Mahir Gachabayov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9200-1304 10 , Marhami Fahriani https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0452-3485 3 , Milda Husnah 3,11 , Rawan Raad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4060-3378 12 , Namareg ME. Khiri 13 , Rashed YA Abdalla https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7841-4807 14 , Wajdi Kacem 15 , Zeineb Teyeb https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2871-9773 16 , Khaoula Aloui https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1594-3429 17 , Manel Ferjani https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1039-0500 17 , Dalia A. Deeb https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4434-947X 18 , Dina Emad 19 , Kirellos S Abbas 20 , Suhrud Panchawagh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8606-4202 21 , Sunil Anandu 22 , Md Ariful Haque https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4632-5153 23 , Lirane ED. Ferreto 24 , María FC. Briones 25 , Rocío BI. Morales https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3473-4654 25 , Sebastián Lazcano-Díaz 25 , Abiodun Durosinmi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5382-5108 26 , Esther N. Adejumo 27 , Elham Babadi 28 , Edris Kakemam 29 , Irfan Ullah 30 , Najma I. Malik https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3521-1014 31 , Francesco Rosiello https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6532-1185 32 , Talha B. Emran https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3188-2272 33 , Firzan Nainu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0989-4023 34 , Guilherme W. Wendt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9014-6120 35 , Morteza Arab-Zozani https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7223-6707 36 , Abram L. Wagner https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4691-7802 37 , Mudatsir Mudatsir https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5643-9384 1-3 PUBLISHED 05 Mar 2026 Author details Author details 1 Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 2 Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 3 Medical Research Unit, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 4 Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 5 Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 6 Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, 02139, USA 7 Laboratory of Host Defense, WPI Immunology Frontier Research Center (IFReC), Osaka University, Osaka, 565-0874, Japan 8 Department of Environmental Coexistence, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 606-8304, Japan 9 Division of Surgery, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, 243122, India 10 Department of Abdominal Surgery, Vladimir City Emergency Hospital, Vladimir, 600014, Russian Federation 11 Master Program of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 12 Faculty of Medicine and General Surgery, Sudan University of Science and Technology, Khartoum, 407, Sudan 13 Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Omdurman, 11111, Sudan 14 Faculty of Medicine, University of Bahri, Khartoum, 11111, Sudan 15 Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, University Tunis el Manar, Tunis, 2074, Tunisia 16 Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis, 2074, Tunisia 17 Faculty of Dental Medicine Monastir, University of Tunis El Manar, Monastir, 5000, Tunisia 18 Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, El-sharkia, 44519, Egypt 19 Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University Nasr City, Cairo, 1181, Egypt 20 Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, 21131, Egypt 21 Department of General Medicine, Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College and General Hospital, Pune, 516599001, India 22 Division of Veterinary Parasitology, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, 243122, India 23 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yanan Hospital Affiliated to Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, 650000, China 24 Department of Public Health and Postgraduate Program in Applied Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Western Paraná State University, Francisco Beltrão, 85601-970, Brazil 25 Faculty of Medicine, University of La Frontera, Temuco, 4781218, Chile 26 Covenant University Medical Center, Ijebu Ode, Ogun, 120101, Nigeria 27 Department of Medical Laboratory Science, Babcock University, Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, 121103, Nigeria 28 Research Fellow, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 14604, USA 29 Tabriz Health Services Management Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, 516599001, Iran 30 Department of Internal Medicine, Kabir Medical College, Gandhara University, Peshawar, 25000, Pakistan 31 Department of Psychology, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, 40100, Pakistan 32 Department of Public Health and Infectious Disease, Sapienza-University of Rome, Rome, 00185, Italy 33 Department of Pharmacy, BGC Trust University Bangladesh, Chittagong, 4381, Bangladesh 34 Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Hasanuddin University, Tamalanrea, Makassar, 90245, Indonesia 35 Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Western Paraná State University, Francisco Beltrão, 85601-970, Brazil 36 Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, 97, Iran 37 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA Harapan Harapan Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Amanda Yufika Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Samsul Anwar Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Youdiil Ophinni Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Chika Yamada Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Khan Sharun Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Mahir Gachabayov Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Marhami Fahriani Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Milda Husnah Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Rawan Raad Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Namareg ME. Khiri Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Rashed YA Abdalla Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Wajdi Kacem Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Zeineb Teyeb Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Khaoula Aloui Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Manel Ferjani Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Dalia A. Deeb Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Dina Emad Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Kirellos S Abbas Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Suhrud Panchawagh Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Sunil Anandu Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Md Ariful Haque Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Lirane ED. Ferreto Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing María FC. Briones Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Rocío BI. Morales Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Sebastián Lazcano-Díaz Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Abiodun Durosinmi Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Esther N. Adejumo Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Elham Babadi Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Edris Kakemam Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Irfan Ullah Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Najma I. Malik Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Francesco Rosiello Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Talha B. Emran Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Firzan Nainu Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Guilherme W. Wendt Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Morteza Arab-Zozani Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Abram L. Wagner Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Mudatsir Mudatsir Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Emerging Diseases and Outbreaks gateway. This article is included in the Health Services gateway. This article is included in the Sociology of Health gateway. This article is included in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) collection. Abstract Introduction: Social distancing and wearing a face mask are highly recommended to mitigate the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the success of these strategies relies on individuals’ adherence and public compliance. This study was conducted to assess the level of belief in social distancing and face mask practices in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to identify their possible determinants. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in ten LMICs countries in Asia, Africa, and South America from February to May 2021. A questionnaire was used to assess the belief, practice, and their plausible determinants. Identification of the associated determinants was performed using a logistic regression model. Results: Our data revealed that only 62.6% and 66.9% of the participants had good beliefs in social distancing and good face mask practices, respectively. Residing in the Americas, having a healthcare-related job, knowing people in immediate social environment who are or have been infected and exposure to information of COVID-19 cases on social media or TV were factors significantly associated with good belief in social distancing. Residing country, gender, monthly household income, type of job and exposure to information of COVID-19 cases were significantly associated with face mask wearing practice. Conclusion: The proportion of participants having good beliefs in social distancing and good face mask practices is relatively low (<75%). Hence, sustained health campaigns regarding social distancing benefits and face mask-wearing practices during COVID-19 are critical in LMICs. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords COVID-19, face mask, social distancing, preventive measure, practice Corresponding Author(s) Harapan Harapan ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Harapan Harapan Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This study was funded by Universitas Syiah Kuala, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology, H-Index Scheme 2021 (169/UN11/SPK/PNBP/2021). The APC was funded by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (grant number 19K17925). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2026 Harapan H et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Harapan H, Yufika A, Anwar S et al. Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.79534.2 ) First published: 17 Feb 2022, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.79534.1 ) Latest published: 05 Mar 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.79534.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 The revised version differs from the previous version mainly in the Methods, Results clarification, and Discussion (limitations) sections, with additional refinements to wording in the Introduction. First, the Methods section was restructured to improve clarity and logical flow: a new Study instrument subheading was added, the Study variables subheading was moved directly after Study instrument, and Data collection was moved after Study variables. The sampling and recruitment procedures are also now described more clearly, including the rationale for the minimum sample size (95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and 50% conservative estimate), and an explanation that recruitment was conducted using a non-probability convenience sampling approach with online dissemination and snowball sharing, supported by local collaborators/co-authors as focal persons in participating countries. Second, the Data collection, Statistical analysis, and Results sections were strengthened. The revised version now clarifies data handling, includes descriptive statistics presentation (frequencies and percentages), and explicitly states that the numbers and proportions of respondents with good belief in social distancing benefits and good face mask practice were calculated. The manuscript also now includes clarification regarding the response rate, explaining that because the survey was distributed through open online channels and snowball sharing, the total number of individuals reached could not be determined and a conventional response rate could not be calculated. In addition, the analysis section now clarifies that multilevel modeling was not performed, and that country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models. Third, the Discussion limitations were expanded to explicitly acknowledge limitations related to the sampling approach, especially the risk of selection bias and limited generalizability due to convenience, online, and snowball sampling. The text also clarifies the use of the 80% cut-off as a pragmatic operational threshold (supported by prior studies) rather than a universally standardized cut-off. The revised version differs from the previous version mainly in the Methods, Results clarification, and Discussion (limitations) sections, with additional refinements to wording in the Introduction. First, the Methods section was restructured to improve clarity and logical flow: a new Study instrument subheading was added, the Study variables subheading was moved directly after Study instrument, and Data collection was moved after Study variables. The sampling and recruitment procedures are also now described more clearly, including the rationale for the minimum sample size (95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and 50% conservative estimate), and an explanation that recruitment was conducted using a non-probability convenience sampling approach with online dissemination and snowball sharing, supported by local collaborators/co-authors as focal persons in participating countries. Second, the Data collection, Statistical analysis, and Results sections were strengthened. The revised version now clarifies data handling, includes descriptive statistics presentation (frequencies and percentages), and explicitly states that the numbers and proportions of respondents with good belief in social distancing benefits and good face mask practice were calculated. The manuscript also now includes clarification regarding the response rate, explaining that because the survey was distributed through open online channels and snowball sharing, the total number of individuals reached could not be determined and a conventional response rate could not be calculated. In addition, the analysis section now clarifies that multilevel modeling was not performed, and that country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models. Third, the Discussion limitations were expanded to explicitly acknowledge limitations related to the sampling approach, especially the risk of selection bias and limited generalizability due to convenience, online, and snowball sampling. The text also clarifies the use of the 80% cut-off as a pragmatic operational threshold (supported by prior studies) rather than a universally standardized cut-off. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Roland Nnaemeka Okoro See the authors' detailed response to the review by Yousef Khader READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is continuing to affect millions of people globally following the initial emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, China. 1 , 2 The COVID-19 pandemic has massively impacted existing health care systems worldwide and in particular in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 3 , 4 A syndemic of COVID-19 and other endemic infections could be particularly burdensome to tropical countries. 5 , 6 In the present scenario, strict adherence to social distancing (maintaining a physical distance of at least 2 meters), wearing a face mask, and regular handwashing with soap under running water are essential practices that are highly recommended for preventing human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2. 7 , 8 Social distancing plays a critical role in slowing the rapid transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within the community. 9 , 10 Government-imposed social distancing measures have been found to be associated with a significant reduction in the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 worldwide. 11 Furthermore, people living in communities with better social distancing practices had a lower predicted risk of COVID-19 than those living in poor social distancing situations. 12 Accordingly, strict social distancing policies – prohibiting large gatherings and close social interactions between individuals from different households – could help mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2. 13 Achieving a high degree of compliance in social distancing behaviors is essential for preventing the spread of disease within the community. 10 Therefore, public health campaigns have to be conducted to improve the acceptability and adherence to the social distancing policies within the community. 13 , 14 Similarly to social distancing, mask-wearing will help slow down the spread of SARS-CoV-2, which is essential to allow health care facilities to continue functioning. 10 Wearing masks could also reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission even in settings of poor social distancing. 12 Studies from European countries indicate that mandatory stay-at-home orders directly impacted population mobility and subsequently decreased the COVID-19 case growth rate during the pandemic. 9 Compliance of the public to the directives given by the governments and public health agencies will decide the effectiveness of these directives. Therefore, understanding beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices among community members will help us formulate targeted public health campaigns that focus on specific subgroups to improve their acceptability and adherence to various prosocial behaviors. This study sought to determine: (a) the level of beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices; and (b) the possible determinants associated with belief in social distancing benefits and face mask practices among community members in ten LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. Methods Study design and setting A cross-sectional study was conducted among community members in Asia (Bangladesh, India, Iran and Pakistan), Africa (Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan and Tunisia) and South America (Brazil and Chile) from February to May 2021. Community members were defined as all residents who have lived in one of these areas for at least three months prior to the study. The participating countries were selected based on the feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators in each country to support survey dissemination, and the intention to include LMIC settings from multiple geographic regions. Study population and sampling Adults aged over 18 years old living in one of the studied countries and able to respond each question in the survey were considered eligible for the study. Illiterate individuals or those who needed help to complete the survey were considered ineligible. Responses with incomplete data for variables required in the analyses were also excluded. The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants. This calculation was applied as the minimum overall sample size for the study; not for each country separately. Recruitment was continued beyond this minimum to improve precision and support multivariable logistic regression analyses and country-level comparisons. The samples were recruited using a non-probability sampling method, convenience sampling approach. Study instrument A structured questionnaire was developed to assess respondents’ demographic characteristics, belief in the benefits of social distancing, face mask practices, COVID-19-related exposures, comorbidities, and perceived risk toward COVID-19. The questionnaire included closed-ended items and Likert-type response options for the belief domain. A copy of the survey can be found under Extended data. 37 Before implementation, the questionnaire was reviewed by experts in the fields of virology and public health as well as the country collaborators for clarity and relevance. The questions within the questionnaire were tested and validity was confirmed prior to being used in the study. Wording and sequence were refined based on the validity assessment prior to data collection. Study variables Response variables There are two response variables of the study: belief in the benefits of social distancing and face mask practices during the pandemic. To assess belief in social distancing benefits, the participants were asked to respond to three statements: (1) “Social distancing can protect yourself from COVID-19”; (2) “Social distancing can protect your child or children from COVID-19”; and (3) “Social distancing can protect your parents from COVID-19”. The possible responses and the scores were: “Strongly agree (score 5)”, “Agree (4)”, “Neither agree nor disagree (3)”, “Disagree (2)”, and “Strongly disagree (1)”. For each participant, the score from each statement was summed and the total score ranged from 3 to 15, in which the higher score indicates better belief in the benefits of social distancing. Those with a score of more than 80% (i.e., 13 or more) were classified as having a good belief in social distancing benefits while those with a score of less than 80% (i.e., 12 or less) were classified as having a poor belief. The 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold to dichotomize the variable into good and poor categories, consistent with its use in previous studies. 15 , 16 rather than as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. The respondents were asked two questions to assess the face mask practices during the pandemic. These questions were about whether the respondents would: (1) wear a mask at work/school; and (2) wear a mask at the grocery store or other food vendors. The possible responses and the given score were: “Yes, during whole time (score 2)”, “Yes, for part of the time (score 1)”, “No (score 0)”, and “Not applicable (not going out for a whole week)”. The total score ranged between 0 to 4 and those wearing face masks during the whole time in both activities (score 4) were classified as having a good practice of face mask use, whereas those who did not (i.e., the score was less than 4) were classified as having poor practice. All participants who stated “not applicable” for one of the questions (they did not go to school/work or to a grocery store or other food vendor for the whole week) were excluded. Explanatory variables Several explanatory variables were included such as age, gender, urbanicity, monthly household income in USD, religion, occupation sector (healthcare- and non-healthcare-related), type of occupation, and the presence of COVID-19 comorbidities based on self-report, such as hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and pulmonary disease. The respondents were also asked whether they knew any people in their immediate social environment who are or have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Respondents were also questioned about their exposure to information about individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 on TV or social media. The perceived risk towards COVID-19 was also assessed for all respondents using two questions: (1) “What do you think are the chances that you will get COVID-19 in the next month?” and (2) “What do you think is your risk of dying from COVID-19 if infected? Responses were assessed on a continuous scale of 0% to 100%. For analysis, responses were dichotomized using a pragmatic midpoint threshold (≤50% vs. >50%) to facilitate interpretation. In addition, the two scores from summed (ranges: 0–200) and respondents who achieved more than 50% of the total score (i.e., 100 scores out of 200) were classified as having high perceived risk; conversely, those with less than 50% were classified as having a low perceived risk. Data collection The platform SurveyMonkey was used to host the anonymous online survey and the links to the survey were distributed on social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp. In each participating country, local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons to facilitate dissemination of the survey link through their professional and community networks. The invitation to participate in the survey was posted on Twitter and Facebook and shared on WhatsApp and the invited individuals were requested to share the invitation to their phone contacts. The survey consisted of an introduction page where information on the study was provided; an informed consent page where respondents had to provide consent to participate; and the main survey where respondents answered questions about their demographic background and their beliefs regarding social distancing and face mask practices. Approximately 15 minutes was required to complete all the questions. Data collection was conducted from February to May 2021 for all countries. The survey remained open during this period and was closed at the end of the data collection window, after which no further responses were accepted. Statistical analysis The responses were downloaded from SurveyMonkey into Microsoft Excel, cleaned, coded, and then exported to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Descriptive statistics for respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs in the benefits of social distancing, and face mask practices were summarized and presented as frequencies and percentages. The numbers and proportions of respondents with good belief in the benefits of social distancing and good face mask practice were calculated. A logistic regression was used to identify the explanatory variables associated with a good belief in benefits of social distancing and with a good face mask practice. The analyses were conducted into two steps. First, in unadjusted logistic regressions, the associations of all explanatory variables with belief in benefits of social distancing and face mask practice were calculated separately. In this step, the crude odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of each explanatory variable for a good social distancing belief or good face mask practice were calculated. In the second step, those variables with p-values less than 0.25 at unadjusted logistic regression step were included in adjusted logistic regressions to calculate adjusted OR (aOR) and the 95% CI. The significance of OR and aOR were assessed at α=0.05. Multilevel modeling to account for clustering by country was not performed in the present analysis; instead, country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Ethics and consent This study was approved by Institutional Review Board of Universitas Syiah Kuala & Zainoel Abidin Hospital (approval number: 129/EA/FK-RSUDZA/2021) and Indonesian National Health Research and Development Ethics Commission (#1171012P). An introduction page consisting of information about the objectives, the benefits, and risks of the study was provided. All respondents provided consent by ticking a box before the survey could be opened. The survey account could only be accessed by the principal investigator to ensure the anonymity and confidentiality of participants. Results Demographic characteristics During the study period, 1,849 responses were received. Because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and social sharing, the total number of individuals who received or viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. In this present study, a total of 203 respondents were exclude due to incomplete data, leaving. 1,646 respondents for the analysis of belief in social distancing benefits, where more than 20% of them were from India. The characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1 . The full dataset can be found in the Underlying data . 37 Approximately 56% of the respondents were aged between 21-30 years old, and 58% were female. Out of the total, more than a third of the respondents earned less than USD500 monthly. During the time of this study, 1,139 (69.2%) of the respondents reported to know people in their immediate social environment who were or had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and 352 (30.9%) of them reported that these individuals had serious presentations of illness. In addition, 1,525 (92.6%) had seen or read about individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 on social media or TV of which 48.7% (802 out 1,525) believed that the cases were very serious. In total, 36.4% and 22.5% of the respondents believed that they had more than a 50% risk of getting COVID-19 and dying from COVID-19 if infected, respectively ( Table 1 ). Table 1. Participants’ characteristics included in the assessment of determinants associated with belief in social distancing ( n =1646) and face-mask practice ( n =1306). Variable Belief in social distancing ( n =1646) Face-mask practice ( n =1306) n (%) n (%) Country Pakistan 262 (15.9) 181 (13.9) Brazil 107 (6.5) 62 (4.7) Chile 106 (6.4) 44 (3.4) Egypt 98 (6.0) 88 (6.7) India 337 (20.5) 302 (23.1) Iran 141 (8.6) 121 (9.3) Nigeria 161 (9.8) 142 (10.9) Bangladesh 131 (8.0) 107 (8.2) Sudan 174 (10.6) 141 (10.8) Tunisia 129 (7.8) 118 (9.0) Age group (year) 51 54 (3.3) 43 (3.3) Gender Male 691 (42.0) 570 (43.6) Female 955 (58.0) 736 (56.4) Urbanicity Rural 314 (19.1) 254 (19.4) Urban 1332 (80.9) 1052 (80.6) Monthly household income (USD) <500 616 (37.4) 495 (37.9) 500-999 289 (17.6) 225 (17.2) 500-999 192 (11.7) 151 (11.6) 2,000-2,999 148 (9.0) 108 (8.3) 3,000-4,999 127 (7.7) 96 (7.4) 5,000-7,999 100 (6.1) 75 (5.7) ≥8,000 174 (10.6) 156 (11.9) Religion Islam 914 (55.5) 745 (57.0) Christian/Protestant/Methodist/Lutheran/Baptist 178 (10.8) 151 (11.6) Catholic 127 (7.7) 87 (6.7) Hindu 238 (14.5) 211 (16.2) Atheist or agnostic 87 (5.3) 43 (3.3) Others 102 (6.2) 69 (5.3) Healthcare-related job No 907 (55.1) 662 (50.7) Yes 739 (44.9) 644 (49.3) Occupation Self-employed 155 (9.4) 138 (10.6) Employed for wages 415 (25.2) 360 (27.6) Out of work for less or more than 1 year 73 (4.4) 50 (3.8) Homemaker 34 (2.1) 24 (1.8) Student 947 (57.5) 716 (54.8) Retired or unable to work 22 (1.3) 18 (1.4) Have hypertension No a 1099 (66.8) 893 (68.4) Yes b 97 (5.9) 80 (6.1) Do not know 450 (27.3) 333 (25.5) Have diabetes No a 1188 (72.2) 962 (73.7) Yes b 58 (3.5) 50 (3.8) Do not know 400 (24.3) 294 (22.5) Have heart disease No a 1090 (66.2) 883 (67.6) Yes b 55 (3.3) 47 (3.6) Do not know 501 (30.4) 376 (28.8) Have pulmonary disease No a 1041 (63.2) 845 (64.7) Yes b 90 (5.5) 76 (5.8) Do not know 515 (31.3) 385 (29.5) Know people in immediate social environment who are or have been infected with COVID-19 No 507 (30.8) 366 (28.0) Yes 1139 (69.2) 940 (72.0) Have you seen or read about individuals infected with the COVID-19 on social media or TV? No 121 (7.4) 101 (7.7) Yes 1525 (92.6) 1205 (92.3) What do you think are the chances that you will get COVID-19 in the next month? <50% 1047 (63.6) 800 (61.3) ≥50% 599 (36.4) 506 (38.7) What do you think is your risk of dying from COVID-19 if infected? <50% 1276 (77.5) 1017 (77.9) ≥50% 370 (22.5) 289 (22.1) a Have been tested or examined by a doctor but negative. b Have been diagnosed by a doctor. There were 340 respondents who did not go to school/work or did not go out to a grocery store or other food vendors for the week prior to the study and therefore were excluded. A total of 1,306 respondents were included in the analysis to assess the factors associated with face mask use practices, whose characteristics are similar to the total respondents ( Table 1 ). Belief in social distancing benefits and associated determinants In total, 1,031 (62.6%) respondents had a good belief in social distancing benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The numbers were varied significantly among countries; the highest percentage was in Chile (91.5%), while the lowest was in Pakistan (50.4%). In general, countries in South America such as Chile and Brazil had a higher proportion of respondents who believed in social distancing benefits compared to those in African and Asian countries. In the univariate analysis, country, urbanicity, religion, type of job, having a pulmonary disease, knowing people in the immediate social environment who are or have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and having seen or read about individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 on social media or TV were all factors associated with the belief in benefits of social distancing in some degree ( Table 2 ). Table 2. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses showing factors associated with good belief in social distancing benefits ( n =1646). Variable Good belief n (%) - 1031 Unadjusted Adjusted OR (95% CI) p –value OR (95% CI) p –value Country Pakistan (R) 132 (50.4) 1 1 Brazil 88 (82.2) 4.56 (2.63-7.92) <0.001 ** 3.01 (1.45-6.25) 0.003 * Chile 97 (91.5) 10.61 (5.14-21.91) <0.001 ** 8.33 (3.55-19.54) <0.001 ** Egypt 60 (61.2) 1.56 (0.97-2.50) 0.067 1.07 (0.63-1.82) 0.793 India 193 (57.3) 1.32 (0.95-1.83) 0.093 0.69 (0.40-1.20) 0.190 Iran 88 (62.4) 1.64 (1.08-2.48) 0.021 * 1.13 (0.68-1.89) 0.633 Nigeria 98 (60.9) 1.53 (1.03-2.28) 0.036 * 0.95 (0.52-1.72) 0.865 Bangladesh 78 (59.5) 1.45 (0.95-2.22) 0.087 1.06 (0.66-1.71) 0.796 Sudan 119 (68.4) 2.13 (1.43-3.18) <0.001 ** 1.40 (0.87-2.25) 0.167 Tunisia 78 (60.5) 1.51 (0.98-2.31) 0.061 1.00 (0.60-1.69) 0.992 Age group (year) <20 (R) 161 (57.7) 1 1 21-30 587 (63.4) 1.27 (0.97-1.67) 0.087 1.13 (0.81-1.58) 0.483 31-40 166 (61.9) 1.19 (0.85-1.68) 0.313 0.98 (0.61-1.58) 0.920 41-50 78 (65.5) 1.39 (0.89-2.18) 0.145 1.39 (0.78-2.47) 0.264 >51 39 (72.2) 1.91 (1.00-3.62) 0.049 * 1.65 (0.76-3.60) 0.209 Gender Male (R) 428 (61.9) 1 Female 603 (63.1) 1.05 (0.86-1.29) 0.619 Urbanicity Rural (R) 171 (54.5) 1 1 Urban 860 (64.6) 1.52 (1.19-1.95) 0.001 * 1.12 (0.85-1.48) 0.404 Monthly household income (USD) <500 (R) 394 (64.0) 1 500-999 178 (61.6) 0.90 (0.68-1.21) 0.491 500-999 123 (64.1) 1.00 (0.72-1.41) 0.980 2,000-2,999 95 (64.2) 1.01 (0.70-1.47) 0.959 3,000-4,999 79 (62.2) 0.93 (0.63-1.38) 0.708 5,000-7,999 59 (59.0) 0.81 (0.53-1.25) 0.340 ≥8,000 103 (59.2) 0.82 (0.58-1.15) 0.251 Religion Islam (R) 538 (58.9) 1 1 Christian/Protestant/Methodist/Lutheran/Baptist 111 (62.4) 1.16 (0.83-1.61) 0.385 1.05 (0.64-1.73) 0.850 Catholic 100 (78.7) 2.59 (1.66-4.04) <0.001 * 1.22 (0.66-2.27) 0.527 Hindu 149 (62.6) 1.17 (0.87-1.57) 0.295 1.60 (0.97-2.63) 0.064 Atheist or agnostic 64 (73.6) 1.95 (1.19-3.19) 0.008 * 0.88 (0.47-1.65) 0.698 Others 69 (67.6) 1.46 (0.95-2.26) 0.088 0.92 (0.54-1.58) 0.763 Healthcare-related job No (R) 540 (59.5) 1 1 Yes 491 (66.4) 1.35 (1.10-1.65) 0.004 * 1.39 (1.10-1.77) 0.007 * Occupation Self-employed (R) 89 (57.4) 1 1 Employed for wages 284 (68.4) 1.61 (1.10-2.35) 0.014 * 1.49 (0.99-2.24) 0.058 Out of work for less or more than 1 year 43(58.9) 1.06 (0.60-1.87) 0.832 1.01 (0.56-1.84) 0.976 Homemaker 17 (50.0) 0.74 (0.35-1.56) 0.431 0.77 (0.34-1.71) 0.519 Student 586 (61.9) 1.20 (0.85-1.70) 0.291 1.23 (0.82-1.85) 0.327 Retired or unable to work 12 (54.5) 0.89 (0.36-2.18) 0.799 0.80 (0.31-2.11) 0.657 Have hypertension No a (R) 708 (64.4) 1 1 Yes b 55 (56.7) 0.72 (0.48-1.10) 0.131 0.80 (0.48-1.32) 0.377 Do not know 268 (59.6) 0.81 (0.65-1.02) 0.072 1.09 (0.78-1.52) 0.615 Have diabetes No a (R) 759 (63.9) 1 1 Yes b 36 (62.1) 0.93 (0.54-1.59) 0.778 1.45 (0.75-2.80) 0.269 Do not know 236 (59.0) 0.81 (0.65-1.03) 0.081 1.01 (0.71-1.43) 0.965 Have heart disease No a (R) 699 (64.1) 1 1 Yes b 30 (54.5) 0.67 (0.39-1.16) 0.152 0.75 (0.39-1.46) 0.394 Do not know 302 (60.3) 0.85 (0.68-1.06) 0.140 1.13 (0.77-1.67) 0.523 Have pulmonary disease No a (R) 674 (64.7) 1 1 Yes b 55 (61.1) 0.86 (0.55-1.33) 0.490 0.87 (0.52-1.48) 0.615 Do not know 302 (58.6) 0.77 (0.62-0.96) 0.019 * 0.81 (0.55-1.19) 0.282 Know people in immediate social environment who are or have been infected with COVID-19 No (R) 284 (56.0) 1 1 Yes 747 (65.6) 1.50 (1.21-1.85) <0.001 ** 1.41 (1.02-1.96) 0.038 * Have you seen or read about individuals infected with the COVID-19 on social media or TV? No (R) 53 (43.8) 1 1 Yes 978 (64.1) 2.29 (1.58-3.34) <0.001 ** 2.43 (1.60-3.69) <0.001 ** What do you think are the chances that you will get COVID-19 in the next month? <50% (R) 659 (62.9) 1 1 ≥50 372 (62.1) 0.97 (0.78-1.19) 0.735 1.00 (0.72-1.39) 0.996 What do you think is your risk of dying from COVID-19 if infected? 50) 482 (61.7) 0.93 (0.76-1.13) 0.463 0.78 (0.55-1.09) 0.142 a Have been tested or examined by a doctor but negative. b Have been diagnosed by a doctor. * Significant at 0.05. ** Significant at 0.001. In the adjusted analysis, having a healthcare-related job, knowing people in immediate social environment who are or have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and having been exposed to information about individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 on social media or TV were factors associated with good belief in social distancing benefits. Those who were working in healthcare-related sectors had higher odds in believing that social distancing could prevent the SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to those who were working in non-healthcare-related sectors (aOR: 1.39; 95%CI: 1.10-1.77, p=0.007). Respondents who knew individuals in their immediate social environment who were or had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (either mild cases or serious cases) had a stronger belief in benefits of social distancing (aOR: 1.41; 95%CI: 1.02-1.96) compared to those who did not. In addition, respondents who were exposed to COVID-19 cases from TV or social media (had seen or read about individuals infected) had almost 2.5 times higher odds of belief in the benefits of social distancing compared to those who had never been exposed to COVID-19 cases information (95%CI: 1.60, 3.69) ( Table 2 ). Face mask practices and associated determinants Out of the total 1,306 respondents, 875 (66.9%) of them were considered to have good face mask practices. The percentage of good practices were varied among countries ranging from 46.1% in Sudan to 88.6% in Chile. Some determinants were identified in univariate analyses such as country, gender, income, religion, sector of workplaces, type of occupation, having COVID-19 comorbidities, knowing people in their immediate social environment who are or have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, exposure to information regarding COVID-19 on social media or TV, and the perceived risk of getting COVID-19 ( Table 3 ). Table 3. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses showing factors associated with good face mask practice ( n =1306). Variable Good practices n (%) Unadjusted Adjusted OR (95% CI) p –value aOR (95% CI) p –value Country Pakistan (R) 99 (54.7) 1 1 Brazil 54 (87.1) 5.59 (2.52-12.42) <0.001 ** 5.68 (2.06-15.66) 0.001 * Chile 39 (88.6) 6.46 (2.44-17.14) <0.001 * 8.17 (2.60-25.72) <0.001 ** Egypt 61 (69.3) 1.87 (1.09-3.21) 0.023 * 1.21 (0.65-2.22) 0.547 India 231 (76.5) 2.70 (1.82-4.00) <0.001 * 2.47 (1.24-4.94) 0.011 * Iran 96 (79.3) 3.18 (1.88-5.40) <0.001 * 2.54 (1.34-4.80) 0.004 * Nigeria 76 (53.5) 0.95 (0.61-1.48) 0.833 0.50 (0.25-1.00) 0.049 * Bangladesh 77 (72.0) 2.13 (1.27-3.55) 0.004 * 2.34 (1.29-4.24) 0.005 * Sudan 65 (46.1) 0.71 (0.46-1.10) 0.126 0.46 (0.26-0.79) 0.005 * Tunisia 77 (65.3) 1.56 (0.96-2.51) 0.070 1.28 (0.70-2.33) 0.426 Age group (year) <20 (R) 121 (65.4) 1 1 21-30 488 (65.6) 1.01 (0.72-1.42) 0.962 0.73 (0.48-1.10) 0.128 31-40 160 (69.3) 1.19 (0.79-1.80) 0.404 0.89 (0.50-1.58) 0.686 41-50 76 (73.8) 1.49 (0.87-2.54) 0.144 1.40 (0.70-2.83) 0.344 >51 30 (69.8) 1.22 (0.60-2.50) 0.586 1.11 (0.46-2.72) 0.812 Gender Male (R) 362 (63.5) 1 1 Female 513 (69.7) 1.32 (1.05-1.67) 0.018 * 1.46 (1.11-1.92) 0.007 * Urbanicity Rural (R) 163 (64.2) 1 1 Urban 712 (67.7) 1.17 (0.88-1.56) 0.286 1.03 (0.74-1.44) 0.858 Monthly household income (USD) <500 (R) 320 (64.6) 1 1 500-999 149 (66.2) 1.07 (0.77-1.49) 0.681 0.85 (0.59-1.23) 0.391 500-999 112 (74.2) 1.57 (1.04-2.36) 0.030 * 1.06 (0.67-1.67) 0.810 2,000-2,999 76 (70.4) 1.30 (0.83-2.04) 0.257 0.89 (0.53-1.48) 0.646 3,000-4,999 62 (64.6) 1.00 (0.63-1.58) 0.991 0.56 (0.33-0.95) 0.032 * 5,000-7,999 46 (61.3) 0.87 (0.53-1.43) 0.577 0.46 (0.26-0.82) 0.009 * ≥8,000 110 (70.5) 1.31 (0.89-1.93) 0.178 0.76 (0.47-1.25) 0.286 Religion Islam (R) 464 (62.3) 1 1 Christian/Protestant/Methodist/Lutheran/Baptist 105 (69.5) 1.38 (0.95-2.02) 0.092 1.71 (0.96-3.04) 0.069 Catholic 62 (71.3) 1.50 (0.92-2.45) 0.102 0.70 (0.34-1.45) 0.339 Hindu 167 (79.1) 2.30 (1.60-3.31) <0.001 ** 1.23 (0.67-2.27) 0.513 Atheist or agnostic 27 (62.8) 1.02 (0.54-1.93) 0.947 0.43 (0.20-0.91) 0.028 * Others 50 (72.5) 1.59 (0.92-2.76) 0.096 0.70 (0.36-1.36) 0.297 Healthcare related job No (R) 404 (61.0) 1 1 Yes 471 (73.1) 1.74 (1.38-2.20) <0.001 * 1.84 (1.38-2.45) <0.001 ** Occupation Self-employed (R) 85 (61.6) 1 1 Employed for wages 254 (70.6) 1.49 (0.99-2.25) 0.056 1.74 (1.09-2.78) 0.021 * Out of work for less or more than 1 year 27 (54.0) 0.73 (0.38-1.41) 0.349 0.85 (0.41-1.76) 0.666 Homemaker 14 (58.3) 0.87 (0.36-2.11) 0.762 0.73 (0.28-1.94) 0.532 Student 482 (67.3) 1.28 (0.88-1.87) 0.193 1.63 (1.03-2.60) 0.039 * Retired or unable to work 13 (72.2) 1.62 (0.55-4.81) 0.384 1.87 (0.54-6.42) 0.321 Have hypertension No a (R) 625 (70.0) 1 1 Yes b 46 (57.5) 0.58 (0.36-0.92) 0.022 * 0.70 (0.39-1.27) 0.245 Do not know 204 (61.3) 0.68 (0.52-0.88) 0.004 * 0.85 (0.57-1.28) 0.444 Have diabetes No a (R) 667 (69.3) 1 1 Yes b 28 (56.0) 0.56 (0.32-1.00) 0.050 * 0.62 (0.30-1.27) 0.190 Do not know 180 (61.2) 0.70 (0.53-0.92) 0.010 * 1.00 (0.65-1.52) 0.982 Have heart disease No a (R) 661 (69.2) 1 1 Yes b 30 (63.8) 0.79 (0.43-1.45) 0.440 1.02 (0.47-2.22) 0.956 Do not know 234 (62.2) 0.73 (0.57-0.95) 0.016 * 1.03 (0.65-1.63) 0.888 Have pulmonary disease No a (R) 595 (70.4) 1 1 Yes b 44 (57.9) 0.58 (0.36-0.93) 0.025 * 0.77 (0.43-1.37) 0.369 Do not know 236 (61.3) 0.67 (0.52-0.86) 0.002 * 0.81 (0.52-1.27) 0.358 Know people in immediate social environment who are or have been infected with COVID-19 No (R) 215 (58.7) 1 1 Yes 660 (70.2) 1.66 (1.29-2.13) <0.001 ** 1.25 (0.84-1.84) 0.268 Have you seen or read about individuals infected with the COVID-19 on social media or TV? No (R) 58 (57.4) 1 1 Yes 817 (67.8) 1.56 (1.03-2.36) 0.034 * 1.69 (1.04-2.75) 0.036 * What do you think are the chances that you will get COVID-19 in the next month? <50% (R) 519 (64.9) 1 1 ≥50% 356 (70.4) 1.29 (1.01-1.63) 0.040 * 1.07 (0.72-1.57) 0.748 What do you think is your risk of dying from COVID-19 if infected? 50%) 448 (68.9) 1.19 (0.94-1.50) 0.141 0.97 (0.65-1.44) 0.860 a Have been tested or examined by a doctor but negative. b Have been diagnosed by a doctor. * Significant at 0.05. ** Significant at 0.001. In an adjusted analysis, country, gender, monthly household income, having occupation related to healthcare sectors, types of occupation, and having seen or read about individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 on TV or social media were all significantly associated with practicing face mask use ( Table 3 ). Females had 1.46 times greater odds of having good practices compared to males (95%CI: 1.11-1.92, p=0.007). Compared to those who earned less than $500, respondents who earned $3,000-$4,999 and $5,000-$7,999 had lower odds of face mask-wearing when going out to workplaces or school or other places with aOR: 0.56; 95%CI: 0.33-0.95 and aOR: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.26-0.82, respectively. Those who were working in a healthcare-related job had almost two-fold odds (aOR: 1.84) of having good practice compared to those working in non-healthcare workplaces. Employees working for wages and students also had better face mask use practices compared to those who were self-employed (entrepreneurs). Our data also shows that exposure to coverage of COVID-19 cases in the media was associated with good face mask practices with OR: 1.69 and 95%CI: 1.04-2.75 ( Table 3 ). Discussion In addition to a massive vaccination campaign, public health measures such as social distancing and face mask use will still continue to play a pivotal role in reducing COVID-19 transmission. Social distancing and face mask use are still highly recommended 12 even after COVID-19 vaccination since vaccines cannot fully prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, 17 and vaccines are still difficult to access throughout much of the world. 18 Our data suggests that less than 70% of the participants had good beliefs in social distancing (62.6%) and good face mask practices (66.9%). Our study found that individuals with healthcare-related jobs and who had seen or read about COVID-19 cases on social media or TV had good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices. In general, healthcare-related workers have better knowledge of COVID-19 than the general population 19 and therefore might know better the benefits of public health measures such as social distancing and face mask-wearing in preventing COVID-19. Similarly, people who often get exposed to news related to COVID-19 might also have better knowledge about the disease, 20 , 21 which might lead to a more positive attitude towards social distancing and better practice of face mask-wearing. A positive association of good knowledge with social distancing and face mask-wearing practices have also been captured in previous investigations. 22 , 23 This highlights the importance of continuous knowledge dissemination through health campaigns to enhance beliefs in social distancing benefits and mask-wearing among the general population. Our results suggest that participants who knew people in their immediate social environment who were or had been infected with COVID-19 was significantly associated with good belief in social distancing benefits. Individuals who have had first-hand experience of the pandemic, either by contracting COVID-19 themselves or knowing people who are or have been infected with COVID-19, are more likely to agree and comply with health measures such as social distancing. 24 Having friends or relatives who are or have been infected with COVID-19 might increase awareness of serious health consequences of the pandemic 24 and increase motivation to protect themselves or the community, resulting in better beliefs and adherence to social distancing recommendations. 25 Knowing others with COVID-19, particularly those with a severe course of illness could also impact the perceived risk of disease, which itself could motivate healthy behaviors, as postulated by the Health Belief Model. 26 Our study found that females had better face mask practices compared to their male counterparts. This supports previous studies revealing that females had better knowledge on COVID-19 and better practice of preventive measures, e.g., face mask-wearing, compared to men. 19 , 27 , 28 Gender differences in COVID-19 attitudes and behavior have also been observed in another study showing that women were more likely than men to agree and comply with restraining public health policy such as mask-wearing, since they were more likely to perceive COVID-19 as a serious health problem. 24 Existing literature also showed that women have better knowledge in emerging infectious diseases, 29 , 30 and are more favorable to government intervention than men. 31 , 32 Moreover, women are more likely to be the caregivers of the family, which might cause them to be more worried about getting infected with COVID-19 as they could subsequently transmit the virus to the other family members. 24 One interesting finding in our study was that individuals with a higher monthly income had poor face mask-wearing practice. Previous studies reported a positive association between higher income and knowledge on COVID-19 preventive measures 27 , 28 , 33 ; however, there are contradictory reports on the association between income and face mask practice. 34 , 35 A study conducted in China reported that the proportion of people wearing a face mask increased linearly with monthly income, 34 while another study reported no association between the compliance with face mask-wearing and monthly household income. 35 Such findings might be confounded by the fact that face mask-wearing in public places is strictly imposed in some countries, but not in others. 36 Moreover, respondents with a higher household income in this study might be more likely to work from home, and thus may not feel the same need to wear face masks as someone who more regularly goes out. Overall, our findings suggest that the government should emphasize public health campaigns targeting men and low-educated people to improve public beliefs and practice of COVID-19 prevention measures, such as social distancing and mask-wearing. There are some limitations of this study. The use of an online survey excludes some people from lower social-economic classes, those with lower educational attainment, and those who were illiterate. Selection bias might also occur due to the variation in internet access across the countries where the study was conducted. Measurement of mask-wearing practice was based on questions of whether or not participants wore face mask at work/school and grocery stores/food vendors, which might be compulsory in some countries, and may not reflect the real practices of mask-wearing in the community. Participants may also respond in a certain way due to the social desirability bias. Furthermore, in this study, multilevel modelling was not performed to explicitly account for within-country clustering. Although country was included as a covariate in the regression models, residual intra-country correlation may still have remained. Conclusion Our data suggested that there is a substantial percentage of community members in certain low- and middle-income countries who do not believe in social distancing benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic and do not have good face mask-wearing practices. Some determinants associated with negative beliefs on the benefits of social distancing and poor face mask practices have been identified through this study, and these could be used by the governments or other organizations to increase adherence to social distancing and face mask-wearing practices in the community. Data availability Underlying data Figshare: 'Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study'. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19105238 37 This project contains the following underlying data: - Master Table.xlsx [Table containing the raw data of the study] Extended data This project contains the following extended data: - Study Questionnaire.pdf Reporting guidelines ‐ STROBE_Checklist.pdf. STROBE checklist for 'Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study'. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19105238 37 Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Acknowledgments We would like to thank Universitas Syiah Kuala for funding this study. We would like to thank Narra Studio Jurnal Indonesia for its assistance during the manuscript preparation. References 1. Harapan H, Itoh N, Yufika A, et al. : Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A literature review. J. Infect. Public Health 2020 May; 13 (5): 667–673. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 2. Sharun K: SARS, MERS, and COVID-19: What's next? Int. J. Surg. 2020 Dec; 84 : 66–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 3. Osendarp S, Akuoku JK, Black RE, et al. : The COVID-19 crisis will exacerbate maternal and child undernutrition and child mortality in low-and middle-income countries. Nature Food. 2021; 2 : 476–484. Publisher Full Text 4. Fahriani M, Anwar S, Yufika A, et al. : Disruption of childhood vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Narra. J. 2021; 1 (1): e7. Publisher Full Text 5. Toor J, Adams ER, Aliee M, et al. : Predicted impact of COVID-19 on neglected tropical disease programs and the opportunity for innovation. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021; 72 (8): 1463–1466. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Bastola A, Sah R, Rajbhandari SK, et al. : SARS-CoV-2 and Orientia tsutsugamushi co-infection in a young teen, Nepal: Significant burden in limited-resource countries in Asia? Narra. J. 2021; 1 (2): e34. Publisher Full Text 7. Cartaud A, Quesque F, Coello Y: Wearing a face mask against Covid-19 results in a reduction of social distancing. PLoS One. 2020; 15 (12): e0243023. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 8. Masters NB, Shih SF, Bukoff A, et al. : Social distancing in response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United States. PLoS One. 2020; 15 (9): e0239025. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. Woskie LR, Hennessy J, Espinosa V, et al. : Early social distancing policies in Europe, changes in mobility & COVID-19 case trajectories: Insights from Spring 2020. PLoS One. 2021; 16 (6): e0253071. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Leung CC, Cheng KK, Lam TH, et al. : Mask wearing to complement social distancing and save lives during COVID-19. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2020 Jun 1; 24 (6): 556–558. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 11. Favre G, Pomar L, Musso D, et al. : 2019-nCoV epidemic: what about pregnancies? Lancet (London, England). 2020; 395 (10224): e40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 12. Kwon S, Joshi AD, Lo C-H, et al. : Association of social distancing and face mask use with risk of COVID-19. Nat. Commun. 2021; 12 (1): 1–10. 13. Eshun-Wilson I, Mody A, McKay V, et al. : Public Preferences for Social Distancing Policy Measures to Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Missouri. JAMA Netw. Open 2021 Jul 1; 4 (7): e2116113. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 14. Dzisi EKJ, Dei OA: Adherence to social distancing and wearing of masks within public transportation during the COVID 19 pandemic. Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect. 2020 Sep; 7 : 100191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 15. Harapan H, Rajamoorthy Y, Anwar S, et al. : Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding dengue virus infection among inhabitants of Aceh, Indonesia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2018 Feb 27; 18 (1): 96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 16. Harapan H, Anwar S, Bustaman A, et al. : Community Willingness to Participate in a Dengue Study in Aceh Province, Indonesia. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (7): e0159139. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 17. Bailey RI, Cheng HH, Chase-Topping M, et al. : Pathogen transmission from vaccinated hosts can cause dose-dependent reduction in virulence. PLoS Biol. 2020 Mar; 18 (3): e3000619. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 18. Bollyky TJ, Murray CJL, Reiner RC: Epidemiology, not geopolitics, should guide COVID-19 vaccine donations. Lancet 2021; 398 : 97–99. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 19. Bates BR, Tami A, Carvajal A, et al. : Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among Venezuelans during the 2020 epidemic: An online cross-sectional survey. PLoS One. 2021; 16 (4): e0249022. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 20. Dhanani LY, Franz B: The Role of News Consumption and Trust in Public Health Leadership in Shaping COVID-19 Knowledge and Prejudice. Front. Psychol. 2020 2020-October-22; 11 (2812). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 21. Karasneh R, Al-Azzam S, Muflih S, et al. : Media's effect on shaping knowledge, awareness risk perceptions and communication practices of pandemic COVID-19 among pharmacists. Res. Social Adm. Pharm. 2021; 17 (1): 1897–1902. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 22. Lee M, Kang B-A, You M: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) toward COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in South Korea. BMC Public Health 2021 2021/02/05; 21 (1): 295. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 23. Molla KA, Abegaz SB: Community knowledge, attitude and practices to SARS-CoV-2 disease 2019 (COVID-19): A cross-sectional study in Woldia town, Northeast Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2021; 16 (4): e0250465. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 24. Galasso V, Pons V, Profeta P, et al. : Gender differences in COVID-19 attitudes and behavior: Panel evidence from eight countries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2020; 117 (44): 27285–27291. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 25. Coroiu A, Moran C, Campbell T, et al. : Barriers and facilitators of adherence to social distancing recommendations during COVID-19 among a large international sample of adults. PLoS One. 2020; 15 (10): e0239795. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 26. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH: Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Educ. Q. 1988; 15 (2): 175–183. Publisher Full Text 27. Al-Hanawi MK, Angawi K, Alshareef N, et al. : Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Toward COVID-19 Among the Public in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front. Public Health 2020-May-27; 8 (217). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 28. Azlan AA, Hamzah MR, Sern TJ, et al. : Public knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19: A cross-sectional study in Malaysia. PLoS One 2020; 15 (5): e0233668. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 29. Al-Mohrej OA, Al-Shirian SD, Al-Otaibi SK, et al. : Is the Saudi public aware of Middle East respiratory syndrome? J. Infect. Public Health 2016 May-Jun; 9 (3): 259–266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 30. Bawazir A, Al-Mazroo E, Jradi H, et al. : MERS-CoV infection: Mind the public knowledge gap. J. Infect. Public Health 2018/01/01; 11 (1): 89–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 31. Inglehart R, Norris P: The Developmental Theory of the Gender Gap: Women’s and Men’s Voting Behavior in Global Perspective. Int. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2000 2000/10/01; 21 (4): 441–463. Publisher Full Text 32. Edlund L, Pande R: Why Have Women Become Left-Wing? The Political Gender Gap and the Decline in Marriage*. Q. J. Econ. 2002; 117 (3): 917–961. Publisher Full Text 33. Beier ME, Ackerman PL: Determinants of health knowledge: an investigation of age, gender, abilities, personality, and interests. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003 Feb; 84 (2): 439–448. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 34. Zhang L, Zhu S, Yao H, et al. : Study on Factors of People's Wearing Masks Based on Two Online Surveys: Cross-Sectional Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021; 18 (7): 3447. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 35. Al Naam YA, Elsafi SH, Alkharraz ZS, et al. : Community practice of using face masks for the prevention of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. PLoS One. 2021; 16 (2): e0247313. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 36. Martinelli L, Kopilaš V, Vidmar M, et al. : Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Simple Protection Tool With Many Meanings. Front. Public Health 2021 2021-January-13; 8 (947). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 37. Harapan H: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study. figshare. Dataset. 2021. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Feb 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 2 Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 3 Medical Research Unit, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 4 Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 5 Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 6 Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, 02139, USA 7 Laboratory of Host Defense, WPI Immunology Frontier Research Center (IFReC), Osaka University, Osaka, 565-0874, Japan 8 Department of Environmental Coexistence, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 606-8304, Japan 9 Division of Surgery, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, 243122, India 10 Department of Abdominal Surgery, Vladimir City Emergency Hospital, Vladimir, 600014, Russian Federation 11 Master Program of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 12 Faculty of Medicine and General Surgery, Sudan University of Science and Technology, Khartoum, 407, Sudan 13 Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Omdurman, 11111, Sudan 14 Faculty of Medicine, University of Bahri, Khartoum, 11111, Sudan 15 Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, University Tunis el Manar, Tunis, 2074, Tunisia 16 Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis, 2074, Tunisia 17 Faculty of Dental Medicine Monastir, University of Tunis El Manar, Monastir, 5000, Tunisia 18 Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, El-sharkia, 44519, Egypt 19 Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University Nasr City, Cairo, 1181, Egypt 20 Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, 21131, Egypt 21 Department of General Medicine, Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College and General Hospital, Pune, 516599001, India 22 Division of Veterinary Parasitology, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, 243122, India 23 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yanan Hospital Affiliated to Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, 650000, China 24 Department of Public Health and Postgraduate Program in Applied Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Western Paraná State University, Francisco Beltrão, 85601-970, Brazil 25 Faculty of Medicine, University of La Frontera, Temuco, 4781218, Chile 26 Covenant University Medical Center, Ijebu Ode, Ogun, 120101, Nigeria 27 Department of Medical Laboratory Science, Babcock University, Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, 121103, Nigeria 28 Research Fellow, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 14604, USA 29 Tabriz Health Services Management Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, 516599001, Iran 30 Department of Internal Medicine, Kabir Medical College, Gandhara University, Peshawar, 25000, Pakistan 31 Department of Psychology, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, 40100, Pakistan 32 Department of Public Health and Infectious Disease, Sapienza-University of Rome, Rome, 00185, Italy 33 Department of Pharmacy, BGC Trust University Bangladesh, Chittagong, 4381, Bangladesh 34 Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Hasanuddin University, Tamalanrea, Makassar, 90245, Indonesia 35 Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Western Paraná State University, Francisco Beltrão, 85601-970, Brazil 36 Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, 97, Iran 37 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA Harapan Harapan Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Amanda Yufika Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Samsul Anwar Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Youdiil Ophinni Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Chika Yamada Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Khan Sharun Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Mahir Gachabayov Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Marhami Fahriani Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Milda Husnah Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Rawan Raad Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Namareg ME. Khiri Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Rashed YA Abdalla Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Wajdi Kacem Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Zeineb Teyeb Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Khaoula Aloui Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Manel Ferjani Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Dalia A. Deeb Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Dina Emad Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Kirellos S Abbas Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Suhrud Panchawagh Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Sunil Anandu Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Md Ariful Haque Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Lirane ED. Ferreto Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing María FC. Briones Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Rocío BI. Morales Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Sebastián Lazcano-Díaz Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Abiodun Durosinmi Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Esther N. Adejumo Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Elham Babadi Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Edris Kakemam Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Irfan Ullah Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Najma I. Malik Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Francesco Rosiello Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Talha B. Emran Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Firzan Nainu Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Guilherme W. Wendt Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Morteza Arab-Zozani Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Abram L. Wagner Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Mudatsir Mudatsir Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This study was funded by Universitas Syiah Kuala, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology, H-Index Scheme 2021 (169/UN11/SPK/PNBP/2021). The APC was funded by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (grant number 19K17925). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 05 Mar 2026, 11:206 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.79534.2 version 1 Published: 17 Feb 2022, 11:206 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.79534.1 Copyright © 2026 Harapan H et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Harapan H, Yufika A, Anwar S et al. Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.79534.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 05 Mar 2026 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Khader Y. Reviewer Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197181.r464970 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2#referee-response-464970 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 17 Mar 2026 Yousef Khader , Department of Public Health, Community Medicine and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197181.r464970 This manuscript addresses an important public health topic by examining beliefs in social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic across multiple low- and middle-income countries. The introduction clearly establishes the relevance of preventive behaviors in controlling SARS-CoV-2 ... Continue reading READ ALL This manuscript addresses an important public health topic by examining beliefs in social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic across multiple low- and middle-income countries. The introduction clearly establishes the relevance of preventive behaviors in controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission and provides a solid rationale for the study. The methods are well described, with a transparent explanation of the cross-sectional design, survey instrument, and analytical approach. The inclusion of respondents from ten countries strengthens the contribution of the study by providing comparative insights across diverse settings. The results are presented clearly and highlight meaningful determinants of preventive behaviors, while the discussion appropriately interprets the findings in relation to existing literature and acknowledges key limitations. Overall, the study provides useful evidence that can help inform targeted public health communication strategies aimed at improving adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions during infectious disease outbreaks. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Khader Y. Reviewer Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197181.r464970 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2#referee-response-464970 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Okoro RN. Reviewer Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197181.r464971 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2#referee-response-464971 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 14 Mar 2026 Roland Nnaemeka Okoro , Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Administration, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Borno, Nigeria Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197181.r464971 My comments ... Continue reading READ ALL My comments were satisfactorily addressed Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Pharmacy Education and Pharmacy Practice, Tropical Diseases with emphasis on Malaria, and Pharmacotherapeutics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Okoro RN. Reviewer Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197181.r464971 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2#referee-response-464971 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 17 Feb 2022 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Okoro RN. Reviewer Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.83528.r290573 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v1#referee-response-290573 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 22 Jul 2024 Roland Nnaemeka Okoro , Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Administration, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Borno, Nigeria Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.83528.r290573 The study is interesting and a show of a good teamwork, although I have identified some issues that need to be addressed by the authors. Introduction: Paragraph 1: As far as COVID-19 is concerned, it is ... Continue reading READ ALL The study is interesting and a show of a good teamwork, although I have identified some issues that need to be addressed by the authors. Introduction: Paragraph 1: As far as COVID-19 is concerned, it is not just “regular handwashing” but “regular handwashing with soap under running water” Methods: Paragraph 1: What informed the choice of counties selected for the study? Paragraph 2: The minimum sample size calculated using the provided variables should be stated. Paragraph 3: Brief description of the study instrument should stand alone before data collection. Information on the study variables should be part of study instrument description. Information on how this instrument was validated is required. How was cut-off of 50% used to categorize the perceived risk determined? Data collection should be stated thereafter. The duration of data collection should be stated and how data collection was stopped in each country that was included in the study. Paragraph 5: Nothing was mentioned about how the results were presented. All that was stated here was how factors were determined. Results: Overall, how many people were invited to participate in the study? What was the response rate? Authors stated that 203 respondents were exclude due to incomplete data, but this was not capture as an exclusion criterion in the method section. Discussion: Well written Conclusion: Well written Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Pharmacy Education and Pharmacy Practice, Tropical Diseases with emphasis on Malaria, and Pharmacotherapeutics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Okoro RN. Reviewer Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.83528.r290573 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v1#referee-response-290573 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 05 Mar 2026 Harapan Harapan , Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 05 Mar 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: The study is interesting and a show of a good teamwork, although I have identified some issues that need to be addressed by the authors. Introduction: Paragraph 1: As far as COVID-19 is concerned, it is not just “regular handwashing” but “regular handwashing with soap under running water” AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this correction. We have revised the wording in the Introduction accordingly. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Replace: “regular handwashing” With: “regular handwashing with soap under running water” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 1: What informed the choice of counties selected for the study? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have now clarified the rationale for country selection in the Study design and setting section, including feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators, and representation of LMICs across multiple regions. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study design and setting “The participating countries were selected based on the feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators in each country to support survey dissemination, and the intention to include LMIC settings from multiple geographic regions.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 2: The minimum sample size calculated using the provided variables should be stated. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have now explicitly stated the minimum sample size and how it was calculated in the Study population and sampling section. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study population and sampling “The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: Brief description of the study instrument should stand alone before data collection. Information on the study variables should be part of study instrument description. Information on how this instrument was validated is required. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We restructured the Methods section to separate the Study instrument description from the Data collection subsection. We also added a clearer description of the questionnaire domains and a statement on instrument review/pretesting before implementation. Study variables section is now moved under directly under Study instrument . ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study instrument (new subsection before Data collection) “Study instrument” A structured questionnaire was developed to assess respondents’ demographic characteristics, belief in the benefits of social distancing, face mask practices, COVID-19-related exposures, comorbidities, and perceived risk toward COVID-19. The questionnaire included closed-ended items and Likert-type response options for the belief domain. A copy of the survey can be found under Extended data. 37 Before implementation, the questionnaire was reviewed by experts in the fields of virology and public health as well as the country collaborators for clarity and relevance. The questions within the questionnaire were tested and validity was confirmed prior to being used in the study. Wording and sequence were refined based on the validity assessment prior to data collection. REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: How was cut-off of 50% used to categorize the perceived risk determined? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We clarified in the Study variables section that the 50% cut-off was used as a pragmatic midpoint threshold to dichotomize perceived risk scores for interpretation and analysis, rather than a universally validated cut-off. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Explanatory variables “For analysis, responses were dichotomized using a pragmatic midpoint threshold (≤50% vs. >50%) to facilitate interpretation. In addition, the two scores from summed (ranges: 0–200) and respondents who achieved more than 50% of the total score (i.e., 100 scores out of 200) were classified as having high perceived risk; conversely, those with less than 50% were classified as having a low perceived risk.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: Data collection should be stated thereafter. The duration of data collection should be stated and how data collection was stopped in each country that was included in the study. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We revised the Data collection subsection to clearly state the data collection period (February to May 2021), the dissemination process across countries, and how the online survey was closed at the end of the study period. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Data collection “Data collection was conducted from February to May 2021 for all countries. The survey remained open during this period and was closed at the end of the data collection window, after which no further responses were accepted.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 5: Nothing was mentioned about how the results were presented. All that was stated here was how factors were determined. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have revised the Statistical analysis section to clearly state how the results were summarized and presented, in addition to how associated factors were analyzed. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Statistical analysis “The responses were downloaded from SurveyMonkey into Microsoft Excel, cleaned, coded, and then exported to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Descriptive statistics for respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs in the benefits of social distancing, and face mask practices were summarized and presented as frequencies and percentages. The numbers and proportions of respondents with good belief in the benefits of social distancing and good face mask practice were calculated.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Results - Overall, how many people were invited to participate in the study? What was the response rate? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We clarified in the Results that because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and snowball sharing, the number of individuals who received/viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Results – Demographic characteristics (opening paragraph) “During the study period, 1,849 responses were received. Because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and social sharing, the total number of individuals who received or viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. In this present study, a total of 203 respondents were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 1,646 respondents for the analysis of belief in social distancing benefits, where more than 20% of them were from India.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Results - Authors stated that 203 respondents were exclude due to incomplete data, but this was not capture as an exclusion criterion in the method section. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for identifying this inconsistency. We have revised the Methods (Study population and sampling) section to explicitly state that responses with incomplete data on variables required for analysis were excluded. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : Methods – Study population and sampling “Responses with incomplete data for variables required in the analyses were also excluded.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Discussion - Well written Conclusion - Well written AUTHORS RESPONSE : Thank you. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : NA Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: The study is interesting and a show of a good teamwork, although I have identified some issues that need to be addressed by the authors. Introduction: Paragraph 1: As far as COVID-19 is concerned, it is not just “regular handwashing” but “regular handwashing with soap under running water” AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this correction. We have revised the wording in the Introduction accordingly. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Replace: “regular handwashing” With: “regular handwashing with soap under running water” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 1: What informed the choice of counties selected for the study? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have now clarified the rationale for country selection in the Study design and setting section, including feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators, and representation of LMICs across multiple regions. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study design and setting “The participating countries were selected based on the feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators in each country to support survey dissemination, and the intention to include LMIC settings from multiple geographic regions.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 2: The minimum sample size calculated using the provided variables should be stated. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have now explicitly stated the minimum sample size and how it was calculated in the Study population and sampling section. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study population and sampling “The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: Brief description of the study instrument should stand alone before data collection. Information on the study variables should be part of study instrument description. Information on how this instrument was validated is required. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We restructured the Methods section to separate the Study instrument description from the Data collection subsection. We also added a clearer description of the questionnaire domains and a statement on instrument review/pretesting before implementation. Study variables section is now moved under directly under Study instrument . ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study instrument (new subsection before Data collection) “Study instrument” A structured questionnaire was developed to assess respondents’ demographic characteristics, belief in the benefits of social distancing, face mask practices, COVID-19-related exposures, comorbidities, and perceived risk toward COVID-19. The questionnaire included closed-ended items and Likert-type response options for the belief domain. A copy of the survey can be found under Extended data. 37 Before implementation, the questionnaire was reviewed by experts in the fields of virology and public health as well as the country collaborators for clarity and relevance. The questions within the questionnaire were tested and validity was confirmed prior to being used in the study. Wording and sequence were refined based on the validity assessment prior to data collection. REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: How was cut-off of 50% used to categorize the perceived risk determined? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We clarified in the Study variables section that the 50% cut-off was used as a pragmatic midpoint threshold to dichotomize perceived risk scores for interpretation and analysis, rather than a universally validated cut-off. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Explanatory variables “For analysis, responses were dichotomized using a pragmatic midpoint threshold (≤50% vs. >50%) to facilitate interpretation. In addition, the two scores from summed (ranges: 0–200) and respondents who achieved more than 50% of the total score (i.e., 100 scores out of 200) were classified as having high perceived risk; conversely, those with less than 50% were classified as having a low perceived risk.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: Data collection should be stated thereafter. The duration of data collection should be stated and how data collection was stopped in each country that was included in the study. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We revised the Data collection subsection to clearly state the data collection period (February to May 2021), the dissemination process across countries, and how the online survey was closed at the end of the study period. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Data collection “Data collection was conducted from February to May 2021 for all countries. The survey remained open during this period and was closed at the end of the data collection window, after which no further responses were accepted.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 5: Nothing was mentioned about how the results were presented. All that was stated here was how factors were determined. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have revised the Statistical analysis section to clearly state how the results were summarized and presented, in addition to how associated factors were analyzed. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Statistical analysis “The responses were downloaded from SurveyMonkey into Microsoft Excel, cleaned, coded, and then exported to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Descriptive statistics for respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs in the benefits of social distancing, and face mask practices were summarized and presented as frequencies and percentages. The numbers and proportions of respondents with good belief in the benefits of social distancing and good face mask practice were calculated.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Results - Overall, how many people were invited to participate in the study? What was the response rate? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We clarified in the Results that because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and snowball sharing, the number of individuals who received/viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Results – Demographic characteristics (opening paragraph) “During the study period, 1,849 responses were received. Because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and social sharing, the total number of individuals who received or viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. In this present study, a total of 203 respondents were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 1,646 respondents for the analysis of belief in social distancing benefits, where more than 20% of them were from India.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Results - Authors stated that 203 respondents were exclude due to incomplete data, but this was not capture as an exclusion criterion in the method section. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for identifying this inconsistency. We have revised the Methods (Study population and sampling) section to explicitly state that responses with incomplete data on variables required for analysis were excluded. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : Methods – Study population and sampling “Responses with incomplete data for variables required in the analyses were also excluded.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Discussion - Well written Conclusion - Well written AUTHORS RESPONSE : Thank you. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : NA Competing Interests: Authors has no competing interest. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 05 Mar 2026 Harapan Harapan , Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 05 Mar 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: The study is interesting and a show of a good teamwork, although I have identified some issues that need to be addressed by the authors. Introduction: Paragraph 1: As far as COVID-19 is concerned, it is not just “regular handwashing” but “regular handwashing with soap under running water” AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this correction. We have revised the wording in the Introduction accordingly. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Replace: “regular handwashing” With: “regular handwashing with soap under running water” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 1: What informed the choice of counties selected for the study? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have now clarified the rationale for country selection in the Study design and setting section, including feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators, and representation of LMICs across multiple regions. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study design and setting “The participating countries were selected based on the feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators in each country to support survey dissemination, and the intention to include LMIC settings from multiple geographic regions.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 2: The minimum sample size calculated using the provided variables should be stated. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have now explicitly stated the minimum sample size and how it was calculated in the Study population and sampling section. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study population and sampling “The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: Brief description of the study instrument should stand alone before data collection. Information on the study variables should be part of study instrument description. Information on how this instrument was validated is required. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We restructured the Methods section to separate the Study instrument description from the Data collection subsection. We also added a clearer description of the questionnaire domains and a statement on instrument review/pretesting before implementation. Study variables section is now moved under directly under Study instrument . ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study instrument (new subsection before Data collection) “Study instrument” A structured questionnaire was developed to assess respondents’ demographic characteristics, belief in the benefits of social distancing, face mask practices, COVID-19-related exposures, comorbidities, and perceived risk toward COVID-19. The questionnaire included closed-ended items and Likert-type response options for the belief domain. A copy of the survey can be found under Extended data. 37 Before implementation, the questionnaire was reviewed by experts in the fields of virology and public health as well as the country collaborators for clarity and relevance. The questions within the questionnaire were tested and validity was confirmed prior to being used in the study. Wording and sequence were refined based on the validity assessment prior to data collection. REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: How was cut-off of 50% used to categorize the perceived risk determined? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We clarified in the Study variables section that the 50% cut-off was used as a pragmatic midpoint threshold to dichotomize perceived risk scores for interpretation and analysis, rather than a universally validated cut-off. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Explanatory variables “For analysis, responses were dichotomized using a pragmatic midpoint threshold (≤50% vs. >50%) to facilitate interpretation. In addition, the two scores from summed (ranges: 0–200) and respondents who achieved more than 50% of the total score (i.e., 100 scores out of 200) were classified as having high perceived risk; conversely, those with less than 50% were classified as having a low perceived risk.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: Data collection should be stated thereafter. The duration of data collection should be stated and how data collection was stopped in each country that was included in the study. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We revised the Data collection subsection to clearly state the data collection period (February to May 2021), the dissemination process across countries, and how the online survey was closed at the end of the study period. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Data collection “Data collection was conducted from February to May 2021 for all countries. The survey remained open during this period and was closed at the end of the data collection window, after which no further responses were accepted.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 5: Nothing was mentioned about how the results were presented. All that was stated here was how factors were determined. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have revised the Statistical analysis section to clearly state how the results were summarized and presented, in addition to how associated factors were analyzed. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Statistical analysis “The responses were downloaded from SurveyMonkey into Microsoft Excel, cleaned, coded, and then exported to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Descriptive statistics for respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs in the benefits of social distancing, and face mask practices were summarized and presented as frequencies and percentages. The numbers and proportions of respondents with good belief in the benefits of social distancing and good face mask practice were calculated.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Results - Overall, how many people were invited to participate in the study? What was the response rate? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We clarified in the Results that because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and snowball sharing, the number of individuals who received/viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Results – Demographic characteristics (opening paragraph) “During the study period, 1,849 responses were received. Because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and social sharing, the total number of individuals who received or viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. In this present study, a total of 203 respondents were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 1,646 respondents for the analysis of belief in social distancing benefits, where more than 20% of them were from India.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Results - Authors stated that 203 respondents were exclude due to incomplete data, but this was not capture as an exclusion criterion in the method section. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for identifying this inconsistency. We have revised the Methods (Study population and sampling) section to explicitly state that responses with incomplete data on variables required for analysis were excluded. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : Methods – Study population and sampling “Responses with incomplete data for variables required in the analyses were also excluded.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Discussion - Well written Conclusion - Well written AUTHORS RESPONSE : Thank you. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : NA Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: The study is interesting and a show of a good teamwork, although I have identified some issues that need to be addressed by the authors. Introduction: Paragraph 1: As far as COVID-19 is concerned, it is not just “regular handwashing” but “regular handwashing with soap under running water” AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this correction. We have revised the wording in the Introduction accordingly. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Replace: “regular handwashing” With: “regular handwashing with soap under running water” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 1: What informed the choice of counties selected for the study? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have now clarified the rationale for country selection in the Study design and setting section, including feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators, and representation of LMICs across multiple regions. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study design and setting “The participating countries were selected based on the feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators in each country to support survey dissemination, and the intention to include LMIC settings from multiple geographic regions.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 2: The minimum sample size calculated using the provided variables should be stated. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have now explicitly stated the minimum sample size and how it was calculated in the Study population and sampling section. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study population and sampling “The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: Brief description of the study instrument should stand alone before data collection. Information on the study variables should be part of study instrument description. Information on how this instrument was validated is required. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We restructured the Methods section to separate the Study instrument description from the Data collection subsection. We also added a clearer description of the questionnaire domains and a statement on instrument review/pretesting before implementation. Study variables section is now moved under directly under Study instrument . ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study instrument (new subsection before Data collection) “Study instrument” A structured questionnaire was developed to assess respondents’ demographic characteristics, belief in the benefits of social distancing, face mask practices, COVID-19-related exposures, comorbidities, and perceived risk toward COVID-19. The questionnaire included closed-ended items and Likert-type response options for the belief domain. A copy of the survey can be found under Extended data. 37 Before implementation, the questionnaire was reviewed by experts in the fields of virology and public health as well as the country collaborators for clarity and relevance. The questions within the questionnaire were tested and validity was confirmed prior to being used in the study. Wording and sequence were refined based on the validity assessment prior to data collection. REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: How was cut-off of 50% used to categorize the perceived risk determined? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We clarified in the Study variables section that the 50% cut-off was used as a pragmatic midpoint threshold to dichotomize perceived risk scores for interpretation and analysis, rather than a universally validated cut-off. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Explanatory variables “For analysis, responses were dichotomized using a pragmatic midpoint threshold (≤50% vs. >50%) to facilitate interpretation. In addition, the two scores from summed (ranges: 0–200) and respondents who achieved more than 50% of the total score (i.e., 100 scores out of 200) were classified as having high perceived risk; conversely, those with less than 50% were classified as having a low perceived risk.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: Data collection should be stated thereafter. The duration of data collection should be stated and how data collection was stopped in each country that was included in the study. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We revised the Data collection subsection to clearly state the data collection period (February to May 2021), the dissemination process across countries, and how the online survey was closed at the end of the study period. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Data collection “Data collection was conducted from February to May 2021 for all countries. The survey remained open during this period and was closed at the end of the data collection window, after which no further responses were accepted.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 5: Nothing was mentioned about how the results were presented. All that was stated here was how factors were determined. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have revised the Statistical analysis section to clearly state how the results were summarized and presented, in addition to how associated factors were analyzed. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Statistical analysis “The responses were downloaded from SurveyMonkey into Microsoft Excel, cleaned, coded, and then exported to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Descriptive statistics for respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs in the benefits of social distancing, and face mask practices were summarized and presented as frequencies and percentages. The numbers and proportions of respondents with good belief in the benefits of social distancing and good face mask practice were calculated.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Results - Overall, how many people were invited to participate in the study? What was the response rate? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We clarified in the Results that because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and snowball sharing, the number of individuals who received/viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Results – Demographic characteristics (opening paragraph) “During the study period, 1,849 responses were received. Because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and social sharing, the total number of individuals who received or viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. In this present study, a total of 203 respondents were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 1,646 respondents for the analysis of belief in social distancing benefits, where more than 20% of them were from India.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Results - Authors stated that 203 respondents were exclude due to incomplete data, but this was not capture as an exclusion criterion in the method section. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for identifying this inconsistency. We have revised the Methods (Study population and sampling) section to explicitly state that responses with incomplete data on variables required for analysis were excluded. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : Methods – Study population and sampling “Responses with incomplete data for variables required in the analyses were also excluded.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Discussion - Well written Conclusion - Well written AUTHORS RESPONSE : Thank you. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : NA Competing Interests: Authors has no competing interest. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Khader Y. Reviewer Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.83528.r141134 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v1#referee-response-141134 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Jun 2022 Yousef Khader , Department of Public Health, Community Medicine and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.83528.r141134 This study interesting study was conducted to assess the level of belief in social distancing and face mask practices in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to identify their possible determinants. The manuscript is well written. ... Continue reading READ ALL This study interesting study was conducted to assess the level of belief in social distancing and face mask practices in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to identify their possible determinants. The manuscript is well written. The following comments need to be addressed by authors: Please show the calculated sample size. Is it calculated for each country? You should show the sample size calculation considering the logistic regression analysis and not only for estimating a single proportion. Please elaborate on how you recruited people from each country. Is there a focal person in each country to reach people in each country? Please mention the limitations that are associated with the sampling approach you used? The 80% cut-off: Is it possible to cite a reference that is related to the establishing this cut-off value for any standard questionnaire? Did you consider clustering within country in the analysis (Multilevel analysis)? Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Khader Y. Reviewer Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.83528.r141134 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v1#referee-response-141134 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 05 Mar 2026 Harapan Harapan , Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 05 Mar 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: This study interesting study was conducted to assess the level of belief in social distancing and face mask practices in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to identify their possible determinants. The manuscript is well written. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for your constructive and encouraging comments. Point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: The following comments need to be addressed by authors: 1. Please show the calculated sample size. Is it calculated for each country? You should show the sample size calculation considering the logistic regression analysis and not only for estimating a single proportion. Please elaborate on how you recruited people from each country. Is there a focal person in each country to reach people in each country? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the Methods section to explicitly report the minimum sample size calculation (95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and 50% expected proportion), and clarified that this estimate was used as a minimum overall sample size, not a country-specific sample size. We also clarified that the final sample exceeded this minimum to support multivariable logistic regression and country-level comparisons. In addition, we expanded the recruitment procedure to explain that the survey link was distributed via social media and networks across participating countries, and that local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons in each country to facilitate dissemination. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : Methods – Study population and sampling “The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants. This calculation was applied as the minimum overall sample size for the study; not for each country separately. Recruitment was continued beyond this minimum to improve precision and support multivariable logistic regression analyses and country-level comparisons.” Methods – Data collection “In each participating country, local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons to facilitate dissemination of the survey link through their professional and community networks.” REVIEWER COMMENT: 2. Please mention the limitations that are associated with the sampling approach you used? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the limitations paragraph in the Discussion to explicitly acknowledge the limitation related to the sampling approach. Specifically, we added that the use of a non-probability convenience sampling approach (including online and snowball dissemination) may have introduced selection bias and limited the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in each participating country. ADDED TEXT : Discussion – Limitations “In addition, the use of a non-probability convenience sampling approach (including online and snowball dissemination) may have introduced selection bias and limited the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in each participating country.” REVIEWER COMMENT: 3. The 80% cut-off: Is it possible to cite a reference that is related to the establishing this cut-off value for any standard questionnaire? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the relevant sentence in the Study variables to clarify that the 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold, consistent with its use in previous studies cited in our manuscript [15,16], and not as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study variables (social distancing belief) The 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold to dichotomize the variable into good and poor categories, consistent with its use in previous studies, 15 ,16 rather than as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. REVIEWER COMMENT: 4. Did you consider clustering within country in the analysis (Multilevel analysis)? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for raising this point. We have clarified in the Statistical analysis section that multilevel (hierarchical) modeling was not performed in the current analysis and that country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models. We also added this as a limitation in the Discussion . ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Statistical analysis “Multilevel modeling to account for clustering by country was not performed in the present analysis; instead, country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models.” Discussion – Limitations “Furthermore, in this study, multilevel modelling was not performed to explicitly account for within-country clustering. Although country was included as a covariate in the regression models, residual intra-country correlation may still have remained.” Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: This study interesting study was conducted to assess the level of belief in social distancing and face mask practices in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to identify their possible determinants. The manuscript is well written. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for your constructive and encouraging comments. Point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: The following comments need to be addressed by authors: 1. Please show the calculated sample size. Is it calculated for each country? You should show the sample size calculation considering the logistic regression analysis and not only for estimating a single proportion. Please elaborate on how you recruited people from each country. Is there a focal person in each country to reach people in each country? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the Methods section to explicitly report the minimum sample size calculation (95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and 50% expected proportion), and clarified that this estimate was used as a minimum overall sample size, not a country-specific sample size. We also clarified that the final sample exceeded this minimum to support multivariable logistic regression and country-level comparisons. In addition, we expanded the recruitment procedure to explain that the survey link was distributed via social media and networks across participating countries, and that local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons in each country to facilitate dissemination. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : Methods – Study population and sampling “The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants. This calculation was applied as the minimum overall sample size for the study; not for each country separately. Recruitment was continued beyond this minimum to improve precision and support multivariable logistic regression analyses and country-level comparisons.” Methods – Data collection “In each participating country, local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons to facilitate dissemination of the survey link through their professional and community networks.” REVIEWER COMMENT: 2. Please mention the limitations that are associated with the sampling approach you used? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the limitations paragraph in the Discussion to explicitly acknowledge the limitation related to the sampling approach. Specifically, we added that the use of a non-probability convenience sampling approach (including online and snowball dissemination) may have introduced selection bias and limited the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in each participating country. ADDED TEXT : Discussion – Limitations “In addition, the use of a non-probability convenience sampling approach (including online and snowball dissemination) may have introduced selection bias and limited the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in each participating country.” REVIEWER COMMENT: 3. The 80% cut-off: Is it possible to cite a reference that is related to the establishing this cut-off value for any standard questionnaire? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the relevant sentence in the Study variables to clarify that the 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold, consistent with its use in previous studies cited in our manuscript [15,16], and not as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study variables (social distancing belief) The 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold to dichotomize the variable into good and poor categories, consistent with its use in previous studies, 15 ,16 rather than as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. REVIEWER COMMENT: 4. Did you consider clustering within country in the analysis (Multilevel analysis)? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for raising this point. We have clarified in the Statistical analysis section that multilevel (hierarchical) modeling was not performed in the current analysis and that country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models. We also added this as a limitation in the Discussion . ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Statistical analysis “Multilevel modeling to account for clustering by country was not performed in the present analysis; instead, country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models.” Discussion – Limitations “Furthermore, in this study, multilevel modelling was not performed to explicitly account for within-country clustering. Although country was included as a covariate in the regression models, residual intra-country correlation may still have remained.” Competing Interests: Authors have no competing interest. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 05 Mar 2026 Harapan Harapan , Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia 05 Mar 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: This study interesting study was conducted to assess the level of belief in social distancing and face mask practices in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to identify their possible determinants. The manuscript is well written. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for your constructive and encouraging comments. Point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: The following comments need to be addressed by authors: 1. Please show the calculated sample size. Is it calculated for each country? You should show the sample size calculation considering the logistic regression analysis and not only for estimating a single proportion. Please elaborate on how you recruited people from each country. Is there a focal person in each country to reach people in each country? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the Methods section to explicitly report the minimum sample size calculation (95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and 50% expected proportion), and clarified that this estimate was used as a minimum overall sample size, not a country-specific sample size. We also clarified that the final sample exceeded this minimum to support multivariable logistic regression and country-level comparisons. In addition, we expanded the recruitment procedure to explain that the survey link was distributed via social media and networks across participating countries, and that local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons in each country to facilitate dissemination. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : Methods – Study population and sampling “The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants. This calculation was applied as the minimum overall sample size for the study; not for each country separately. Recruitment was continued beyond this minimum to improve precision and support multivariable logistic regression analyses and country-level comparisons.” Methods – Data collection “In each participating country, local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons to facilitate dissemination of the survey link through their professional and community networks.” REVIEWER COMMENT: 2. Please mention the limitations that are associated with the sampling approach you used? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the limitations paragraph in the Discussion to explicitly acknowledge the limitation related to the sampling approach. Specifically, we added that the use of a non-probability convenience sampling approach (including online and snowball dissemination) may have introduced selection bias and limited the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in each participating country. ADDED TEXT : Discussion – Limitations “In addition, the use of a non-probability convenience sampling approach (including online and snowball dissemination) may have introduced selection bias and limited the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in each participating country.” REVIEWER COMMENT: 3. The 80% cut-off: Is it possible to cite a reference that is related to the establishing this cut-off value for any standard questionnaire? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the relevant sentence in the Study variables to clarify that the 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold, consistent with its use in previous studies cited in our manuscript [15,16], and not as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study variables (social distancing belief) The 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold to dichotomize the variable into good and poor categories, consistent with its use in previous studies, 15 ,16 rather than as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. REVIEWER COMMENT: 4. Did you consider clustering within country in the analysis (Multilevel analysis)? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for raising this point. We have clarified in the Statistical analysis section that multilevel (hierarchical) modeling was not performed in the current analysis and that country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models. We also added this as a limitation in the Discussion . ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Statistical analysis “Multilevel modeling to account for clustering by country was not performed in the present analysis; instead, country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models.” Discussion – Limitations “Furthermore, in this study, multilevel modelling was not performed to explicitly account for within-country clustering. Although country was included as a covariate in the regression models, residual intra-country correlation may still have remained.” Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: This study interesting study was conducted to assess the level of belief in social distancing and face mask practices in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to identify their possible determinants. The manuscript is well written. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for your constructive and encouraging comments. Point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: The following comments need to be addressed by authors: 1. Please show the calculated sample size. Is it calculated for each country? You should show the sample size calculation considering the logistic regression analysis and not only for estimating a single proportion. Please elaborate on how you recruited people from each country. Is there a focal person in each country to reach people in each country? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the Methods section to explicitly report the minimum sample size calculation (95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and 50% expected proportion), and clarified that this estimate was used as a minimum overall sample size, not a country-specific sample size. We also clarified that the final sample exceeded this minimum to support multivariable logistic regression and country-level comparisons. In addition, we expanded the recruitment procedure to explain that the survey link was distributed via social media and networks across participating countries, and that local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons in each country to facilitate dissemination. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : Methods – Study population and sampling “The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants. This calculation was applied as the minimum overall sample size for the study; not for each country separately. Recruitment was continued beyond this minimum to improve precision and support multivariable logistic regression analyses and country-level comparisons.” Methods – Data collection “In each participating country, local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons to facilitate dissemination of the survey link through their professional and community networks.” REVIEWER COMMENT: 2. Please mention the limitations that are associated with the sampling approach you used? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the limitations paragraph in the Discussion to explicitly acknowledge the limitation related to the sampling approach. Specifically, we added that the use of a non-probability convenience sampling approach (including online and snowball dissemination) may have introduced selection bias and limited the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in each participating country. ADDED TEXT : Discussion – Limitations “In addition, the use of a non-probability convenience sampling approach (including online and snowball dissemination) may have introduced selection bias and limited the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in each participating country.” REVIEWER COMMENT: 3. The 80% cut-off: Is it possible to cite a reference that is related to the establishing this cut-off value for any standard questionnaire? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the relevant sentence in the Study variables to clarify that the 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold, consistent with its use in previous studies cited in our manuscript [15,16], and not as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study variables (social distancing belief) The 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold to dichotomize the variable into good and poor categories, consistent with its use in previous studies, 15 ,16 rather than as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. REVIEWER COMMENT: 4. Did you consider clustering within country in the analysis (Multilevel analysis)? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for raising this point. We have clarified in the Statistical analysis section that multilevel (hierarchical) modeling was not performed in the current analysis and that country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models. We also added this as a limitation in the Discussion . ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Statistical analysis “Multilevel modeling to account for clustering by country was not performed in the present analysis; instead, country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models.” Discussion – Limitations “Furthermore, in this study, multilevel modelling was not performed to explicitly account for within-country clustering. Although country was included as a covariate in the regression models, residual intra-country correlation may still have remained.” Competing Interests: Authors have no competing interest. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Feb 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 2 (revision) 05 Mar 26 read read Version 1 17 Feb 22 read read Yousef Khader , Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan Roland Nnaemeka Okoro , University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Khader Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 17 Mar 2026 | for Version 2 Yousef Khader , Department of Public Health, Community Medicine and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan 0 Views copyright © 2026 Khader Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This manuscript addresses an important public health topic by examining beliefs in social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic across multiple low- and middle-income countries. The introduction clearly establishes the relevance of preventive behaviors in controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission and provides a solid rationale for the study. The methods are well described, with a transparent explanation of the cross-sectional design, survey instrument, and analytical approach. The inclusion of respondents from ten countries strengthens the contribution of the study by providing comparative insights across diverse settings. The results are presented clearly and highlight meaningful determinants of preventive behaviors, while the discussion appropriately interprets the findings in relation to existing literature and acknowledges key limitations. Overall, the study provides useful evidence that can help inform targeted public health communication strategies aimed at improving adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions during infectious disease outbreaks. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Khader Y. Peer Review Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197181.r464970) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2#referee-response-464970 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Okoro R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 14 Mar 2026 | for Version 2 Roland Nnaemeka Okoro , Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Administration, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Borno, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2026 Okoro R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions My comments were satisfactorily addressed Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Pharmacy Education and Pharmacy Practice, Tropical Diseases with emphasis on Malaria, and Pharmacotherapeutics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Okoro RN. Peer Review Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197181.r464971) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2#referee-response-464971 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Okoro R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 22 Jul 2024 | for Version 1 Roland Nnaemeka Okoro , Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Administration, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Borno, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2024 Okoro R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study is interesting and a show of a good teamwork, although I have identified some issues that need to be addressed by the authors. Introduction: Paragraph 1: As far as COVID-19 is concerned, it is not just “regular handwashing” but “regular handwashing with soap under running water” Methods: Paragraph 1: What informed the choice of counties selected for the study? Paragraph 2: The minimum sample size calculated using the provided variables should be stated. Paragraph 3: Brief description of the study instrument should stand alone before data collection. Information on the study variables should be part of study instrument description. Information on how this instrument was validated is required. How was cut-off of 50% used to categorize the perceived risk determined? Data collection should be stated thereafter. The duration of data collection should be stated and how data collection was stopped in each country that was included in the study. Paragraph 5: Nothing was mentioned about how the results were presented. All that was stated here was how factors were determined. Results: Overall, how many people were invited to participate in the study? What was the response rate? Authors stated that 203 respondents were exclude due to incomplete data, but this was not capture as an exclusion criterion in the method section. Discussion: Well written Conclusion: Well written Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Pharmacy Education and Pharmacy Practice, Tropical Diseases with emphasis on Malaria, and Pharmacotherapeutics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 05 Mar 2026 Harapan Harapan, Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: The study is interesting and a show of a good teamwork, although I have identified some issues that need to be addressed by the authors. Introduction: Paragraph 1: As far as COVID-19 is concerned, it is not just “regular handwashing” but “regular handwashing with soap under running water” AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this correction. We have revised the wording in the Introduction accordingly. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Replace: “regular handwashing” With: “regular handwashing with soap under running water” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 1: What informed the choice of counties selected for the study? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have now clarified the rationale for country selection in the Study design and setting section, including feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators, and representation of LMICs across multiple regions. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study design and setting “The participating countries were selected based on the feasibility of online survey implementation, availability of local collaborators in each country to support survey dissemination, and the intention to include LMIC settings from multiple geographic regions.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 2: The minimum sample size calculated using the provided variables should be stated. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have now explicitly stated the minimum sample size and how it was calculated in the Study population and sampling section. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study population and sampling “The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: Brief description of the study instrument should stand alone before data collection. Information on the study variables should be part of study instrument description. Information on how this instrument was validated is required. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We restructured the Methods section to separate the Study instrument description from the Data collection subsection. We also added a clearer description of the questionnaire domains and a statement on instrument review/pretesting before implementation. Study variables section is now moved under directly under Study instrument . ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study instrument (new subsection before Data collection) “Study instrument” A structured questionnaire was developed to assess respondents’ demographic characteristics, belief in the benefits of social distancing, face mask practices, COVID-19-related exposures, comorbidities, and perceived risk toward COVID-19. The questionnaire included closed-ended items and Likert-type response options for the belief domain. A copy of the survey can be found under Extended data. 37 Before implementation, the questionnaire was reviewed by experts in the fields of virology and public health as well as the country collaborators for clarity and relevance. The questions within the questionnaire were tested and validity was confirmed prior to being used in the study. Wording and sequence were refined based on the validity assessment prior to data collection. REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: How was cut-off of 50% used to categorize the perceived risk determined? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We clarified in the Study variables section that the 50% cut-off was used as a pragmatic midpoint threshold to dichotomize perceived risk scores for interpretation and analysis, rather than a universally validated cut-off. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Explanatory variables “For analysis, responses were dichotomized using a pragmatic midpoint threshold (≤50% vs. >50%) to facilitate interpretation. In addition, the two scores from summed (ranges: 0–200) and respondents who achieved more than 50% of the total score (i.e., 100 scores out of 200) were classified as having high perceived risk; conversely, those with less than 50% were classified as having a low perceived risk.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 3: Data collection should be stated thereafter. The duration of data collection should be stated and how data collection was stopped in each country that was included in the study. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We revised the Data collection subsection to clearly state the data collection period (February to May 2021), the dissemination process across countries, and how the online survey was closed at the end of the study period. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Data collection “Data collection was conducted from February to May 2021 for all countries. The survey remained open during this period and was closed at the end of the data collection window, after which no further responses were accepted.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Methods - Paragraph 5: Nothing was mentioned about how the results were presented. All that was stated here was how factors were determined. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We have revised the Statistical analysis section to clearly state how the results were summarized and presented, in addition to how associated factors were analyzed. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Statistical analysis “The responses were downloaded from SurveyMonkey into Microsoft Excel, cleaned, coded, and then exported to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Descriptive statistics for respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs in the benefits of social distancing, and face mask practices were summarized and presented as frequencies and percentages. The numbers and proportions of respondents with good belief in the benefits of social distancing and good face mask practice were calculated.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Results - Overall, how many people were invited to participate in the study? What was the response rate? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. We clarified in the Results that because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and snowball sharing, the number of individuals who received/viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Results – Demographic characteristics (opening paragraph) “During the study period, 1,849 responses were received. Because the survey was disseminated through open online channels and social sharing, the total number of individuals who received or viewed the invitation could not be determined; therefore, a conventional response rate could not be calculated. In this present study, a total of 203 respondents were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 1,646 respondents for the analysis of belief in social distancing benefits, where more than 20% of them were from India.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Results - Authors stated that 203 respondents were exclude due to incomplete data, but this was not capture as an exclusion criterion in the method section. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for identifying this inconsistency. We have revised the Methods (Study population and sampling) section to explicitly state that responses with incomplete data on variables required for analysis were excluded. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : Methods – Study population and sampling “Responses with incomplete data for variables required in the analyses were also excluded.” REVIEWER COMMENT: Discussion - Well written Conclusion - Well written AUTHORS RESPONSE : Thank you. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : NA View more View less Competing Interests Authors has no competing interest. reply Respond Report a concern Okoro RN. Peer Review Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.83528.r290573) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v1#referee-response-290573 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2022 Khader Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Jun 2022 | for Version 1 Yousef Khader , Department of Public Health, Community Medicine and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan 0 Views copyright © 2022 Khader Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This study interesting study was conducted to assess the level of belief in social distancing and face mask practices in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to identify their possible determinants. The manuscript is well written. The following comments need to be addressed by authors: Please show the calculated sample size. Is it calculated for each country? You should show the sample size calculation considering the logistic regression analysis and not only for estimating a single proportion. Please elaborate on how you recruited people from each country. Is there a focal person in each country to reach people in each country? Please mention the limitations that are associated with the sampling approach you used? The 80% cut-off: Is it possible to cite a reference that is related to the establishing this cut-off value for any standard questionnaire? Did you consider clustering within country in the analysis (Multilevel analysis)? Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 05 Mar 2026 Harapan Harapan, Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions on the first version of our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Detailed point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: This study interesting study was conducted to assess the level of belief in social distancing and face mask practices in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to identify their possible determinants. The manuscript is well written. AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for your constructive and encouraging comments. Point-by-point responses to each of your comments are provided below. REVIEWER COMMENT: The following comments need to be addressed by authors: 1. Please show the calculated sample size. Is it calculated for each country? You should show the sample size calculation considering the logistic regression analysis and not only for estimating a single proportion. Please elaborate on how you recruited people from each country. Is there a focal person in each country to reach people in each country? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the Methods section to explicitly report the minimum sample size calculation (95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and 50% expected proportion), and clarified that this estimate was used as a minimum overall sample size, not a country-specific sample size. We also clarified that the final sample exceeded this minimum to support multivariable logistic regression and country-level comparisons. In addition, we expanded the recruitment procedure to explain that the survey link was distributed via social media and networks across participating countries, and that local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons in each country to facilitate dissemination. ADDED/REVISED TEXT : Methods – Study population and sampling “The minimum sample size for estimating a proportion was calculated using a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% conservative estimate of respondents having good beliefs in social distancing benefits and face mask practices, yielding a minimum required sample size of 385 participants. This calculation was applied as the minimum overall sample size for the study; not for each country separately. Recruitment was continued beyond this minimum to improve precision and support multivariable logistic regression analyses and country-level comparisons.” Methods – Data collection “In each participating country, local collaborators/co-authors served as focal persons to facilitate dissemination of the survey link through their professional and community networks.” REVIEWER COMMENT: 2. Please mention the limitations that are associated with the sampling approach you used? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you. Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the limitations paragraph in the Discussion to explicitly acknowledge the limitation related to the sampling approach. Specifically, we added that the use of a non-probability convenience sampling approach (including online and snowball dissemination) may have introduced selection bias and limited the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in each participating country. ADDED TEXT : Discussion – Limitations “In addition, the use of a non-probability convenience sampling approach (including online and snowball dissemination) may have introduced selection bias and limited the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in each participating country.” REVIEWER COMMENT: 3. The 80% cut-off: Is it possible to cite a reference that is related to the establishing this cut-off value for any standard questionnaire? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the relevant sentence in the Study variables to clarify that the 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold, consistent with its use in previous studies cited in our manuscript [15,16], and not as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Study variables (social distancing belief) The 80% cut-off was used as an operational (pragmatic) threshold to dichotomize the variable into good and poor categories, consistent with its use in previous studies, 15 ,16 rather than as a universally standardized cut-off for this questionnaire. REVIEWER COMMENT: 4. Did you consider clustering within country in the analysis (Multilevel analysis)? AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thank you for raising this point. We have clarified in the Statistical analysis section that multilevel (hierarchical) modeling was not performed in the current analysis and that country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models. We also added this as a limitation in the Discussion . ADDED/REVISED TEXT: Methods – Statistical analysis “Multilevel modeling to account for clustering by country was not performed in the present analysis; instead, country was included as an explanatory variable in the regression models.” Discussion – Limitations “Furthermore, in this study, multilevel modelling was not performed to explicitly account for within-country clustering. Although country was included as a covariate in the regression models, residual intra-country correlation may still have remained.” View more View less Competing Interests Authors have no competing interest. reply Respond Report a concern Khader Y. Peer Review Report For: Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 11 :206 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.83528.r141134) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v1#referee-response-141134 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Beliefs on social distancing and face mask...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Harapan H et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206", templates : { twitter : "Beliefs on social distancing and face mask practices during the.... Harapan H et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-206/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/79534/197181") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "197181"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "139782": 0, "139783": 0, "290572": 0, "290573": 13, "139784": 0, "290574": 0, "290575": 0, "290569": 0, "290570": 0, "290571": 0, "127506": 0, "290576": 0, "290577": 0, "290578": 0, "174891": 0, "174894": 0, "174895": 0, "174892": 0, "174893": 0, "174898": 0, "174899": 0, "174896": 0, "174897": 0, "174900": 0, "130231": 0, "124219": 0, "124221": 0, "127165": 0, "124220": 0, "127164": 0, "124223": 0, "124222": 0, "127166": 0, "124224": 0, "139466": 0, "139467": 0, "136139": 0, "136142": 0, "141134": 22, "464971": 3, "141135": 0, "136143": 0, "464970": 3, "136140": 0, "141133": 0, "136141": 0, "466159": 0, "466158": 0, "466157": 0, "466156": 0, "466155": 0, "466154": 0, "466153": 0, "466162": 0, "466161": 0, "466160": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "aaf4b59d-08ce-42a6-a2dd-8f05e7b92240"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });