Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Electronic Journal of General Medicine ; 18(5), 2021.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1305018


Introduction: Since the announcement of the start of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines development, many myths and vaccine opponents have come to the fore. Therefore, in this scenario, it is imperative to have an instrument to assess the population perception of this subject matter. Objective: To validate a scale to measure the perception of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines acceptance. Methods: This is an instrumental and multicentre study, through which a list of possible reasons for whether or not people would be vaccinated was generated. After submitting them to 15 experts, a pilot survey was conducted virtually in a population of almost 3000 participants in the 24 regions of Peru. Descriptive statistics and the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were conducted using the FACTOR program. Results: The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient (KMO = 0.917) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (3343.3;gl = 136;p <0.001) were conducted. According to EFA results, two factors were found to explain 58.17% of the total variance. The fit indices show that the proposed model is adequate (χ2 = 826.321;df = 43;p = 0.001;RMR = 0.054;GFI = 0.952;AGFI = 0.927;CFI = 0.946;TLI = 0.931;and RMSEA = 0.078). Finally, Cronbach’s α was found to be very satisfactory for the generated scale (α = 0.831;95% CI = 0.82 – 0.84). Conclusion: A simple and efficient scale was validated to assess positive and negative perceptions of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (the VAC-COVID-19 scale), with a Cronbach’s coefficient of 0.831. © 2021 by Author/s and Licensed by Modestum.

Revista Cubana de Investigaciones Biomedicas ; 40(1):1-15, 2021.
Article in Spanish | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1100638


Introduction: It is important to assess the popular perception of the impact of the measures taken by governments in response to the fast spread of the coronavirus. Objective: Determine the perception of the public health measures implemented by the Peruvian government to stop the spread of COVID-19. Methods: A multicenter cross-sectional analytical study was conducted based on a virtual survey applied to more than 4 000 people across the country. Results: The vast majority of respondents agreed that COVID-19 is a serious epidemic / pandemic (47% in agreement and 42% very much in agreement). However, only 22%, 21%, 17% and 46% thought that the country, the health sector, the hospitals and the doctors, respectively, were prepared to face it. The most widely supported migration measures were border closure (68% very much in agreement) and denying entrance to travelers returning from China or other countries with high rates of coronavirus infection (60% very much in agreement). Respondents agreed that mass gatherings should not be held for a while (69% very much in agreement), a figure followed by those proposing to declare a public health emergency (61% very much in agreement) and the closure of colleges and universities for some time (50% very much in agreement). Many statistical associations of these perceptions were found, according to sex, age or educational level (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The population supports most of the measures, those related to socioeducational characteristics receiving greater support. © 2021, Editorial Ciencias Medicas. All rights reserved.

Electronic Journal of General Medicine ; 17(6), 2020.
Article | WHO COVID | ID: covidwho-506276


Introduction: The media play an important role in the dissemination of information on the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, it is important to measure whether the population is receiving information that calms it down, as well as whether such news are in accordance with the magnitude of the issue. Objective: To validate a questionnaire that measures the perception of the media and their informative role in the face of COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A validation process for a questionnaire that measures the perception of the magnitude of this issue and whether it generates fear was carried out. The validation was performed by means of a literature search. Moreover, a first version of the scale was developed, which was assessed by 30 experts (physicians, epidemiologists, among others). After this, an exploratory factor analysis and descriptive statistics were performed. Results: Our scale had 13 initial items;however, one of them was eliminated because of its unsatisfactory level of statistical adequacy. Exploratory factorial analysis and parallel analysis suggested three factors. Results of the KMO coefficient (0.833) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (4998.5;gl = 66;p<0.001) were acceptable and significant, which justify the exploratory factorial analysis. The correlation between the factors was >0.4 and robust analyses revealed a satisfactory factorial structure (X2=88.0;p= 0.001;IFC=0.968;GFI=0.992;TLI=0.937;RMSEA=0.123). In the descriptive statistics of the 12 final items, moderate and significant correlations between the items were reported (> 0.5). Conclusion: We generate a scale to validate the perception of how people receive information from the media. Thus, this scale can be used to measure the informative role of the media regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and may even serve for other similar public health emergencies.