\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter \IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}% {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}% {\RequirePackage{color}} \usepackage{colortbl} \usepackage{wrapfig} \usepackage{ifxetex} \ifxetex \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash} \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{} \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}} \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}} \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}} \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}} \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono} \else \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}% {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} \PrerenderUnicode{–} }% {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{float} \usepackage[]{ucs} \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash } \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{} \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}} \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}} \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,} \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ } \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>} \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}} \def\textJapanese{} \def\textChinese{} \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{} \fi \def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small} \DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25} \usepackage{relsize} \RequirePackage{array} \def\@testpach{\@chclass \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@ \else \z@ \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}% \@chnum \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else \z@ \@chclass \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else \if \@nextchar !6 \else \if \@nextchar @7 \else \if \@nextchar (8 \else \if \@nextchar )9 \else 10 \@chnum \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else \if \@nextchar p4 \else \if \@nextchar b5 \else \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi} \gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr} \def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}} \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \def\abbr{} \def\corr{} \def\expan{} \def\gap{} \def\orig{} \def\reg{} \def\ref{} \def\sic{} \def\persName{}\def\name{} \def\placeName{} \def\orgName{} \def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}} \def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}} \def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}} \def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}} \def\textquoted#1{‘#1’} \def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}} \def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}} \def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}} \def\titlem{\itshape} \newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{bibl}{}{} \newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{rubric}{}{} \newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par } \newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}} \newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}} \definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75} \def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@} \def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}} \begingroup \catcode`\_=\active \gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}} \endgroup \mathcode`\_=\string"8000 \catcode`\_=12\relax \usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry} \usepackage{framed} \definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage[normalem]{ulem} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{marginnote} \renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1} \renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize} \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif} \pagestyle{fancy} \usepackage[pdftitle={Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices in Adapting to Covid-19 Pandemic Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Survey among Mongolian Residents}, pdfauthor={}]{hyperref} \hyperbaseurl{} \paperwidth210mm \paperheight297mm \def\@pnumwidth{1.55em} \def\@tocrmarg {2.55em} \def\@dotsep{4.5} \setcounter{tocdepth}{3} \clubpenalty=8000 \emergencystretch 3em \hbadness=4000 \hyphenpenalty=400 \pretolerance=750 \tolerance=2000 \vbadness=4000 \widowpenalty=10000 \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}} \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}% {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large}} \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}% {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\large}} \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}% {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\normalsize}} \renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}% {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}% {-1em}% {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}} \def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt} \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par \endgroup} \def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}} \def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}} \def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}} \def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}} \@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{} \@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{} \newif\if@mainmatter \@mainmattertrue \def\chaptername{Chapter} \def\frontmatter{% \pagenumbering{roman} \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section} \def\theHsection{\roman{section}} \def\@chapapp{}% } \def\mainmatter{% \cleardoublepage \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter} \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \pagenumbering{arabic} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6} \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}% \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section} \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}} } \def\backmatter{% \cleardoublepage \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}% \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}} \appendix } \newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{% \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}% {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}% \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv}% \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}% }% \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000% \sfcode`\.\@m}% {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}% \endlist} \def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}} \parskip0pt \parindent1em \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \newenvironment{reflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{sansreflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{specHead}[2]% {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}% \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}% \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}% \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}% }{} \def\TheFullDate{2023 1970-01-01 (revised: 70 Year 2023 01 January 1970)} \def\TheID{\makeatother } \def\TheDate{2023 1970-01-01} \title{Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices in Adapting to Covid-19 Pandemic Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Survey among Mongolian Residents} \author{}\makeatletter \makeatletter \newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{% \clearpage \if@twoside \ifodd\c@page \hbox{}\newpage \if@twocolumn \hbox{}\newpage \fi \fi \fi } \makeatother \makeatletter \thispagestyle{empty} \markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author} \renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@ \belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@ \def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep 1pt} } \makeatother \fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm} \fancyhf{} \setlength{\headheight}{14pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} \fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} \fancyfoot[RO]{} \fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID} \fancyfoot[LE]{} \fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID} \hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true} \fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}} \date{} \usepackage{authblk} \providecommand{\keywords}[1] { \footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1 } \usepackage{graphicx,xcolor} \definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81} \definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9} \definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70} \definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} \renewenvironment{abstract}{% \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space} }{% \vskip8pt \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt } \usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos} \makeatother \usepackage{lineno} \linenumbers \begin{document} \author[1]{Buuveidulam Altansukh} \author[2]{Suvd Batbaatar} \author[3]{Enkhjargal Altangerel} \author[4]{Suvd Sodnomdarjaa} \author[5]{Chinzorig Bat-Erdene} \author[6]{Bolor Beejin} \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \date{\small \em Received: 1 January 1970 Accepted: 1 January 1970 Published: 1 January 1970} \maketitle \begin{abstract} This survey aims to compare the level of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the population towards coronavirus infection with the results of the baseline survey result; to define the challenges faced by the participants and the behavioral changes when they have overcome and are adapting to the new style; to develop and disseminate evidence-based recommendations for decision-makers who are dealing with the pandemic. A total of 1896 people aged 15-60 years old participated in the study. The survey data were collected using quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (observation) methods. The survey questionnaire consisted of 45 questions of 6 chapters: demographic, knowledge, attitude and adaptation practice towards coronavirus infection, patient satisfaction with health care service delivery, and information demand. \end{abstract} \keywords{COVID-19 pandemic, attitude, knowledge, practice, Mongolia.} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{10cm}(1.05cm,3cm) {{\textit{CrossRef DOI of original article:}} \underline{}} \end{textblock*}\let\tabcellsep& \section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par he first internal incidence of COVID-19 was reported on 11 November 2020 in Mongolia. At this moment, we conducted a knowledge, attitude, and practice survey on Coronavirus infection among the general population. The survey has found that 41.7 percent of the population wore masks incorrectly or exposed noses worn under the chin, 83.3 percent wore one mask throughout the day, one in two did not wash their hands properly, and two out of three participants did not use spacing at all. In addition, knowledge about coronavirus infection in rural areas was generally poor, especially in Bayan-Ulgiiaimag, indicating that targeted public health prevention activities may not have been adequately implemented \hyperref[b0]{1} .As of September 21, 2021, 65.3 percent of Mongolia's population was vaccinated at full dose. However, as of COVID-19 confirmed cases, Mongolia is in the top five countries in the West Pacific \hyperref[b1]{2} . This indicates that there is a lack of practice in the prevention of coronavirus infection in the population. Therefore, during this time when the spreading of coronavirus infection continues, it is needed to improve the prevention, response, and risk communication of Mongolians and ensure the adaptability of citizens. This survey will define how the existing situation has changed and the need to continue or further improve risk information communication strategy. Knowing what kind of information people receive, how much they have been perceived, their attitudes and attitudes, and how they adapt is essential for policymakers, health sector decision-makers, and public health professionals to develop and disseminate effective and targeted information for the population. Hence, it will be evidence of the need to change and adopt proper disease prevention practices. \section[{II.}]{II.} \section[{Methods}]{Methods}\par This cross-sectional survey data collection was conducted using qualitative (in-depth interview, focus group discussion, and desk review) and qualitative survey methods. In the baseline survey, we used the contextualized country context of the COVID-19 Readiness and Response Guidelines \hyperref[b2]{3} and Risk Information Communication Planning strategy \hyperref[b3]{4} , which was developed by the WHO European region as a survey tool. In the follow-up study, we have been using the tools of the baseline study, such as questionnaires, interview guidelines, and an observations checklist to incorporate new knowledge and insights into the world, current vaccines, and coronavirus variants.\par Data collectors were researchers and had trained in ethical issues during the data collection. The research methodology was approved at the Scientific Committee of the National Center for Public Health on T November 9, 2021 (Protocol ? 5) and the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the Ministry of Health on January 20, 2022 (Resolution ?261) was issued the Ethical permission of the survey.\par The sampling frame of this survey is residents of ger and apartment area of Songinokhairkhan, Chingeltei districts of Ulaanbaatar city, and indigenous people of representatives of Bayan-Ulgiiaimag, border area residents of Selenge and Dornogobiaimag. The survey data were collected using quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (observation) methods. Using the previously developed guideline, the in-depth interview was conducted among three specific groups (specialists, general population, and teenagers). Observations were performed on the population's handwashing situation, duration, use of soap, wearing and removing masks, frequency, and social distancing behavior of people.\par A total of 1896 people aged 15-60 years old participated in the study from 3 bordering provinces. Kazakh ethnic group in Bayan-Ulgii province, which make up 3.9 percent of the total population, was selected through targeted sampling methodology to determine whether cultural and religious factors influence attitudes towards spreading COVID-19.\par The sample size was determined based on the assumption that the population's knowledge, attitudes, and practices on COVID-19 is 50.0\% and calculated as 95\% actual probability (Z = 1.96), error limit (p = 0.05), complex sampling coefficient (1.5). Considering the principles of gender balance in each age group, a total of 1,740 people participated in the survey, with an estimated 10 percent probability be that those selected would be excluded from the survey. The formula for calculating the sample size: The sample size of the twostage household-population sample survey for a particular area or group of the population was calculated according to the following formula:?? = ?? 2 P(1 ? P)N N?? 2 + ?? 2 ??(1 ? ??)\par Herein, Z = 95\% confidence interval (1.96). P= baseline indicator prevalence percentage (= 0.50) E= acceptable margin of error (0.05) N= Population aged 15-60 in Songinokhairkhan and Chingeltei districts of Ulaanbaatar and Bayan-Ulgii, Selenge and Dornogoviaimag centers.\par The sample size, which can be used to determine the purpose of the study, is performed according to the above conditions: The sample size was sampled using the previously given formula with the parameters z = 1.96, P = 0.5, and e = 0.05. The sample size in the Primary Sampling Unit (PRS) was estimated to 40, which is an optimal option in terms of distribution and representation. The total sample size for each population group is 1,896 for a population aged 15-60 years. 20 individuals responded to the face-to-face interviews, including health sector specialists (Ministry of Health Director, Specialist, Director/Specialist, Aimag Special Committee Officer, Governor's Office staff, etc.) and 100 people aged 15-59 were interviewed. Also, 100 people of 20 households for observation responded to the qualitative survey.\par In the second phase, the surveyed units were selected using a simple random sampling method from the population of 15-60-year-olds within the sampling range. In the final sampling phase, the Kish method randomly chose the individual from the selected household population aged 18-60. Only one person in the selected household, aged 15-60, was included in the survey. Individual and group discussions and observations were conducted to clarify issues raised in compiling survey data.The key informants of the qualitative survey were the head of the SEC, the directors of the Ministry of Health, the head of the NCCD/specialist, the relevant staff of the Aimag Emergency Commission, the governor's office, the health department, the NCCD and patients who covered from the COVID-19.\par The data were collected using a previously developed questionnaire for face-to-face interviews with selected individuals from the target population. In qualitative research, data were collected through faceto-face interviews with key informants. The observation method determined whether participants washed their hands with soap for at least 20 seconds, covered their mouths (with elbow) when coughing or sneezing, wore face masks, and properly practiced social distancing.To maintain the high quality of data, a few measures were taken, such as minimizing coverage errors by preparing a complete list of sampling units and including selected units in the survey, minimizing errors in the information collected by gathering information with questionnaires and from selected areas and by consulting with the research supervisor and resolve any issues or difficulties encountered during the data collection process. The data collection was started after introducing the purpose and activities of the survey. After introducing the survey's purpose, effectiveness, and timing, a questionnaire and an interview with the person who agreed to participate were initiated.\par The findings were presented by urban, rural, ger, apartment area, ethnic and age groups. Methodology for the classification of qualitative data has been created. A collection of codes was then established in accordance with the assessment criteria and all interviews were coded. Quantitative data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 23. The findings are represented in terms of the percentage of the population's knowledge and attitudes. Deviation values of 95\% confidence interval (95\%CI) were used to assess the difference between the measurement of the accuracy of the results (distribution rate) and the groups (age, sex, location). The sampling errors that could change the accuracy of the results of this populationbased survey were assessed by the dependent variables and the standard error of the results. \section[{III.}]{III.} \section[{Results}]{Results} \section[{a) Social and Demographic Characteristics of}]{a) Social and Demographic Characteristics of}\par Participants A total of 1896 people were involved in the survey, and the coverage was 100\%. 56.6\% of total participants (95\%CI: 54.4-58.9) were from Ulaanbaatar and 43.4\% (95\%CI: 41.1-45.6) were from rural areas. The participants' average age was 35.1±12.4, the youngest was 15, and the oldest was 60.\par Most of the participants were married (66.7\%, 1265), belonged to the Khalkh ethnicity (79.3\%, 1503), and were women (60.0\%, 1137). As for living conditions, 37.9\% (95\%CI: 35.8-40.1) of the participants live in apartments, and 62.1\% (95\%CI: 59.9-64.2) live in ger areas (Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1}). 67.9\% (n = 558) of the local participants and 57.7\% (n = 620) of the UB participants lived in ger areas. The average number of family members was 4.06 ± 1.52, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 16 members. Respondents who have 3-4 members in their family composed 48.9\%. The study participants were from 15 various ethnical groups. However, the Khalkh ethnicity represented 79.3\% (95\%CI: 77.5-81.2) of the total respondents, and 16.5\% (95\%CI: 14.7-18.2) were from the Kazakh ethnicity. If 20.0\% of the respondents were self-employed, 26.5\% worked in government organizations and 15.2\% were students.\par In the baseline survey, 2.1 percent of the total participants were herders, and 10.7 percent were students, while in the follow-up survey, the number of these participants increased (herders 9.0\%, 171, students 15.2\%, 289). According to other participants, the representing number remained similar to the population of the baseline survey. 59.4 percent (1127) of the respondents said that the average household income has decreased, and 3.1 percent (59) remain the same. Of the total participants, 39.2 percent (95\% CI: 37.0-41.3) were from Songinokhairkhan district, 17.4 percent (95\% CI: 15.6-19.1) were from Chingeltei district, and 15.8 percent (95\% CI: 14.2-17.4) were from Bayan-Ulgii aimag.\par The majority of participants from Ulaanbaatar city were aged 25-34 and had a higher level of education. In terms of location, 57.7\% (620) of them resided in the ger area. While participants of age 25-34 years in rural areas comprised 27.7\% and 67.9\% of them lived in ger areas.\par The survey participants' socipatternsgraphic pattern was similar to Mongolia's statistics, demonstrating that survey sampling has the power of the Mongolian population aged between 15-60. \section[{b) Knowledge of COVID-19}]{b) Knowledge of COVID-19}\par Out of 14 knowledge questions that should be known about coronavirus infection, survey participants had known in an average of 8.27 ± 3.73 (95\%CI: 8.12-8.43) correct answers, which was lower than the results of the baseline study.\par It has been defined statistically significant differences in knowledge of coronavirus infection on the location, gender, age group, marital status, education level, employment status, and type of housing of the surveyed participants. The average knowledge score for the urban population is approximately 8.44±3.69, which is 4 points higher than for the rural participants. The mean knowledge score for surveyed women (8.55±3.62, 95\%CI: 8.34-8.77) was statistically significant 0.7 points higher than that of men (7.85±3.85, 95\%CI: 8.10-8.77). Average correct answers of knowledge scores on coronavirus infection were higher among 15-24-year-olds (8.75±3.54) and over 45 years of age group (8.35±3.72). As the population's level of education increased, the average knowledge score on the coronavirus infection increased, and the statistically significant high of the participant with higher education levels was 8.81±3.53. The average knowledge score of infection was significantly high among employees of Government, Non-Government, private entities, and students were higher than the self-employer, herders, pensioners groups, and the unemployed participants. The knowledge score of the participants living in apartments (8.88±3.50) was found to be 1.0 points higher than in the ger areas residents (Table \hyperref[tab_1]{2}). Although the percentage of the surveyed participants is aware of the symptoms and prevention measures of COVID-19, the knowledge of the incubation period, the high-risk population and the transmission route are poor (Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3}). c) Attitude towards COVID-19 54.5 percent of surveyed participants believed that the pandemic is "very dangerous". However, it has decreased by 25.6 percent compared to the baseline survey. The inadequate facilities for handwashing in markets and public centers, poor hand-washing facilities in large shopping malls, and additional funding for households to purchase masks and hand sanitizers are making trouble facing coronavirus infection prevention measures. Positive attitudes toward the right place at the onset of symptoms of COVID-19 and nondiscrimination against infected people are more prevalent in a population with a high average knowledge score. \section[{d) Adaptation Practices toward COVID-19}]{d) Adaptation Practices toward COVID-19}\par Despite health care service demand, 23.2\% of the survey participants (95\% CI: 21.3-25.1) did not receive health care service in the last 6 months. Participants who did not receive medical care mentioned a fear of getting infected with COVID-19 (37.9\%, 95\%CI: 33.3-42.5) and hospital overcrowding (33.5\%, 95\% CI: 28.9-38.1). According to the location of surveyed participants infected with a COVID-19, their marital and employment status were statistically significant. For example, participants who had COVID-19 living in urban areas were employees of government organizations, or self-employed. Whereas this indicator in rural areas was high among herders and employees of governmental organizations.\par On average, 61.98 (95\% CI:57.8-66.02) days after the last vaccination, people had been infected. 18.2 percent of the participants who had a COVID-19 (95\% CI:15.4-21.4) became infected within 14 days of the last vaccination.\par Of the participants who did not receive one, two, or three vaccine doses, 1,843 responded why they didn't get vaccinated. 47.5 percent of them said, "I got sick after taking....the dose", 19.9 percent said they did not get the vaccine due to negative information about the vaccine, and 12.0 percent did not get vaccinated due to their busy schedule. One in 10 surveyed participants (95\% CI: 8.8-11.4) said they did not have personal hygiene hand sanitizers, wet wipes, paper tissue, and replacement facial masks.\par According to the findings of the follow-up survey, hands washing frequency (50.5\% to 83.2\%), washing hands in the correct steps (21.4\% to 39.1\%), using soap regularly (26.0\% to 53.2\%), and spending 20 seconds when washing their hands (16.1\% -33.5\%) were found that changes in handwashing behavior compare with the results of the baseline study (Figure \hyperref[fig_0]{1}). The practice of coughing and sneezing was defined by the observation method, and no changes in the baseline study results were observed in the follow-up survey. The frequency of cleaning and disinfection of the home and disinfectants (chloramine, javelin) has increased compared to the baseline survey results. The practice of wearing masks in the crowding places and outdoors increased by 6.8 percent from the baseline survey. Compared to the baseline survey results, the follow-up survey (73.0\%) had a better practice of wearing masks in the workplace or indoor space.\par In the baseline study, the average duration to wear a mask was 29 hours, while in the follow-up survey, it was 4.2 hours, which shows improvement in the correct behavior. Compared to the baseline survey results, the frequency of cleaning and disinfection of the home and disinfectants (chloramine, javelin) has increased. Of those 63.9 percent of the surveyed participants (95\% CI: 59.0-63.1) had declined frequent outings, 18.4 percent did not go out at all, 61.1 percent had been spent less time going to public entertainment and services, and 22.0 percent did not go to shows at all. Of those, 77.5 percent of participants (95\%CI: 75.5-79.3) received information about the infection from television and 60.8 percent from social media. The lack of information on the infection in manuals, brochures, and newspapers is due to not developing information packages. Information on coronavirus infection was rarely available in newspapers and manuals (Table \hyperref[tab_3]{4}).\par 43.6\% of survey respondents (95\%CI: 41.3-45.8) demanded more information on the new vaccine. 41.2\% (95\%CI: 39.1-43.5) on the adaptation, and 40.1\% (95\%CI: 37.7-42.2) new variant of COVID-19.Most of the adolescents surveyed criticized the regular informing of the number of deaths and confirmation cases of COVID-19 as frightening. In the baseline survey, 42.4 percent of participants desired more information about the vaccine, while in the follow-up survey, 34.9 percent said they needed information about the future trend of COVID-19 infection. IV. \section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par Unprecedented measures have been adopted to control the rapid spread of the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic in China. An online sample of Chinese residents was successfully recruited via in Hubei, China. Among the survey participants (n=6910), 65.7\% were women, 63.5\% held a bachelor's degree or above, and 56.2\% engaged in mental labor. The overall correct rate of the knowledge questionnaire was 90\%. Nearly all of the participants (98.0\%) wore masks when going out in recent days. In multiple logistic regression analyses, the COVID-19 knowledge score (OR: 0.75-0.90, P<0.001) was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of negative attitudes and preventive practices toward COVID-2019. \hyperref[b4]{5} According to the results, the majority of respondents (74.8-88.0\%) were fairly or very confident about the level of knowledge. As for the attitude scale, the majority of respondents (82.0-92.4\%) agreed or strongly agreed to hold a positive attitude toward the COVID-19 pandemic. They held the opinion that the outbreak deserved serious attention and had full confidence in the government's interventions. For the practice scale, there was also a majority of respondents (79.0-97.1\%) reporting to be cautious in the prevention. The main reasons for barrier lay in limited knowledge (49.4\%), influenced by the surrounding population (40.4\%), limited or no access to COVID-19 information (34.8\%), and attaching little importance to the outbreak (32.6\%) {\ref .6} In Tanzania, 472 adults participated in the survey. The levels of knowledge, attitude, and practices related to COVID-19 were found in 76.5\%, 74.8\%, and 58.1\% of participants respectively. On performing multivariate analysis, odds of having good knowledge regarding COVID-19 were almost 2 folds higher in participants who were females, with high education levels, those without partners, and those with stable income. Females were 1.5 folds more likely to have a good attitude toward COVID-19 and odds of good practice against COVID-19 were 3 folds higher in young adults compared to the elderly. \hyperref[b6]{7} A total of 872 subjects (female, 534; male, 338) were enrolled with ages from 17 to 25 years old of 10 universities in Shaanxi Province, China. Results showed that appropriate knowledge was acquired by 82.34\% subjects; the levels were significantly higher in undergraduates from public universities and medical majors than those from private schools and non-medical majors (p<0.05). 73.81\% of subjects reported positive attitudes; females showed significantly higher levels of positive attitudes than males (p<0.05). There was a positive correlation between attitude and practice (r = 0.319, p < 0.05) in the whole study group. \hyperref[b7]{8} In Liberia, the male participants, on average, achieved higher knowledge (52\%) and attitude scores (72\%), in contrast to females (49\% and 67\%,respectively). Radio (71\%) was the most cited source forCOVID-19 information, followed by social media (63\%). After controlling for sociodemographic variables, adaptive regression modelling revealed that survey mode achieved 100\% importance for predicting knowledge and practice levels with regard to COVID-19. \hyperref[b8]{9} In Uganda, 83.9\% health care workers had sufficient knowledge, 78.4\% had a positive attitude, and 37.0\% had good practices toward COVID-19. Health care workers in Uganda have good knowledge and positive attitude but poor practices towards COVID-19. Differences in COVID-19 knowledge, attitude and practice between clinical and non-clinical people could ) believing the country would win the struggle against the pandemic and the infection will be successfully controlled, respectively. Although overall COVID-19 preventative practice was good, subgroup analysis found that men had a poor practice toward controlling the infection. The practice of avoiding crowded places (70.15\%) and maintaining social distance (77.17\%) was found to be satisfactory in institution-based studies. \hyperref[b11]{11} Of the 2168 respondents, most were young adults (62.7\%), females (62.4\%), tertiary educated individuals (84\%), non-health care workers (85.9\%), and individuals who knew someone diagnosed with COVID-19 (75.2\%). The mean score for knowledge was 10.0 ± 1.52 (maximum score = 12); correct response rate for each question ranged from 54.2\% to 99\%. The mean score in terms of attitude was 1.3 ±0.85 (maximum score = 2); 68.7\% respondents agreed that control over COVID-19 would finally be achieved; and 62.3\% believed that Malaysia could conquer COVID-19. The mean score for practices was 5.1 ± 1.10 (maximum score = 6); 81.5\%, 88.1\%, and 74.1\% respondents avoided crowded places, confined spaces, and conversations in close physical proximity, respectively. Furthermore, 94.2\% wore masks when leaving home; 89.0\% practiced hand hygiene; and 83.8\% adhering to COVID-19 warnings. Small but significant correlations were found between knowledge and attitude (r = 0.078, p < 0.001) as well as between knowledge and practices (r = 0.070, p = 0.001) \hyperref[b12]{12} A study in Iran found that although overall the knowledge of COVID-19 was about 90\% among participants, single men has shown significantly low score \hyperref[b13]{13} similar to our findings. Most Malaysians were aware of preventive measures such as avoiding public gatherings (83.4\%) and practicing hygiene (washing hands) (87.8\%). This trend also found in study that the majority of the population had a reduced theirs visits to households and outdoor activities. \hyperref[b14]{14} According to our country, the current survey is the second survey on coronavirus infection in Mongolia; it aims to create conditions and practices for the government and public health organizations to implement preventive measures against infectious diseases. \section[{V. Implications for Behavioral Health}]{V. Implications for Behavioral Health}\par Out of 14 knowledge questions that should be known about coronavirus infection, survey participants had known in an average of 8.27 ± 3.73 (95\%CI: 8.12-8.43) correct answers, which was lower than the results of the baseline study. The average knowledge score of the surveyed participants of the follow-up survey (9.23±3.2, 95\%CI: 9.09-9.38) was smaller than the baseline survey by 0.96 percent. It might be due to the new variant of coronavirus, and its changes in the incubation period, clinical symptoms, and preventive measures. The mean knowledge score of women in the baseline survey (9.43±3.14) and the follow-up survey (8.55±3.62) of coronavirus infection was significantly higher than that of men (p=0.0001). As the population's level of education increased, the average knowledge score on the coronavirus infection increased, and the statistically significant high of the participant with higher education levels was 8.81±3.53 (p=0.0001). The average knowledge score of the employed population was statistically higher than that of the herders, the selfemployed, the unemployed, and the retired group of people in both surveys. In the first (8.94 ± 2.61) and follow-up (6.96 ± 3.85), survey results show that the average knowledge score of Bayan-Ulgii aimag was 0.29 and 1.31 lower than the average knowledge score of the total surveyed participants. The incubation period has changed due to the new variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Therefore, 66.4 percent of the respondents said they did not know the incubation period, 14.4 percent more than the baseline survey results. In the baseline study, most of the participants said that wearing a mask (93.9\%), keeping a distance between people (81.1\%), and washing their hands with soap for at least 20 seconds (79.1\%) would prevent infection. According to the follow-up survey findings, wearing a mask (75.1\%), keeping distance between people (68.8\%), and washing hands with soap for at least 20 seconds (64.9\%) decreased by 12.3-18.8 percent, respectively, and 83.9 percent were vaccinated.\par According to the baseline survey findings, 80.6 percent (95\%CI: 78.2-81.9) of surveyed participants believed that pandemic is "very dangerous". It was 54.5 percent (95\%CI: 52.2-56.7) has decreased by 26.1 percent compared to the baseline survey.\par In addition, 23.0 percent of participants (95\% CI: 21.1-24.9) responded that their relationship would change if they found out that someone had been cured of COVID-19, whereas in the baseline survey, it was 90.2 percent (95\% CI: 88.8-91.6). This suggests that the baseline survey participants considered the pandemic "very dangerous" and discriminated against those who fell ill and recovered. However, in the follow-up survey result, this decline may be due to the ability of Mongolians to adapt quickly to anything.\par Our survey has found that many positive changes in the handwashing practice of the population have been made. In the baseline study, 1 in 5 participants said there was no change in handwashing habits, but this follow-up survey dropped to 1 in 10 participants. Compared to the baseline survey results, the frequency of handwashing increased by 32.7 percent, washing with soap regularly increased by 27.2 percent, and the time spent on washing hands at least 20 seconds increased by 17.4 percent. There is a tendency among adults to become positive behaviours if they continue to implement IEC/BCC strategies that promote positive change in the practice of handwashing.\par The practice of avoiding touching the eyes, nose, and mouth with dirty hands decreased by 16.3 percent from 66.9 percent (95\% CI: 64.7-69.2) in the baseline study to 50.6 percent (95\% CI: 48.3-52.8) in the second study (p = 0.0001). The preventive measure for the infectious intestinal disease is to wash hands with soap and water before preparing food and drink, before eating and drinking, and after using the toilet. Therefore, below shows the incidences of intestinal infectious diseases (salmonellosis, dysentery, hand, foot and mouth disease, food poisoning) registered nationwide in 2018-2021.\par In 2021, when the coronavirus infection outbreak was reported, 1,017 cases of intestinal infections were registered, of which 732 (71.9\%) were cases of dysentery. Nationwide, 9572 cases were registered in 2018 and 8497 cases in 2019, but in 2020 it reached 5113, which is 1.7 times less than the previous year, and in 2021 it was declined by 5 times. This indicates the positive change in the handwashing behaviour of the population 15 . Of those, 79.2 percent of survey participants (95\%CI: 77.4-81.0) reported that coughing and sneezing in their elbows or with paper tissue when they were not covered mouth has been increased by 2.6 percent from the baseline survey (76.6\% and 95\% CI: 74.6-78.6).\par There is an increased awareness of the risk of coronavirus infection through coughing and sneezing and improving correct habits.\par The importance of wearing masks to prevent coronavirus infection is reflected in the declining incidence of influenza and influenza-like illness reported in Mongolia.\par Every year in our country, seasonal influenza is registered as an outbreak among the general population, increasing the workload of hospitals and healthcare service providers by 2-3 times. No influenza outbreaks have been reported in 2020 due to a comprehensive public health measurement taken during the pandemic since December 2019.\par In the last 4 years, influenza and influenza-like illnesses were registered in 2016 and the outbreak was prolonged for 5 weeks, B and AH1 virus were registered and was lasted for 20 weeks, AH1 and AH3 virus outbreak was extended for 19 weeks. While in 2020, AH3 and B virus registered, and the outbreak lasted only for 3 days.\par During the 2016-2019 flu outbreaks, school holidays were somehow regulated, but there were no outbreaks as in 2020 and 2021. This is a positive impact that everyone is getting used to wearing a mask.\par The importance of handwashing, masking, cleaning and using disinfection to prevent coronavirus infection was positively reflected in the declining incidence of intestinal infections, influenza, influenza-like illnesses, and acute respiratory infections in Mongolia.\begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png} \caption{\label{fig_0}Figure 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png} \caption{\label{fig_1}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{2}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png} \caption{\label{fig_2}Figure 2 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.012424763542562339\textwidth}P{0.339853826311264\textwidth}P{0.07527944969905417\textwidth}P{0.007308684436801376\textwidth}P{0.08770421324161651\textwidth}P{0.06723989681857266\textwidth}P{0.006577815993121238\textwidth}P{0.08916595012897678\textwidth}P{0.07308684436801376\textwidth}P{0.06797076526225279\textwidth}P{0.0233877901977644\textwidth}} ?\tabcellsep The social and demographic parameters\tabcellsep Num\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep Num\tabcellsep Male\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Female Num}\tabcellsep \%\\ \tabcellsep Location\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 1.\tabcellsep Urban\tabcellsep 1074\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 56.6\tabcellsep 385\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 50.7\tabcellsep 689\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{60.6}\\ \tabcellsep Rural\tabcellsep 822\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 43.4\tabcellsep 374\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 49.3\tabcellsep 448\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{36.3}\\ \tabcellsep Place of residence\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 2.\tabcellsep Apartment\tabcellsep 718\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 37.9\tabcellsep 306\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 40.3\tabcellsep 412\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{36.2}\\ \tabcellsep Ger\tabcellsep 1178\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 62.1\tabcellsep 453\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 59.7\tabcellsep 725\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{63..8}\\ \tabcellsep Age group\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep 15-24 years\tabcellsep 458\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 24.2\tabcellsep 184\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 24.2\tabcellsep 274\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{24.1}\\ 3.\tabcellsep 25-34 years\tabcellsep 530\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 28.0\tabcellsep 234\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 30.8\tabcellsep 296\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{26.0}\\ \tabcellsep 35-44 years\tabcellsep 406\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 21.4\tabcellsep 155\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 20.4\tabcellsep 251\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{22.1}\\ \tabcellsep 45 and over\tabcellsep 502\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 26.5\tabcellsep 186\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 24.5\tabcellsep 316\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{27.8}\\ \tabcellsep Education\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep No education\tabcellsep 26\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1.4\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1.2\tabcellsep 17\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1.5\\ \tabcellsep Primary school\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2.0\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1.7\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2.1\\ 4.\tabcellsep Middle primary school\tabcellsep 166\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 8.8\tabcellsep 77\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 10.1\tabcellsep 89\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 7.8\\ \tabcellsep High school\tabcellsep 546\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 28.8\tabcellsep 240\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 31.6\tabcellsep 306\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{26.9}\\ \tabcellsep College\tabcellsep 263\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 13.9\tabcellsep 117\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 15.4\tabcellsep 146\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{12.8}\\ \tabcellsep High\tabcellsep 858\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 45.3\tabcellsep 303\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 39.9\tabcellsep 555\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{48.8}\\ \tabcellsep Nationality\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 5.\tabcellsep Khalkh Kazakh\tabcellsep 1503 313\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 79.3 16.5\tabcellsep 602 134\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 79.3 17.7\tabcellsep 901 179\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{79.2 15.7}\\ \tabcellsep Others\tabcellsep 80\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 4.2\tabcellsep 23\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 3.0\tabcellsep 57\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 5.0\\ \tabcellsep Marital status\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 6.\tabcellsep Single Married/live in\tabcellsep 512 1265\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 27.0 66.7\tabcellsep 222 515\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 29.2 67.9\tabcellsep 290 750\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{25.5 66.0}\\ \tabcellsep Divorced/widowed\tabcellsep 119\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 6.3\tabcellsep 22\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2.9\tabcellsep 97\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 8.5\\ \tabcellsep Number of family members\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 7.\tabcellsep 1-2 3-4\tabcellsep 288 927\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 15.2 48.9\tabcellsep 112 380\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 14.8 50.1\tabcellsep 176 547\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{15.5 48.1}\\ \tabcellsep 5 or higher\tabcellsep 681\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 35.9\tabcellsep 267\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 35.2\tabcellsep 414\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{36.4}\\ \tabcellsep Employment status\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep Government organization\tabcellsep 502\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 26.5\tabcellsep 134\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 17.7\tabcellsep 368\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{32.4}\\ \tabcellsep NGO\tabcellsep 64\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 3.4\tabcellsep 28\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 3.7\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 3.2\\ \tabcellsep Private companies\tabcellsep 225\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 11.9\tabcellsep 147\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 19.4\tabcellsep 78\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 6.9\\ 8.\tabcellsep Self-employed\tabcellsep 379\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 20.0\tabcellsep 167\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 22.0\tabcellsep 212\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{18.6}\\ \tabcellsep Herder\tabcellsep 171\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 9.0\tabcellsep 96\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 12.6\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 6.6\\ \tabcellsep Student, student\tabcellsep 289\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 15.2\tabcellsep 103\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 13.6\tabcellsep 186\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{16.4}\\ \tabcellsep Pension/welfare\tabcellsep 143\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 7.5\tabcellsep 48\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 6.3\tabcellsep 95\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 8.4\\ \tabcellsep Unemployed\tabcellsep 123\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 6.5\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 4.7\tabcellsep 87\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 7.7\\ \tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 1896\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{100.0}\tabcellsep 759\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{100.0}\tabcellsep 1137\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{100.0}\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{2} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.2325824175824176\textwidth}P{0.01681318681318681\textwidth}P{0.05137362637362637\textwidth}P{0.05697802197802197\textwidth}P{0.20456043956043957\textwidth}P{0.12890109890109888\textwidth}P{0.12890109890109888\textwidth}P{0.02989010989010989\textwidth}} \multicolumn{2}{l}{Selected indicators}\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Average knowledge score,± SD 95\%CI Average Min Max}\tabcellsep P value\\ Region\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Urban Rural\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1074 822\tabcellsep 56.6 43.4\tabcellsep 8.44 ± 3.69 8.04 ± 3.77\tabcellsep 8.24±3.58 7.80±3.64\tabcellsep 8.67±3.80 8.31±3.89\tabcellsep 0.003\\ Sex\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Male Female\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 759 1137\tabcellsep 40.0 60.0\tabcellsep 7.85 ± 3.85 8.55 ± 3.62\tabcellsep 7.56±3.73 8.34±3.50\tabcellsep 8.10±3.97 8.77±3.73\tabcellsep 0.008\\ Age group\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 15-24 age\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 458\tabcellsep 24.2\tabcellsep 8.75 ± 3.54\tabcellsep 8.41±3.33\tabcellsep 9.09±3.71\tabcellsep \\ 25-34 age 35-44 age\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 530 406\tabcellsep 28.0 21.4\tabcellsep 7.97 ± 3.79 8.01 ± 3.83\tabcellsep 7.65±3.64 7.63±3.66\tabcellsep 8.31±3.93 8.37±3.99\tabcellsep 0.007\\ Above 45 age\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 502\tabcellsep 26.5\tabcellsep 8.35 ± 3.72\tabcellsep 8.03±3.56\tabcellsep 8.67±3.87\tabcellsep \\ Marital status\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Never married\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 512\tabcellsep 27.0\tabcellsep 8.49 ± 3.67\tabcellsep 8.17±3.51\tabcellsep 8.80±3.85\tabcellsep \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{Married / living with a partner}\tabcellsep 1265\tabcellsep 66.7\tabcellsep 8.13 ± 3.74\tabcellsep 7.92±3.64\tabcellsep 8.35±3.82\tabcellsep 0.003\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{Divorced / Widowed}\tabcellsep 119\tabcellsep 6.3\tabcellsep 8.78 ± 3.81\tabcellsep 8.10±3.35\tabcellsep 9.47±4.14\tabcellsep \\ Education level\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ No education\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 26\tabcellsep 1.4\tabcellsep 6.27 ± 4.04\tabcellsep 4.77±3.40\tabcellsep 7.83±4.52\tabcellsep \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{Primary education}\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep 2.0\tabcellsep 7.16 ± 4.20\tabcellsep 5.77±3.53\tabcellsep 8.37±4.72\tabcellsep \\ Lower education\tabcellsep secondary\tabcellsep 166\tabcellsep 8.8\tabcellsep 7.29 ± 3.89\tabcellsep 6.71±3.62\tabcellsep 7.86±4.14\tabcellsep 0.023\\ Upper education\tabcellsep secondary\tabcellsep 546\tabcellsep 28.8\tabcellsep 8.01 ± 3.76\tabcellsep 7.69±3.61\tabcellsep 8.32±3.91\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{3} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.012632696390658175\textwidth}P{0.20934182590233547\textwidth}P{0.03248407643312102\textwidth}P{0.29777070063694266\textwidth}P{0.003609341825902335\textwidth}P{0.18407643312101912\textwidth}P{0.07038216560509554\textwidth}P{0.03970276008492569\textwidth}} ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Knowledge questions}\tabcellsep Answer's version\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Percentage of participants, 95\%CI Baseline2020 Follow-up, 2021}\tabcellsep P value\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep When\tabcellsep an\tabcellsep 58.1\tabcellsep 47.8\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{infected person}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 1.\tabcellsep How transmitted? is\tabcellsep COVID-19\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{coughing, sneezing, close contact and}\tabcellsep 55.8-60.4\tabcellsep 45.5-50.4\tabcellsep 0.000\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{with an infected}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep person\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Do you know the duration of}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 25.6\tabcellsep 64.3\\ 2.\tabcellsep COVID-19 period?\tabcellsep incubation\tabcellsep Yes, I know\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 23.5-27.6\tabcellsep 62.1-66.4\tabcellsep 0.000\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Elders,\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 41.9\tabcellsep 37.3\\ 3.\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{How is the most risky for COVID-19?}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{chronically person lung, diabetes, ill (heart,}\tabcellsep 39.6-44.2\tabcellsep 35.1-39.5\tabcellsep 0.005\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep kidney)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{4} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.0433933933933934\textwidth}P{0.32927927927927925\textwidth}P{0.08933933933933934\textwidth}P{0.08933933933933934\textwidth}P{0.08933933933933934\textwidth}P{0.0867867867867868\textwidth}P{0.12252252252252252\textwidth}} No.\tabcellsep Information sources\tabcellsep 15-24\tabcellsep 25-34\tabcellsep 35-44\tabcellsep 45 <\tabcellsep P value\\ 1.\tabcellsep Television\tabcellsep 71.6\tabcellsep 75.1\tabcellsep 80.3\tabcellsep 83.1\tabcellsep 0.001**\\ 2.\tabcellsep Newspaper/magazine\tabcellsep 14.2\tabcellsep 13.4\tabcellsep 14.8\tabcellsep 19.7\tabcellsep 0.025\\ 3.\tabcellsep Social network\tabcellsep 73.6\tabcellsep 72.1\tabcellsep 55.4\tabcellsep 41.6\tabcellsep 0.001**\\ 4.\tabcellsep Brochure, handbook\tabcellsep 10.9\tabcellsep 14.2\tabcellsep 15.3\tabcellsep 16.5\tabcellsep 0.084\\ 5.\tabcellsep Radio\tabcellsep 10.7\tabcellsep 13.0\tabcellsep 14.8\tabcellsep 18.9\tabcellsep 0.003**\\ 6.\tabcellsep Family, friends and colleagues\tabcellsep 39.5\tabcellsep 40.2\tabcellsep 37.4\tabcellsep 32.9\tabcellsep 0.071\\ 7.\tabcellsep Didn't get\tabcellsep 1.7\tabcellsep 2.3\tabcellsep 3.0\tabcellsep 1.6\tabcellsep 0.492\\ \tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 458\tabcellsep 530\tabcellsep 406\tabcellsep 502\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure} \backmatter \subsection[{Conflict of Interest Statement}]{Conflict of Interest Statement}\par The authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. \begin{bibitemlist}{1} \bibitem[ Accessed (2022)]{b9}\label{b9} \textit{}, \textit{Accessed} 22 September, 2022. \bibitem[Peng et al. (1292)]{b7}\label{b7} ‘A cross-sectional survey of knowledge, attitude and practice associated with COVID-19 among undergraduate students in China’. Y Peng , C Pei , Y Zheng . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09392-zAccessed08}{10.1186/s12889-020-09392-zAccessed08}. \url{https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09392-zAccessed08} \textit{BMC Public Health} 2020. 20, 1292. June, 2022. \bibitem[Fang et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} ‘Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice toward COVID-19 in China: An Online Cross-Sectional Survey’. Y Fang , P Liu , Q Gao . \textit{The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene} 2021. \bibitem[Chai et al. (2022)]{b12}\label{b12} ‘Attitude, and Practices Among the General Population During the Later Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Malaysia: A Cross-Sectional Study’. Chee-Shee Chai , Diana-Leh-Ching Ng , Wei-Jing Chua . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/rmhp.s349798}{10.2147/rmhp.s349798}. \textit{Risk Management and Healthcare Policy} 2022. 30 June, 2022. 15 p. . \bibitem[Kamacooko et al. (2021)]{b10}\label{b10} ‘Attitudes, and Practices Regarding COVID-19 among Healthcare Workers in Uganda: A Cross-Sectional Survey’. O Kamacooko , J Kitonsa , U M Bahemuka . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137004}{10.3390/ijerph18137004}. \textit{International Journal Environmental Research Public Health} 2021. 30 June, 2022. 18 (13) p. 7004. \bibitem[Raquib et al. (2022)]{b11}\label{b11} ‘Attitudes, and Practices Toward the Prevention of COVID-19 in Bangladesh: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’. Ahsan Raquib , Radwan Raquib , Safayet Jamil . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.856156.Accessed30}{10.3389/fmed.2022.856156.Accessed30}. \textit{Front Med Lausanne} 2022. June, 2022. 9 p. 856156. \bibitem[COVID-19 preparedness and response. International federation of Red Cross, United nations in children fund, World health organization (2020)]{b2}\label{b2} \textit{COVID-19 preparedness and response. International federation of Red Cross, United nations in children fund, World health organization}, \url{https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/corona-viruse/covid19-rcce-guidance-final-brand.pdfAccessed} 2020. September 10, 2021. \bibitem[Brown Wilson et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} ‘COVID-19-related knowledge, attitudes and practices: a mixed-mode cross-sectional survey in Liberia’. J Brown Wilson , A Deckert , R Shah . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-04949}{10.1136/bmjopen-2021-04949}. \url{http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-04949} \textit{BMJ Open} 2021. 11 p. e049494. \bibitem[Nejhaddadgar et al. (2022)]{b13}\label{b13} ‘Knowledge, attitude, and practice toward the COVID-19 infection among adults Iran: A crosssectional study’. N Nejhaddadgar , N Pirani , N Heydarian . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/22799036221129370}{10.1177/22799036221129370}. \textit{Journal of Public Health Research} 2022. 30 June, 2022. 11 (4) p. 22799036221129370. \bibitem[Sohal et al. (2022)]{b6}\label{b6} ‘Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to COVID-19 among patients attending public dental clinics in Tanzania: A cross-sectional study’. K S Sohal , R L Moris , J R Moshy . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276620}{10.1371/journal.pone.0276620}. \url{https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276620} \textit{PLoS One} 2022 Oct 27. 10 December, 2022. 17 (10) . (e0276620. Available at) \bibitem[Zhong et al. (2020)]{b4}\label{b4} ‘Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among Chinese residents during the rapid rise period of the COVID-19 outbreak: a quick online cross-sectional survey’. B L Zhong , W Luo , H M Li . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.45221}{10.7150/ijbs.45221}. \textit{International Journal of Biological Sciences} 2020. 15 March, 2022. 16 (10) p. . \bibitem[Suvd et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} ‘Knowledge, attitudes, practices and perception towards COVID-19: a cross-sectional survey among Mongolian residents’. B Suvd , R Nergui , A Buuveidulam . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5031465}{10.5281/zenodo.5031465}. \url{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5031465} \textit{International Journal of Educational Research and Review} 2022. Accessed December 10, 2021. 2 (4) p. . \bibitem[Monitoring knowledge, risk perception, preventive behaviors and trust to informs pandemic outbreaks response. World Health Organization (2020)]{b1}\label{b1} \textit{Monitoring knowledge, risk perception, preventive behaviors and trust to informs pandemic outbreaks response. World Health Organization}, \url{https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novelcoronavirus-2019/situation-report} 2020. Accessed September 10, 2020. \bibitem[Azlan et al. (2022)]{b14}\label{b14} ‘Public knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19: A cross-sectional study in Malaysia’. A A Azlan , M R Hamzah , T J Sern . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233668.Accessed}{10.1371/journal.pone.0233668.Accessed}. \url{htpps://www.hdc.gov.mnAccessed} \textit{Health statistics of National Center for Communicable Diseases}, 2022. 30 June, 2022. 15. 2 February, 2022. 15. \bibitem[Survey tool and guidance rapid, simple, flexible behavioral insights on COVID-19. World health organization, regional office in Europe (2020)]{b3}\label{b3} \textit{Survey tool and guidance rapid, simple, flexible behavioral insights on COVID-19. World health organization, regional office in Europe}, \url{https://www.euro.who.int/\textunderscore \textunderscore data/assets/pdf\textunderscore file/0007/436705/COVID-19-survey-tool-and-guidance.pdf} 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. \end{bibitemlist} \end{document}