Skip to main content

Table 3 Description of eligible studies (n = 56)

From: Public and health professional epidemic risk perceptions in countries that are highly vulnerable to epidemics: a systematic review

Author(s) and year (reference no.)

Country (-ies)

Epidemic-prone disease(s)

Study population(s)

Methods

Results

Quality of study

Measurements/description of risk perceptions

Factors reported to have an influence on risk perception

Factors reported to have no effect on risk perception

Abdi et al. 2015 [45]

Kenya

Rift Valley Fever (RVF)

General adult population (pastoralist community)

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Perceived severity: agree 99.2%, disagree 0.8%

Perceived likelihood (personal): agree 74%, disagree 26%

None

Gender

Area of residence (2 wards in one district were compared, both equally affected by previous RVF outbreaks)

Good

Abou-Abbas et al. 2020 [73]

Lebanon

COVID-19

Health professionals—clinical staff

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

32.6% exhibited fears towards working in places where patients suspected of COVID-19 infection are admitted 36.3% reported that they were afraid of treating a patient with COVID-19 infection

None

None

Good

Adhena and Hidru 2020 [64]

Ethiopia

COVID-19

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

79.2% believed that they are at risk of getting to COVID-19

None

None

Good

Akalu, Ayelign et al. 2020 [57]

Ethiopia

COVID-19

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Risk of COVID-19 infection: high 19.8%, moderate 36.1%, low 28.5%, very low 20.5%

None

None

Good

Akram et al. 2015 [40]

Pakistan

Cutaneous leishmaniasis

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

42% reported that leishmaniasis is more serious than dengue fever

None

None

Poor

Alyousefi et al. 2016 [51]

Yemen

Dengue fever

General adult population (conflict-affected, dengue-endemic area)

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

97.7% agree that dengue is a serious disease, 75.5% agree that they are at risk of dengue fever

None

None

Good

Asnakew et al. 2020 [62]

Ethiopia

COVID-19

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

90.4% perceived that they are susceptible to COVID-19

87.5% perceived that COVID-19 is a serious disease

Marital status, setting/residence, education, income level, occupation, age, family size was associated with perceived susceptibility

Sex, religion had no significant effect on perceived susceptibility

Sex, marital status, religion, residence, educational level, income level, occupation, age and family size had no significant effect on perceived seriousness of disease

Acceptable

Ayegbusi et al. 2016 [67]

Nigeria

Ebola virus disease

General adult population (bushmeat handlers [hunters, hawkers, consumers, restaurant owners])

Cross-sectional study

Qualitative data

In-depth interviews

Some of the respondents expressed some level of anxiety about EVD

The threat posed by EVD to the livelihood of bushmeat sellers, and to well-established use of bushmeat in diet, in spiritual fortification, treatment of disease conditions, seems to be associated with a lower perceived risk

The fact that EVD is incurable and no previous outbreak occurred in the country before seems to be associated with higher perceived risk

None

Poor

Bell et al. 2017 [72]

Liberia

Ebola virus disease

Health professionals: community health workers including traditional birth attendants, government community health volunteers, nurses, physician assistants, and midwives

Cross-sectional study

Qualitative data

Focus group discussions

Participants described a pervasive fear about EVD that permeated their daily lifestyle. Fears about EVD ranged from fear of contracting the disease to a fear of exposing others. Participants were worried for themselves, their families, and their community about contracting or dying from EVD

Fear associated with contracting or spreading the disease due to their positions in the community as healthcare providers; the rapid spread of EVD; the fact that EVD is incurable and not visible; scarce/unavailable personal protective equipment (PPE), non-contact thermometers, handwashing/disinfection facilities/supplies; limited training on how to use PPE and the additional equipment introduced during the response

None

Good

Berman et al. 2017 [58]

Liberia

Ebola virus disease

General adult population: mobile phone users

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

SMS-based survey

50% felt that they were not at all likely to become infected

30% indicated that they were very likely to get infected

20% indicated they were somewhat likely to get infected

Perceived self-efficacy (confidence in their ability to protect themselves)

None

Acceptable

Blum et al. 2014 [39]

Malawi

Typhoid fever

General adult population in villages where typhoid cases had been confirmed

Cross-sectional

Qualitative data

Free listing exercises

In-depth interviews

Typhoid fever was considered the most serious among 23 common illnesses

Typhoid was universally viewed as prevalent and extremely dangerous

Common diseases, including malaria, were considered comparatively less serious

High risk perception was associated with:

Profound economic consequences because those afflicted were unable to farm:

The severity of typhoid

The continuation of the ongoing outbreak

None

Good

Chaudhary et al. 2020 [74]

Pakistan

COVID-19

Health professionals: clinical and non-clinical oral healthcare workers

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

The job risks an exposure to COVID-19 98.5% agree amongst clinical staff, 55% agree amongst non-clinical staff, P-value 0.001

Fear of getting infected by COVID-19: 94.4% agree amongst clinical staff, 80.3% agree amongst non-clinical staff, P-value 0.001

Perceived susceptibility of others: people close to me would be at high risk of getting COVID-19 because of my job 98.5% agree amongst clinical staff, 96.9% agree amongst non-clinical staff

I would be concerned for my:

Spouse/partner: 77.8% agree amongst clinical staff, 74.3% agree amongst non-clinical staff, non-significant

Parents: 59.9% agree amongst clinical staff, 54.5% agree amongst non-clinical staff, non-significant

Children: 59.9% agree amongst clinical staff, 66% agree amongst non-clinical staff, non-significant

Close friends: 45.9% agree amongst clinical staff, 49.2% agree amongst non-clinical staff, non-significant

Work colleagues: 94.1% agree amongst clinical staff, 72.8% agree amongst non-clinical staff, p-value 0.001

None

None

Good

Claude et al. 2019 [107]

Democratic Republic of Congo

Ebola virus disease

General adult population: displaced and non-displaced persons health professionals: nurses and doctors from the study sites

Cross-sectional study

Mixed methods

Focus group discussions

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

The exact measurements of risk perceptions cannot be discerned from the text in the paper. Approximate estimates were discerned from a figure in the paper: 25% perceived high risk, 30% perceived intermediate risk, 45% perceived low risk

None

None

Good

Coulibaly et al. 2013 [108]

Ivory Coast

Pandemic influenza A (H1N1)

Health professionals: doctors, nurses, midwives and support staff in health services

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

82.3% Feel at risk of contracting pH1N1

67.6% Fear of becoming infected with pH1N1

22% Fear of becoming influenza-infected at the hospital

None

None

Good

Echoru et al. 2020 [43]

Uganda

COVID-19

General adult population: university lecturers and students

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

COVID-19 is dangerous and can kill anyone: 98% said yes amongst lecturers, 98.1% said yes amongst students, difference not significant

None

None

Good

Ekra et al. 2017 [81]

Ivory Coast

Dengue fever

Health professionals—clinical staff

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

74% health professionals perceived dengue as a serious illness

43% health professionals perceived the risk of dengue outbreak in Cote d’Ivoire

None

None

Good

Englert et al. 2019 [76]

Uganda

Ebola virus disease

Marburg virus disease

Health professionals (clinical and non-clinical workers involved in previous medical responses to outbreaks)

Cross-sectional

Qualitative data

In-depth interviews

93% of interviewees described being fearful during the EVD outbreak in Gulu

All survivors experienced fear, while 75% of the non-infected experienced fear during the EVD outbreak in Bundibugyo

In Kabale, 68% of interviewees reported experiencing fear during the Marburg virus outbreak

Alleviated fear: increased PPE availability, prayer, counselling, knowledge of Ebola, vaccine development, earlier diagnostic tools, and a task force with established protocols, continuous education, improved laboratories, robust public education, Marburg-specific training, establishing isolation areas outside main hospital buildings, the presence of role models and experts during the response

Increased fear: encountering an infected patient and unusual disease presentations

None

Good

Ernst et al. 2016 [47]

Kenya

Malaria

General adult population in malaria-endemic areas

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Highland areas (seasonal transmission): 97% agree family at risk of malaria, 91% agree malaria is serious, 85% agree children are more at risk than adults

Lowland areas (holoendemic transmission): 96% agree family at risk of malaria, 93% agree malaria is serious, 66% agree children are more at risk than adults

None

None

Good

Fatiregun et al. 2012 [78]

Nigeria

Pandemic influenza A (H1N1)

Health professionals—clinical staff

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

29.8% perceived their risk of contracting the infection as high

None

None

Good

Ghazi et al. 2020 [63]

Iraq

COVID-19

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

80.2% perceived COVID-19 as contagious and can lead to death

76.9% perceived COVID-19 as very/seriously dangerous, 20.6% as dangerous, and 2.6% as not dangerous

None

None

Acceptable

Gidado et al. 2015 [59]

Nigeria

Ebola virus disease

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

61% felt that they cannot contract EVD

Spiritual and divine protection was associated with lower risk perception

Self-efficacy (confidence in ability to protect themselves) was associated with higher risk perception

None

Good

Girma et al. 2020 [75]

Ethiopia

COVID-19

Health professionals: clinical and academic staff at university hospitals

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

Mean overall risk perception score (out of highest score of 25): 23.59

Mean score (out of highest score of 5):

Perceived risk of getting infected with COVID-19: 3.67

Perceived risk of others at work place to get COVID-19: 3.33

Perceived risk of any Ethiopians to get COVID-19: 3.29

Perceived risk of family and friends getting COVID-19: 2.79

Perceived risk of serious COVID-19 illness: 3.48

Perceived risk of death: 2.8

Perceived vulnerability to COVID-19: 4.01 (3.61 HIV/AIDS, 3.87 common cold, 3.32 malaria, 3.64 TB)

Perceived severity of COVID-19: 3.63 (3.81 HIV/AIDS, 3.33 common cold, 2.87 malaria, 3.43 TB)

None

None

Acceptable

Girum et al. 2017 [48]

Ethiopia

Malaria

General adult population in malaria-endemic districts

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

I think that malaria is a life-threatening disease: 9% disagree, 91% agree

I am sure that anyone can get malaria 100% agree

In my opinion, children and pregnant women are at higher risk of malaria 2% disagree, 98% agree

None

None

Good

Hakim et al. 2020 [109]

Pakistan

COVID-19

Health professionals—clinical staff

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

Perceived likelihood (what do you think is your risk of infection from COVID-19 during your professional duties in the next 30 days?): no risk 1.55% low risk 5.30% medium risk 24.28% high risk 68.87%

Perceived likelihood (What do you think is your risk of infection from COVID-19 in your personal life in the next 30 days?): no risk 2.43% low risk 20.97% medium risk 29.14% high risk 47.46%

None

None

Good

Idris et al. 2015 [79]

Nigeria

Ebola virus disease

Health professionals: frontline responders to medical emergencies in rural and urban settings. Includes public and private sector healthcare workers

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Perceived likelihood (risk of being infected):

Public sector 17.5% very likely 21.6% not very likely 16% somewhat likely 41.8% not likely at all 3.1% no response

Private sector 22.2% very likely 21.6% not very likely 18.6% somewhat likely 30.4% not likely at all 7.2% no response

P-value 0.089

None

None

Good

Ilesanmi and Afolabi 2020 [53]

Nigeria

COVID-19

General adult population: urban settings

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

26% said they could contract COVID-19

27.5% said it is a deadly disease

None

None

Good

Iliyasu et al. 2015 [77]

Nigeria

Ebola virus disease

General adult population

Health professionals—clinical

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

Perceived likelihood (moderate to high fear): Kano 78.3%, Bayelsa 64.7%, Calabar 82.2%

Perceived severity: 95.8% agree in Kano, 99.2% agree in Calabar

None

None

Acceptable

Iorfa et al. 2020 [69]

Nigeria

COVID-19

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

Unable to discern from paper

Knowledge of COVID-19

Age (among males)

Age (among females)

Gender

Good

Irwin et al. 2017 [110]

Guinea

Ebola virus disease

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Perceived likelihood (self-rated risk of contracting Ebola):

None or low 82.7%

High 17.3%

None

None

Good

Jalloh et al. 2018 [111]

Sierra Leone

Ebola virus disease

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

72% of respondents perceived Ebola as a threat at one or more levels: to Sierra Leone (69%), their district (58%), their community (53%) or their household (51%)

None

None

Good

Jiang et al. 2016 [60]

Sierra Leone

Ebola virus disease

General adult population: areas at high risk of EVD transmission

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

10% of respondents believe that they are at not at risk of contracting Ebola

Among 90% of respondents reporting perceived risk of contracting Ebola: 27%, 29%, and 44% reported high, medium, and low perceived risk respectively

Perceived self-efficacy (confidence in ability to protect themselves), occupation, area of residence

Educational level, having ever been to the seaside, getting Ebola information from billboards, and getting Ebola information from brochures

Good

Kabito et al. 2020 [54]

Ethiopia

COVID-19

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Prevalence of high-risk perceptions was 23.11% (n = 144), 95% CI (19.80–26.43%)

Age, educational status, knowledge of COVID-19

Attitudes towards COVID-19, gender, employment status, monthly income

Good

Kamara et al. 2020 [38]

Sierra Leone

Disease resembling COVID-19 with lower risk of death

Disease resembling Ebola virus disease with lower risk of infection

General adult population: two villages with contrasting experiences of EVD outbreak in 2014–15

Cross-sectional

Qualitative data

An experimental game devised to encourage villagers to talk comparatively about infection risks. Each iteration of the game took about 15 min to complete

Overall, there was a higher preference (52% of all responses) for “mango” (representing EVD). Disease “orange” (representing Covid-19) attracted just over a quarter (27%) of all responses. Players finding no difference between the two disease models accounted for 21% of all responses

A disease’s responsiveness to community infection prevention and control measures

Confidence in the possibility of a cure

Disease infection risk

Disease fatality risk

Gender differences in preferences were not statistically significant

Good

Kaponda et al. 2019 [66]

Malawi

Cholera

General adult population: suspected cholera patients

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Perceived likelihood (total): low 40.7% moderate 34.7% high 24.6%

Perceived likelihood (among patients with contaminated water sources at home (200 + cfu/100 ml): 22% reported low risk to themselves and that their communities were well-prepared to respond to future cholera outbreaks

None

None

Good

Kasereka and Hawkes 2019 [50]

Democratic Republic of Congo

Ebola virus disease

General adult population and health professionals residing/working in communities affected by EVD outbreak

Cross-sectional study

Mixed methods

Focus group discussions

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Affective response: 91% reported they were worried about Ebola

None

None

Acceptable

Kasereka et al. 2019 [70]

Democratic Republic of Congo

Ebola virus disease

General adult population and health professionals residing/working in communities affected by EVD outbreak

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Affective response: worried about Ebola 90% of all respondents; 90% of vaccinated and 90% of unvaccinated respondents

Perceived likelihood:

Total 43% high 15% intermediate 38% low 3% I don't know

Vaccinated 21% high 13% intermediate 64% low 1% I don't know

Unvaccinated 64% high 17% intermediate 14% low 5% I don't know

P-value < 0.001

Vaccination against EVD

None

Acceptable

Khowaja et al. 2011 [71]

Pakistan

Pandemic influenza A (H1N1)

Health professionals: medical students

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

62.6% were worried about the current global outbreak of H1N1

40.9% perceived disease as fatal, 29.8% perceived disease as severely dangerous, 15.7% moderately dangerous, 5.1% mildly dangerous, 8.6% unknown

None

None

Acceptable

Mohamed et al. 2017 [112]

Sudan

Ebola virus disease

General adult population: rural residents

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

76.3% perceived EVD as so dangerous, 17.5% as dangerous, 3.3% somehow dangerous, 1.1% not dangerous, 0.3% not at all dangerous, 1.5% unknown

None

None

Good

Murele et al. 2014 [113]

Nigeria

Poliomyelitis

General adult population: opinion and religious leaders; parents identified to have persistently refused or accepted vaccination and leaders of community-based organizations

Cross-sectional

Qualitative data

In-depth interviews

Some of the non-acceptors indicated that nobody was at risk. A few of the respondents mentioned that children were at risk, while others indicated that they do not know who is at risk. Most of the acceptors noted that anyone could fall victim of the virus, but the effects are most typical of children

Vaccine acceptance

None

Poor

Ogoina et al. 2016 [83]

Nigeria

Ebola virus disease

Health professionals: clinical and non-clinical health workers at hospitals

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

24.5% rated their fear of EVD 10 out of 10 (highest level of fear) while 19.6% rated their fear 5 out of 10 and 9.8% rated their fear as 1 out of 10. About 40% of respondents expressed fear ratings of EVD of greater or equal to 7 out of 10. There was no professional difference in rating of fear (categories: Doctor–Nurse–Other Health/Paramedical–Non-Medical Health Workers—P > 0.05)

None

None

Acceptable

Olowookere et al. 2015 [80]

Nigeria

Ebola virus disease

Health professionals: clinical and non-clinical health workers

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

Consider self to be at risk: 39% agree, 42.8% disagree, 18.2% undecided

Consider health workers prone to EVD: 75.8% agree, 12.7% disagree, 11.5% undecided

None

None

 

Ozioko et al. 2018 [56]

Nigeria

Zoonotic infections

General adult population: bushmeat traders and hunters

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Bushmeat hunters: yes 47.1%, no 52.9%

Bushmeat traders: yes 71.4% no 28.6%

P = 0.36

None

None

Good

Philavong et al. 2020 [65]

Lao

Zoonotic infections

General adult population: market vendors (vegetable, livestock and bushmeat)

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

72%of vendors considered that their job did not put their health at risk, highest among bushmeat vendors compared to vegetable or livestock vendors

The proportion of vendors who reported that they had “no risk” was higher when asked about their personal risk compared to when they were asked about risk in general, and this was consistent for vegetable vendors (chi-square test, P < 0.001), livestock meat vendors (chi-square test, P = 0.055) and bushmeat vendors (chi-square test, P = 0.0037)

Number of education years

Belief in safety and quality of products sold

None

Good

Rizwan et al. 2020 [42]

Pakistan

COVID-19

General adult population: attending a children’s hospital during a lockdown

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

How likely you feel you can catch this infection? 59.2% likely/very likely—12.2% neutral—28.6% less likely/very less likely

How likely you feel your family members can catch this infection? 52.2% likely/very likely—13.5% neutral—34.3% less likely/very less likely

How likely you feel that average Pakistani can suffer from this virus? 58% likely/very likely—19.2% neutral—22.8% less likely/very less likely

How likely corona virus infection can be serious? 67.5% likely/very likely—11.2% neutral—21.3% less likely/very less likely

What is the chance you have serious complications/death if you get infected? 52.2% likely/very likely—16.1% neutral—31.7% less likely/very less likely

What is the chance your family member gets serious infection or die because of corona virus? 37.1% likely/very likely—21% neutral—41.8% less likely/very less likely

Age

None

Acceptable

Schaetti et al. 2013 [41]

Democratic Republic of Congo

Kenya

Tanzania (Zanzibar)

Cholera

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

The majority of respondents acknowledge no difference between women and men, adult and children or rich and poor, except in Kenya, where 50.7% report children are more at risk than adults, and 52.2% report the poor are more at risk than the rich

Perceived severity: 81.1% DRC, 91.3% Kenya, 96.6% Zanzibar

Potential fatality without treatment: 99.7% DRC, 49.9% Kenya, 77.5% Zanzibar (P-value < 00.001)

Urban vs. rural setting

Gender

Acceptable

Schmidt-Hellerau et al. 2020 [61]

Sierra Leone

Ebola virus disease

General adult population, including home-based caregivers of suspected Ebola patients (usually family members)

Cross-sectional study

Mixed methods

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

In-depth interviews

43% perceived themselves as being at risk of getting Ebola in the next 6 months

None

None

Good

Sengeh et al. 2020 [114]

Sierra Leone

COVID-19

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

75% perceived themselves to be at moderate-great risk (95% CI 64.7 to 82.5)

None

None

Good

Shabani et al. 2015 [46]

Tanzania

Rift Valley Fever (RVF)

General adult population: residents in areas that reported the highest number of RVF cases during the 2007 outbreak

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

63.2% of respondents reported to be personally at risk of contracting RVF

90.3% agreed that RVF was a serious disease

None

None

Good

Shakeel et al. 2020 [82]

Pakistan

COVID-19

Health professionals—clinical staff

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

Perceived severity: 73.42% agree/strongly agree—10.13% disagree/strongly disagree—16.43% neutral

None

None

Good

Tadesse et al. 2020 [115]

Ethiopia

COVID-19

Health professionals—clinical staff: nurses

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

Perceived likelihood: 64.6% agree/strongly agree—14.5% neutral, 20.8% disagree/strongly disagree

Affective response: 65.2% agree/strongly agree—15.2% neutral, 65.2% disagree/strongly disagree

None

None

Poor

ul Haq et al. 2020 [116]

Pakistan

COVID-19

General adult population

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

The majority of the respondents associated the highest risk with COVID-19 (unable to ascertain exact value from the paper)

Urban vs. rural setting

None

Acceptable

Usifoh et al. 2019 [49]

Nigeria

Lassa fever

General adult population: staff and students at the University of Benin, Nigeria

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Self-administered questionnaire

Perceived likelihood:

Staff: 4% no response, 75.7% very seriously, 12% slightly serious, 8.3% not very serious

Student: 2% no response, 69.7% very seriously, 20.7% slightly serious, 7.7% not very serious

Perceived severity:

Staff: 2.7% no response, 83% very serious, 9% slightly serious, 3.7% not very serious, 1.7% not sure

Student: 2.3% no response, 76.7% very serious, 14.3% slightly serious, 4% not very serious, 2.7% not sure

None

None

Good

Usuwa et al. 2020 [44]

Nigeria

Lassa fever

General adult population: residents of communities affected by a Lassa fever outbreak

Cross-sectional study

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Perceived susceptibility in the absence of preventive measures:

Would you be susceptible: 60.74% certainly yes, 22.7% probably yes, 6.13% neutral, 4.91% probably not, 5.52% certainly not

Chances of contracting illness: 41.10% very large chance, 29.75% large chance, 10.74% neutral, 12.27% small chance, 6.13% very small chance

Perceived severity of illness:

In general: 73.31% very serious, 19.63% serious, 0.92% neutral, 3.37% slightly not serious, 2.76% not serious at all

If contracted by respondent: 90.8% very serious, 7.06% serious, 1.23% neutral, 0.31% slightly not serious, 0.61% not serious at all

Knowledge of Lassa fever

None

Good

Winters et al. 2020 [68]

Sierra Leone

Ebola virus disease

General adult population

Longitudinal study (3 repeated cross-sectional surveys, different respondents in each survey)

Quantitative data

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Between 50 and 69% of respondents expressed some level of risk perception during the first survey in the four regions. This decreased during the second survey for all regions apart from the Northern Province

Education, area of residence, time of survey in relation to outbreak, gender, age, knowledge of EVD, EVD misconceptions, handwashing, avoiding burials, type and number of information sources

Type of information sources, religion, avoiding physical contact with Ebola-suspects

Good

Xu et al. 2019 [55]

Myanmar

Dengue fever

General adult population: 3 villages with zero, low and high dengue fever incidence

Cross-sectional study

Mixed methods

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

In-depth interviews

Perceived risk (likelihood and severity combined):

Total: easy to contract dengue 15.8%, not easy/impossible to contract dengue 5.8%, serious illness 27.8%, deadly disease 24.7%, do not know/no response 68.7%

Village 1 (zero incidence): easy to contract dengue 12.9%, not easy/impossible to contract dengue 9.1%, serious illness 27.3%, deadly disease 21.2%, do not know/no response 67.4%

Village 2 (low incidence): easy to contract dengue 18.6%, not easy/impossible to contract dengue 4.7%, serious illness 30.2%, deadly disease 27.9%, do not know/no response 60.5%

Village 3 (high incidence): easy to contract dengue 19.0%, not easy/impossible to contract dengue 1.2%, serious illness 27.4%, deadly disease 28.6%, do not know/no response 75%

Among key informants: higher perception of dengue fever as a serious or deadly disease in villages 2 and 3 compared to village 1

None

None

Good

Xu et al. 2020 [52]

Myanmar

Dengue fever

General adult population: displaced and non-displaced persons

Cross-sectional study

Mixed methods

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

In-depth interviews

Perceived risk (likelihood and severity combined):

Total: easy to contract dengue 47.3%, not easy/impossible to contract dengue 42.6%, serious illness 98.4%, deadly disease 98.1%, do not know/no response 10.1%

IDP: easy to contract dengue 38.7%, not easy/impossible to contract dengue 51.1%, serious illness 97.8%, deadly disease 97.8%, do not know/no response 10.2%

Host community: easy to contract dengue 57%, not easy/impossible to contract dengue 33.1%, serious illness 99.2%, deadly disease 98.3%, do not know/no response 9.9%

Higher risk perception among key informants in camp compared to health workers interviewed

None

None

Good