Cross-sectional survey explores caregiver knowledge and practices impacting children's infection risk, suggesting vital health education needs.
Human intestinal nematode infections (HINIs) remain a public health concern despite reduced prevalence following mass drug administration (MDA) in low- and middle-income countries. Children continue to bear a substantial burden of infection, and caregiver knowledge and practices may influence their risk of acquiring infection. Sustaining control during the transition of prevention programmes to surveillance-based strategies requires an understanding of behavioural determinants of transmission. Therefore, we assessed caregiver knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) and their associations with sociodemographic characteristics and child infection status. A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 945 caregivers of primary school children in Anuradhapura, a low-prevalence setting where school-based MDA ceased in 2019, to assess caregiver KAP and child HINI status. An interviewer-administered questionnaire assessed KAP, sociodemographic, water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH), and behavioural factors. Participants were predominantly mothers (89.5%). Good knowledge was observed in 61.7%, positive attitudes in 95.6% and good practices in 99.2%. Knowledge gaps persisted regarding transmission and complications. Higher caregiver knowledge (OR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.36–0.72) and regular deworming (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.40–0.83) were associated with lower odds of infection, whereas attitudes and practices were not independently associated. Caregiver knowledge remains a key determinant of infection risk. Gaps in knowledge, misconceptions, and practices may sustain transmission even in low-prevalence settings. Strengthening health education, school-based hygiene promotion, and community engagement remains essential to reinforce preventive behaviours and support long-term control as countries transition from routine MDA to elimination-oriented strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jayakody et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: