Views equals page views plus PDF downloads
Mohamed F. Jalloh, MPH1; Susan J. Robinson, PhD2; Jamaica Corker, PhD3; Wenshu Li, PhD1; Kathleen Irwin, MD4; Alpha M. Barry, MD, PhD5; Paulyne Ngalame Ntuba, MPH1; Alpha A. Diallo, MD6; Mohammad B. Jalloh, MPH7; James Nyuma7; Musa Sellu7; Amanda VanSteelandt, PhD1; Megan Ramsden, MPH1; LaRee Tracy, PhD3,8; Pratima L. Raghunathan, PhD1; John T. Redd, MD1; Lise Martel, PhD1; Barbara Marston, MD1; Rebecca Bunnell, PhD1 (View author affiliations)
What is already known about this topic?
Assessments of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) in countries affected by the Ebola virus disease (Ebola) epidemic during 2014–2015 found that although most participants understood many aspects of Ebola transmission and prevention, misconceptions about the disease and transmission modes persisted. In Guinea, health officials suspected that traditional burial preparations and funeral rites involving corpse contact promoted transmission, but they lacked national-level data about these practices.
What is added by this report?
As the Ebola epidemic waned in Guinea, a KAP survey found that most participants understood Ebola causes, transmission, and prevention, but nearly half believed that Ebola could be transmitted by mosquitoes or ambient air. The majority of participants reported more frequent handwashing and avoiding physical contact with persons suspected of having Ebola. Nearly all participants reported they would seek specialized treatment for family members with suspected Ebola and would engage special burial teams if someone died from Ebola in their homes. More than half would observe Ebola-affected corpses from a safe distance that would avoid corpse contact, but there was considerable regional variation in that finding.
What are the implications for public health practice?
KAP information collected during an epidemic can yield data to guide response and recovery efforts, health education, and social mobilization. Future activities should aim to reverse misconceptions about Ebola transmission and prevention, clarify duration and modes of transmission from survivors, prevent stigmatization of Ebola survivors, and foster safer case management and burial practices.
Health communication and social mobilization efforts to improve the public’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding Ebola virus disease (Ebola) were important in controlling the 2014–2016 Ebola epidemic in Guinea (1), which resulted in 3,814 reported Ebola cases and 2,544 deaths.* Most Ebola cases in Guinea resulted from the washing and touching of persons and corpses infected with Ebola without adequate infection control precautions at home, at funerals, and in health facilities (2,3). As the 18-month epidemic waned in August 2015, Ebola KAP were assessed in a survey among residents of Guinea recruited through multistage cluster sampling procedures in the nation’s eight administrative regions (Boké, Conakry, Faranah, Kankan, Kindia, Labé, Mamou, and Nzérékoré). Nearly all participants (92%) were aware of Ebola prevention measures, but 27% believed that Ebola could be transmitted by ambient air, and 49% believed they could protect themselves from Ebola by avoiding mosquito bites. Of the participants, 95% reported taking actions to avoid getting Ebola, especially more frequent handwashing (93%). Nearly all participants (91%) indicated they would send relatives with suspected Ebola to Ebola treatment centers, and 89% said they would engage special Ebola burial teams to remove corpses with suspected Ebola from homes. Of the participants, 66% said they would prefer to observe an Ebola-affected corpse from a safe distance at burials rather than practice traditional funeral rites involving corpse contact. The findings were used to guide the ongoing epidemic response and recovery efforts, including health communication, social mobilization, and planning, to prevent and respond to future outbreaks or sporadic cases of Ebola.
Ebola-related KAP assessments were conducted in Sierra Leone (4), Liberia (5), Nigeria (6), and in one region in Guinea (7) during Ebola epidemics in 2014–2015. To learn more about Ebola-related KAP in Guinea as the nation’s epidemic waned following more than a year of Ebola education and prevention activities, several organizations conducted an Ebola KAP assessment across all administrative regions in August 2015. At that time, cumulative case counts varied substantially across the four natural regions of Guinea (Forest Guinea, Maritime Guinea, Middle Guinea, and Upper Guinea) (Figure); previously intense transmission had been controlled in the Forest Guinea region, but transmission persisted in the Maritime Guinea region (8). Various control measures were implemented, including case investigation and contact tracing, health communication about prevention practices, and specialized treatment units and burial teams to manage persons and corpses affected by Ebola.
The assessment employed a cross-sectional design using a multistage cluster sampling procedure. The 2014 Guinea Census List of Enumeration Areas served as the sampling frame for the random selection of 150 clusters across all eight administrative regions, which were grouped by the four natural regions of Guinea. Within each administrative region, prefectures were randomly sampled from among two strata defined by high (≥95) or low (<95) cumulative counts of confirmed cases that had been reported to the national Ebola surveillance system by May 2015. The sample was further stratified to include both urban and rural subprefectures. Districts within each subprefecture were randomly selected, and 20 households were selected from each cluster using a form of systematic random sampling known as the random walk method.† In each selected household, two interviews were conducted; the first was with the head of household, and the second was with a randomly selected woman aged ≥25 years or a person of either sex aged 15–24 years. Interviews were conducted by locally trained data collectors using a free open-source set of tools to manage mobile data collection (https://opendatakit.org), installed on mobile devices. Data were analyzed using statistical software. For each record, weighted estimates adjusted for the probability of participant selection were calculated by applying a factor based on population size of the participant’s administrative region; 95% confidence intervals were generated for overall and regional data.
Data collection teams approached 6,699 persons, 6,273 (94%) of whom (from 3,137 households) consented to initiate the assessment. Among these, 5,733 (91%) persons who reported that they had heard of Ebola before the survey were asked questions for up to 60 minutes about Ebola through individual interviews that included closed- and open-ended questions in local languages, and rarely, in French. These respondents were considered to have completed the survey and were included in the analysis (Table 1). Overall, sociodemographic characteristics did not vary substantially by region, except that participants from Forest Guinea were more likely than other participants to report some formal education and Christian religious affiliations.
Participants from the most heavily Ebola-affected regions (Forest Guinea and Martime Guinea) were more likely to have encountered Ebola response teams (61% and 72%, respectively), than were respondents from Middle Guinea (37%) and Upper Guinea (47%) (Table 2). Overall, 15% of participants perceived a high risk for acquiring Ebola; in Maritime Guinea, 25% of participants perceived a high risk. Most participants knew that Ebola is transmitted by contact with body fluids of infected persons (92%) or corpses (87%). However, the misconception that Ebola is transmitted by mosquito bites was reported by 49%, and this belief was reported by 66% of participants in Upper Guinea. Nearly all participants reported taking actions to avoid Ebola (95%), including more frequent handwashing (93%), avoiding contact with persons with suspected Ebola (44%), or avoiding crowds (22%).
The majority of participants across all regions (91%) indicated they would send relatives with suspected Ebola to Ebola treatment centers. Most (72%) participants knew that one could survive and recover from Ebola, but such knowledge varied by region, and was lowest in Upper Guinea (58%) and highest in Maritime Guinea (81%). A minority of participants (17%) reported that survivors could infect others through casual contact such as hugging and shaking hands, that they would not buy fresh vegetables from shopkeepers who survived Ebola (28%), and that they would not welcome survivors into their communities (19%). Overall, 44% of participants expressed at least one of those three attitudes toward survivors, and these attitudes were more common in the less-affected regions (Middle Guinea [58%] and Upper Guinea [55%]) than in heavily affected regions (Maritime Guinea [35%] and Forest Guinea [30%]). In contrast, 91% of all participants expressed the opinion that Ebola survivors could contribute to Ebola control, such as through educating community members about Ebola prevention (62%) or caring for Ebola patients (37%) (Table 2).
When asked about intended burial preparations for family members suspected to have died from Ebola at home, only 3% of participants reported that they would wash or touch the body, and most stated that they would accept special Ebola burial teams (89%). Overall, 66% said they would prefer to observe corpses of family members who had died from Ebola from a safe distance at burials, but this attitude varied widely by region (Forest Guinea [90%]; Upper Guinea [83%]; Maritime Guinea [65%]; and Middle Guinea [38%]). Attitudes about other alternatives to touching Ebola-affected corpses also varied by region. When asked about intended burial preparations for family members who died of any cause at home, the majority of participants (72%) indicated they would accept alternatives that did not involve corpse contact, but this attitude was least common among respondents in Forest Guinea (57%). Among 1,082 (20%) participants who had recently attended burials of persons who had died from any cause, a minority reported washing (6%), touching (4%), or crying over the corpse without touching it (27%), but 26% reported touching other burial attendees. Participants from Forest Guinea were more likely to report recently washing (16%) or touching (19%) corpses than were participants from other regions (Table 2).
Eighteen months after the start of a devastating Ebola epidemic, most participants in this geographically diverse sample understood principal aspects of Ebola transmission and prevention, reported taking actions to reduce their risk for acquiring Ebola, and indicated they would use safer case management and burial practices for relatives with suspected Ebola. However, a substantial percentage of participants harbored misconceptions about Ebola transmission or expressed reticence about close proximity to Ebola survivors, including persons certified by the government to be cured of the disease. Although the World Health Organization declared Guinea to be Ebola-free by late 2015, clusters of Ebola cases occurred in 2016, partly through sexual transmission from survivors with persistence of Ebola virus in semen (9). These data underscore the value of ongoing health promotion efforts to prevent sporadic transmission or future outbreaks, including messaging that aims to reverse misconceptions about Ebola transmission and prevention, to clarify duration and modes of transmission from survivors, and to address stigma that survivors might face as they recover, rebuild their lives, and reintegrate into communities. Regional variations in the epidemic and related response activities might have resulted in the regional differences in attitudes and suggest that targeting health communication by region might be more effective than a uniform, national approach. Underlying differences in customs and traditions across different ethnic populations might have contributed to regional variation in attitudes and behaviors, especially regarding burials.
The assessment was the first national-level quantitative evaluation of Ebola-related burial practices among persons who attended a burial in West Africa during a period of ongoing Ebola transmission. It revealed that most participants would forsake traditional burial preparations involving washing or touching Ebola-affected corpses and would adopt safer practices without corpse contact. Compared with residents of other regions, residents of Forest Guinea were far more likely to indicate a preference for keeping a safe distance from Ebola-affected corpses. However, among the subset of persons who had recently attended burials for deaths from any cause, Forest Guinea residents were substantially more likely to have washed or touched corpses than were residents of other regions. The Forest Guinea region was the first region in the country to report Ebola cases and, unlike other regions, had contained its outbreak several months before the survey. This might explain why Forest participants reported a lower perceived risk for Ebola and might have reverted to traditional, high-contact burial practices for persons dying from causes other than Ebola. These findings underscore the observation that changes in cultural practices to combat highly infectious diseases such as Ebola might be transient, and that in-depth community engagement or new resources, such as cadres of professional body washers, might help prevent future transmission of infectious diseases related to corpse contact (10).
The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, because of the need to conduct the survey during the ongoing epidemic, interviewers did not validate the comprehension of some survey questions in French or other languages. Second, some participants might have provided socially desirable responses aligned to government recommendations rather than their actual opinions. For instance, government messages to encourage social distancing from Ebola-affected persons during the epidemic might have explained the reticence about close contact with Ebola survivors that some interviewers observed. Third, this analysis did not examine the relation between attitudes and exposure to health promotion interventions or messages. Finally, the sample was not nationally representative because of the partial randomization needed to intentionally oversample heavily affected areas, and the need to seek consent from heads of households, who were usually older men.
Despite their limitations, the mobile data collection tools permitted generation of preliminary findings that were shared with several organizations in Guinea within a few days of the interviews; this information was used to guide the ongoing response and health communication efforts, which contributed to eventual control of the epidemic. Such rapid KAP surveys, conducted during an outbreak, can provide important information for health communications efforts that can contribute to controlling an outbreak at its source, and thereby enhance global health security.
From Conakry, Guinea: 75 sampling specialists and interviewers who recruited or interviewed participants; approximately 6,000 Guinean residents and district leaders who participated in some aspect of the survey; Sakoba Kéïta, Ministry of Health; Kadijah Bah, Santé Plus; Barry Ibrahima Kholo, Institute of Nutrition and Health; Paul Sengeh, FOCUS 1000; Mohamed Ag Ayoya, Guy Yogo, Jean-Baptiste Sene, Esther Braud, UNICEF-Guinea. From the United States: Alison Amoroso, Benjamin Dahl, Stephanie I. Davis, Rana Hajjeh, Amy Lang, Judy Lipshutz, Amanda MacGurn, Craig Manning, Sharmila Shetty, Kerri Simone, Frank Strona, Brittany Sunshine, Leigh Willis, Mary Claire Worrell, CDC; Sean Southey, PCI Media Impact, New York, New York.
Corresponding author: Mohamed F. Jalloh, email@example.com, 404-401-2773.
1Division of Global Health Protection, Center for Global Health, CDC; 2National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC; 3International Ebola Taskforce, CDC; 4Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC; 5Sante Plus, Conakry, Guinea; 6Guinea Ministry of Health, Conakry, Guinea; 7FOCUS 1000, Freetown, Sierra Leone; 8Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration.
- Bedrosian SR, Young CE, Smith LA, et al. Lessons of risk communication and health promotion—West Africa and United States. MMWR Suppl 2016;65(Suppl 3):68–74. PubMed
- Agua-Agum J, Ariyarajah A, Aylward B, et al. ; International Ebola Response Team. Exposure patterns driving Ebola transmission in West Africa: a retrospective observational study. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002170. CrossRef PubMed
- Touré A, Traoré FA, Sako FB, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of health care workers on Ebola virus disease in Conakry, Guinea: a cross-sectional study. J Public Health Epidemiol 2016;8:12–6. CrossRef
- Li W, Jalloh MF, Bunnell R, et al. Public confidence in the health care system 1 year after the start of the Ebola outbreak—Sierra Leone, July 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:538–42. CrossRef PubMed
- Kobayashi M, Beer KD, Bjork A, et al. Community knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding Ebola virus disease—five counties, Liberia, September–October, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64:714–8. PubMed
- Iliyasu G, Ogoina D, Otu AA, et al. A multi-site knowledge attitude and practice survey of Ebola virus disease in Nigeria. PLoS One 2015;10:e0135955. CrossRef PubMed
- Buli BG, Mayigane LN, Oketta JF, et al. Misconceptions about Ebola seriously affect the prevention efforts: KAP related to Ebola prevention and treatment in Kouroussa Prefecture, Guinea. Pan Afr Med J 2015;22(Suppl 1):11. PubMed
- World Health Organization. Ebola situation report—July 29, 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015. http://apps.who.int/ebola/current-situation/ebola-situation-report-29-july-2015
- CDC. Flare-ups of Ebola since the control of the initial outbreak. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/pdf/cdcs-ongoing-work.pdf
- Fairhead J. Understanding social resistance to Ebola response in Guinea. Ebola Response Anthropology Platform; 2015. http://www.ebola-anthropology.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Fairhead-EbolaASRFinalSubmissionWeb.pdf
FIGURE. Cumulative confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease, by natural region* and administrative prefecture† — Guinea, August 7, 2015
Source: Ebola situation reports by the World Health Organization.
* Maritime Guinée = Maritime Guinea; Moyenne-Guinée = Middle Guinea; Haute-Guinée = Upper Guinea; Guinée Forestiere = Forest Guinea.
† Of the sampled prefectures and urban communes, 12 reported 0–50 cumulative cases (Boffa, Boké, Dalaba, Dinguiraye, Fria, Kaloum, Kouroussa, Labé, Mamou, Tougué, Siguiri, and Yomou), and the rest reported 51 or more cumulative cases (Dixinn, Forécariah, Kindia, Kissidougou, Macenta, Matam, Matoto, Nzérékoré, and Ratoma). Four cases reported in Conakry prefecture could not be mapped to a commune.
The figure above is a map of Guinea showing the cumulative number of confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease, by natural region and administrative prefecture, as of August 7, 2015
TABLE 1. Selected characteristics of respondents to a survey on Ebola virus disease knowledge, attitudes, and practices — Guinea, August 2015
|Characteristic||Initiated survey (N = 6,273)* No. (%)||Completed survey (N = 5,733)† No. (%)||% Completed survey, natural region|
|Maritime Guinea (n = 2,538)||Middle Guinea (n = 926)||Upper Guinea (n = 1,442)||Forest Guinea (n = 827)|
|Conakry||920 (15)||915 (16)||36||—||—||—|
|Boké||664 (11)||581 (10)||23||—||—||—|
|Kindia||1,062 (17)||1,042 (18)||41||—||—||—|
|Mamou||400 (6)||366 (6)||—||40||—||—|
|Labé||579 (9)||560 (10)||—||60||—||—|
|Faranah||526 (8)||392 (7)||—||—||27||—|
|Kankan||1,142 (18)||1,050 (18)||—||—||73||—|
|Nzérékoré||980 (16)||827 (15)||—||—||—||100|
|Male||3,164 (50)||2,937 (51)||52||44||53||54|
|Female||3,109 (50)||2,796 (49)||48||56||47||46|
|Age group (yrs)|
|15–24||1,117 (18)||1,032 (18)||19||18||15||21|
|≥25||5,156 (82)||4,701 (82)||81||82||85||79|
|None||3,117 (53)||2,712 (50)||43||60||64||35|
|Some primary education||1,224 (21)||1,155 (21)||21||18||15||35|
|Some secondary education or higher||1,600 (26)||1,560 (29)||36||22||21||30|
|Muslim||5,357 (86)||4,949 (87)||97||98||92||32|
|Christian||788 (13)||689 (12)||3||2||8||60|
|Other/None||93 (1)||68 (1)||0||0||0||8|
|Government/Office worker||364 (6)||358 (6)||8||5||5||4|
|Trader/Merchant||1,216 (20)||1,132 (20)||22||21||19||16|
|Farmer/Breeder||1,860 (30)||1,667 (29)||22||30||41||29|
|Police/Military/Guards||37 (1)||34 (1)||1||0||0||1|
|Student||629 (10)||600 (11)||12||12||6||12|
|Spiritual/Traditional healer||45 (1)||38 (1)||1||0||1||1|
|Skilled laborer||282 (5)||264 (5)||7||1||3||5|
|Other||1,230 (18)||1,120 (19)||18||23||17||25|
|Unemployed||554 (9)||478 (8)||9||8||8||7|
|Heard of Ebola before interview||5,733 (93)||5,733 (100)||100||100||100||100|
|Indicator||Response format||Overall*||Natural regions|
|No.||%||Maritime Guinea†||Middle Guinea§||Upper Guinea¶||Forest Guinea**|
|No.||% (95% CI)||No.||% (95% CI)||No.||% (95% CI)||No.||% (95% CI)|
|Encountered Ebola response teams in the past||Yes/No/DK||5,681||57||2,509||72 (69.8–73.3)||923||37 (33.6–39.9)||1,438||47 (44.1–49.3)||811||61 (57.5–64.3)|
|Perceptions of personal risk for becoming infected with Ebola|
|No risk||Yes/No/DK||5,601||44||2,476||40 (38.4–42.3)||884||42 (39.2–45.8)||1,433||50 (47.6–52.8)||808||51 (47.4–54.4)|
|Low risk||27||2,476||23 (21.7–25.0)||884||30 (24.1–30.0)||1,433||28 (25.6–30.3)||808||35 (32.0–38.7)|
|High risk||15||2,476||25 (23.4–26.9)||884||9 (7.2–11.1)||1,433||8 (7.0–9.9)||808||5 (3.9–7.2)|
|Don’t know/Not sure||14||2,476||11 (10.1–12.6)||884||22 (19.1–24.6)||1,433||14 (11.8–15.5)||808||9 (6.8–10.7)|
|Knowledge and perceptions about Ebola prevention and treatment|
|Preventable by avoiding contact with body fluids of infected persons||Yes/No/DK||5,715||92||2,526||91 (89.8–92.0)||925||94 (92.0–95.2)||1,440||94 (92.9–95.3)||824||89 (86.6–91.0)|
|Preventable by avoiding contact with corpse of persons who died from Ebola||5,708||87||2,524||86 (84.2–87.0)||922||93 (90.1–94.4)||1,440||87 (85.1–88.5)||822||83 (80.2–85.4)|
|Immediate treatment in health facility increases chance of survival||5,704||86||2,526||89 (87.6–90.0)||923||88 (85.5–89.7)||1,438||84 (82.0–85.8)||817||78 (75.4–81.0)|
|Immediate treatment in health facility reduces chance of Ebola spread||5,698||88||2,518||90 (88.4–90.8)||925||92 (89.7–93.3)||1,439||86 (84.4–88.0)||816||79 (76.1–81.7)|
|Male survivors should use condoms for at least 3 months to prevent sexual transmission††||5,237||46||2,396||44 (42.4–46.4)||746||39 (35.4–42.4)||1,341||49 (45.8–51.2)||754||57 (53.1–60.1)|
|Misconceptions about Ebola transmission, prevention, and treatment|
|Transmissible by ambient air||Yes/No/DK||5,695||27||2,514||24 (22.6–26.0)||924||31 (27.6–33.6)||1,438||34 (31.5–36.3)||819||17 (14.1–19.1)|
|Can protect self from Ebola by avoiding mosquito bites||5,705||49||2,523||44 (42.3–46.1)||925||42 (39.0–45.4)||1,439||66 (63.8–68.6)||818||38 (35.1–41.7)|
|Preventable by bathing with salt and hot water||5,695||22||2,522||18 (16.6–19.6)||924||25 (22.1–27.7)||1,437||29 (26.6–31.2)||812||12 (9.5–13.9)|
|Can be successfully treated by spiritual or traditional healers||5,693||5||2,517||3 (2.7–4.1)||924||6 (4.6–7.8)||1,439||5 (3.9–6.1)||813||7 (5.1–8.5)|
|Prevention practices used after learning about Ebola|
|Took some action to avoid Ebola infection||Yes/No/DK||5,537||95||2,452||97 (96.0–97.4)||900||93 (91.7–94.9)||1,407||92 (90.0–93.0)||778||95 (93.9–96.9)|
|Washed hands with soap and water more often||Open-ended, unprompted||5,240||93||2,370||94 (92.9–94.9)||840||91 (88.8–92.8)||1,288||94 (92.5–95.1)||742||95 (93.4–96.6)|
|Avoided all physical contact with those suspected of having Ebola||5,240||44||2,370||48 (46.1–50.1)||840||41 (37.4–44.0)||1,288||40 (36.8–42.2)||742||46 (42.2–49.4)|
|Avoided crowded places||5,240||22||2,370||24 (22.0–25.4)||840||16 (13.8–18.8)||1,288||27 (25.0–29.8)||742||13 (10.9–15.7)|
|Intentions if family member suspected of having Ebola|
|Would send family member to an Ebola treatment center||Yes/No/DK||5,733||91||2,538||93 (92.1–94.1)||926||94 (92.2–95.4)||1,442||88 (86.2–89.6)||827||87 (84.6–89.2)|
|Would hide the family member from neighbors and health authorities||5,520||4||2,426||3 (2.5–3.9)||909||3 (2.1–4.5)||1,404||5 (3.6–5.8)||781||2 (1.3–3.5)|
|Attitudes toward Ebola survivors§§|
|Survivors certified to be cured of Ebola could infect others through casual contact (e.g., hugging or shaking hands)||Yes/No/DK||4,637||17||2,093||13 (11.1–13.9)||768||25 (22.2–28.4)||1,135||21 (18.2–22.8)||641||12 (9.2–14.2)|
|Would not buy fresh vegetables from survivor certified by government to be cured of Ebola||5,417||28||2,367||21 (18.9–22.1)||903||40 (36.3–42.7)||1,372||36 (33.5–38.5)||775||16 (13.5–18.7)|
|Would not welcome survivor declared to be cured of Ebola back into community||5,468||19||2,402||14 (12.9–15.7)||911||26 (22.8–28.4)||1,365||28 (25.1–29.9)||790||6 (4.5–7.9)|
|Expressed one or more of the above attitudes toward Ebola survivors¶¶||Composite||5,029||44||2,203||35 (32.5–36.5)||871||58 (54.3–60.9)||1,283||55 (52.6–58.0)||672||30 (26.4–33.4)|
|Possible to survive and recover from Ebola||Yes/No/DK||5,703||72||2,523||81 (79.8–82.8)||925||74 (70.7–76.3)||1,437||58 (55.0–60.2)||818||69 (65.3–71.7)|
|Survivors could contribute to Ebola containment efforts||4,957||91||2,167||93 (92.2–94.4)||820||92 (90.5–94.1)||1,225||84 (81.9–86.1)||736||96 (94.8–97.6)|
|Survivors could educate community members about Ebola prevention||Open-ended, unprompted||4,516||62||2,022||58 (55.8–60.2)||757||60 (56.1–63.1)||1,029||63 (59.8–65.8)||708||71 (67.5–74.1)|
|Survivors could help care for persons suspected of having Ebola||4,516||37||2,022||46 (44.0–48.4)||757||35 (31.1–37.9)||1,029||39 (36.2–42.2)||708||18 (15.4–21.0)|
|Intentions if family member died at home|
|Would wash or touch body if family member died||Yes/No/DK||5,460||8||2,416||5 (4.0–5.8)||870||11 (8.7–12.9)||1,403||8 (6.7–9.5)||771||10 (7.5–11.7)|
|Would wash or touch body if family member died of suspected Ebola||5,512||3||2,437||3 (2.7–4.1)||889||3 (2.0–4.2)||1,406||4 (2.5–4.5)||780||3 (2.0–4.6)|
|Would accept burial team if family member died of suspected Ebola||5,344||89||2,346||89 (88.0–90.6)||878||92 (90.6–94.2)||1,371||83 (81.0–85.0)||749||91 (88.8–93.0)|
|Would accept alternatives to traditional burials that do not involve physical contact with corpse if family member died of any cause||4,897||72||2,106||76 (74.4–78.0)||800||84 (81.4–86.4)||1,297||65 (61.9–67.1)||694||57 (53.4–60.8)|
|Observe burial from safe distance||Open-ended, unprompted||3,509||66||1,605||65 (62.8–67.4)||671||38 (34.3–41.7)||837||83 (80.5–85.5)||396||90 (87.5–93.3)|
|Have religious leader say a final prayer||3,509||54||1,605||67 (64.9–69.5)||671||54 (50.0–57.6)||837||34 (30.6–37.0)||396||58 (53.2–63.0)|
|Know the location of the burial site||3,509||22||1,605||21 (18.6-22.6)||671||11 (8.4–13.0)||837||18 (15.7–20.9)||396||66 (61.0–70.4)|
|Provide a name plate at the burial site||3,509||8||1,605||4 (3.0–5.0)||671||3 (1.6–4.0)||837||11 (8.5–12.7)||396||28 (23.1–31.9)|
|Self-reported burial practices within past month of interview (for persons dying of any cause)|
|Participated in any burial ceremony in the past month:||Yes/No||5,532||20||2457||18 (16.0–19.0)||897||31 (27.5–33.5)||1,411||17 (14.8–18.8)||767||18 (15.6–21.0)|
|Washed the corpse||Open-ended, unprompted||1,082||6||431||1 (0.3–2.5)||274||3 (0.9–4.9)||237||5 (2.3–7.9)||140||16 (9.7–21.7)|
|Touched the corpse||1,082||4||431||4 (1.8–5.2)||274||5 (2.5–7.7)||237||5 (2.3–7.9)||140||19 (12.2–25.0)|
|Touched others at the burial ceremony (e.g., hug, handshake)||1,082||26||431||13 (9.4–15.6)||274||44 (38.3–50.1)||237||21 (15.5–25.9)||140||33 (25.1–40.7)|
|Cried over the corpse but did not touch it||1,082||27||431||17 (13.2–20.2)||274||30 (24.9–35.7)||237||42 (35.9–48.5)||140||22 (15.2–29.0)|
Suggested citation for this article: Jalloh MF, Robinson SJ, Corker J, et al. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Related to Ebola Virus Disease at the End of a National Epidemic — Guinea, August 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017;66:1109–1115. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6641a4.
Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are
provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply
endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content
of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MMWR were current as of
the date of publication.
All HTML versions of MMWR articles are generated from final proofs through an automated process.
This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version.
Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr)
and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables.
Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to