Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice

Abstract

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice (KAP) is a tripartite framework for the health-related dimensions of attitude — what a person knows about a health topic, how they evaluate it, and what they actually do. Its enduring claim is that these three components are distinct and only loosely coupled: knowledge rarely translates directly into practice, and the mediating attitude is itself a weak predictor of behavior. The framework is best known through the KAP survey, the dominant public-health needs-assessment instrument, and through the theories built to explain the gaps it measures — the health belief model, the theory of reasoned action and its successor the theory of planned behavior, and diffusion of innovations. A persistent critique targets its reliance on self-report. Three demonstrations trace the knowledge-attitude-practice gap, compute a health-belief-model likelihood of action, and watch a practice diffuse through a population.

Keywords: health knowledge attitudes practice, KAP survey, health belief model, attitude-behavior gap, theory of planned behavior

Health knowledge, attitudes, and practice is where the general psychology of evaluation meets the practical business of changing what people do about their health. It rests on a deceptively simple division: knowing a fact about disease, feeling a certain way about it, and acting on it are three separate things, and a program that improves one need not improve the next. Public health adopted the division early because it made needs assessment tractable — a survey could ask what a population knew, how it felt, and what it did, and locate the point where the chain broke. But the same surveys kept returning an uncomfortable result: populations that knew the risks and endorsed the precautions often did not adopt them. That gap, between knowledge and practice and between attitude and behavior, became both the framework's central finding and the engine of the theories built to close it.

What Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice Is

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice is the framework that treats a person's stance toward a health topic as three distinct components — the knowledge they hold about it, the attitudes they evaluate it with, and the practices they actually carry out. It is a health-specific application of the general construct of attitude: MeSH files it beneath attitude to health, which sits in turn under Attitude in the behavior and behavior mechanisms hierarchy, marking it as the same kind of psychological object trained on health-related targets such as diseases, their prevention, and their treatment. What makes it a topic in its own right is the insistence that the three components be kept apart and measured separately, because the relationships among them are exactly what is in question.

The framework is both a model of the person and a method of inquiry. As a model, it asserts a loose causal chain: knowledge informs but does not determine attitudes, attitudes dispose but do not compel practice, and each link can fail. As a method, it became the KAP survey, a structured questionnaire that samples each component so that a program can see where a population stands and where the chain is broken — whether people lack the facts, hold the facts but reject the recommendation, or endorse the recommendation but fail to act. The two senses reinforce each other: the survey is built on the model, and the model's central claim, that the components are only loosely coupled, is what decades of surveys have repeatedly found. The health belief model was developed in the 1950s precisely to explain one such failure, the widespread refusal of free preventive services despite adequate knowledge of their benefits (Rosenstock, 1974).

The Three Components

The framework's first commitment is that knowledge, attitude, and practice are separable, and the evidence for that separation is the recurring failure of each to predict the next. Knowledge is factual: what a person understands to be true about a disease, its transmission, and its prevention. Attitude is evaluative: the favorable or unfavorable disposition toward the health object and the recommended behavior, inheriting its structure from the general construct of attitude. Practice is behavioral: what the person actually does. The idea that these form an ordered sequence — that information changes attitudes, which change behavior — is the knowledge-attitude-behavior continuum, and its intuitive appeal made it the implicit theory of much early health education (Bettinghaus, 1986).

The continuum, however, is weak as stated. The decisive finding of attitude research is that attitudes predict behavior only modestly, and only under specifiable conditions — when the attitude is measured at the same level of specificity as the behavior, when it is strong and accessible, and when situational constraints are weak (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Knowledge sits even further from behavior, because its influence is almost entirely indirect, routed through attitudes and intentions that are themselves imperfect predictors. The practical consequence is that the three components must be measured independently rather than inferred from one another: a population can be rich in knowledge and poor in practice, and only separate measurement reveals it. Figure 1 shows the loose chain and the points at which it characteristically breaks.

The KAP Survey

The framework's practical embodiment is the KAP survey, a structured questionnaire that samples each component so that planners can locate a population's position and the point at which the chain fails. A typical instrument asks factual items to gauge knowledge, Likert-scaled evaluative items to gauge attitude, and self-reported frequency items to gauge practice, often supplemented by demographic and access questions. Its appeal is operational: it is quick to field, comparable across populations, and it yields three separate scores that point to different interventions — an education campaign if knowledge is low, a persuasion or norm-shifting campaign if attitudes are the barrier, and a structural intervention if practice lags despite favorable knowledge and attitude.

The KAP survey became the standard tool of public-health needs assessment across contexts from family planning to infectious-disease control, and its structure has been codified in practical guidance on item construction, sampling, and interpretation that aims to raise the quality of a method often applied loosely (Andrade et al., 2020). Its reach was displayed vividly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when KAP surveys were fielded rapidly worldwide to characterize public understanding and behavior: an early cross-sectional survey of Chinese residents during the outbreak's rapid-rise phase linked greater knowledge to more optimistic attitudes and more consistent protective practices (Zhong et al., 2020), and a parallel survey of Pakistani healthcare workers mapped their knowledge, attitudes, practices, and the perceived barriers that blocked recommended precautions (Saqlain et al., 2020). The first demonstration below lets the reader manipulate a population's knowledge, attitude, and barriers and watch the resulting practice — and the gap between knowledge and practice — emerge.

Intention loads attitude more than knowledge (I = 0.3K + 0.7A); practice is intention discounted by barriers (P = I × (1 − B/100)). Raise knowledge all you like — if barriers stay high, practice does not follow.

KAP gap (knowledge − practice) = 27.2 points — a substantial gap between knowing and doing

Two populations identical in knowledge and attitude diverge in practice when their barriers differ: the gap is structural, opened at the step from intention to action, not closed by more information (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Carpenter, 2010).

Theoretical Foundations

The KAP framework describes the gaps; the behavioral theories explain them. The earliest and most influential is the health belief model, developed to understand why people declined preventive services they knew to be beneficial. It holds that a health practice is predicted not by knowledge but by a set of beliefs: perceived susceptibility to the condition, perceived severity of its consequences, perceived benefits of the recommended action, and perceived barriers to taking it, together with cues to action and, in later versions, self-efficacy (Rosenstock, 1974). The model was later integrated with social learning theory to give self-efficacy and reinforcement an explicit place, strengthening its account of why belief translates into sustained behavior (Rosenstock et al., 1988). A meta-analysis of the model's components found that perceived benefits and perceived barriers were the most consistent predictors of behavior, while perceived susceptibility and severity contributed less — a quantitative confirmation that it is the cost-benefit appraisal, not the threat alone, that moves practice (Carpenter, 2010).

A second tradition comes from attitude theory proper. The theory of reasoned action held that behavior follows from behavioral intention, which is determined jointly by attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms — the perceived social pressure to perform it — and that knowledge acts only distally, through these mediators (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Its successor, the theory of planned behavior, added perceived behavioral control to account for behaviors not fully under volitional control, so that intention and control jointly predict action (Ajzen, 1991). Both theories explain the KAP framework's central finding directly: because attitude is only one of several inputs to intention, and intention is only an imperfect cause of behavior, knowledge sits several weak links away from practice. A third tradition, diffusion of innovations, shifts the question from the individual to the population, describing how a new health practice spreads through a social system over time as successive adopter groups take it up (Rogers, 2003). The second demonstration implements the health belief model, letting the reader vary the four core beliefs and read off the predicted likelihood of action.

Four beliefs, each 0–10. Threat is the mean of susceptibility and severity; the likelihood of action weights the benefit-minus-barrier appraisal more heavily, because benefits and barriers are the model’s strongest predictors.

likelihood of action = 66.5/100 — action is likely

Raising benefits or lowering barriers moves the likelihood more than raising the perceived threat, reproducing the meta-analytic ranking of the model’s components: the cost-benefit appraisal drives behavior more than fear of the disease (Rosenstock, 1974; Carpenter, 2010).

The Knowledge-Attitude-Practice Gap

The framework's defining phenomenon is the KAP gap: the routine finding that practice falls well short of what knowledge and attitude would predict. Its explanation is built into the theories above. Intention is driven more by attitude and social norms than by factual knowledge, so even perfect knowledge raises intention only partially; and intention is then gated by perceived behavioral control and by real structural barriers — cost, access, time, and competing demands — so that even strong intention does not fully convert to action. The gap is therefore not a measurement artifact but a structural feature of how health behavior is produced, and locating it is the main diagnostic value of a KAP survey.

Recognizing the gap reframes the goal of health programs. If knowledge were sufficient, education alone would change behavior; because it is not, programs must also shift the attitudes and norms that drive intention and, crucially, remove the barriers that block intention from becoming practice. This is why the most reliable predictors in the health belief model are perceived benefits and barriers rather than perceived threat (Carpenter, 2010): the action-relevant beliefs are those about the feasibility and payoff of the behavior, not merely the seriousness of the disease. The gap also explains why diffusion is gradual rather than immediate — adoption spreads as barriers fall and social proof accumulates across adopter groups, not the moment information becomes available (Rogers, 2003). The third demonstration shows this population-level diffusion as an adoption curve the reader can steepen or flatten.

Adoption follows an S-curve over time as successive adopter groups take up the practice. Steepen or flatten the curve: knowledge becoming available does not produce instant adoption — it spreads as barriers fall and social proof accumulates.

time to 50% adoption 10.0, to 90% 14.4 — a flatter curve delays the majority for longer

Diffusion is gradual, not instantaneous: a practice spreads from a small innovator fraction through the early and late majorities to the laggards, and the pace depends on how fast barriers fall and social proof builds, not on when the information first appeared (Rogers, 2003).

Measuring and Critiquing KAP

The KAP survey's ubiquity has drawn a sustained methodological critique, and the critique is as old as the method. An early and influential appraisal of KAP studies in family planning argued that they systematically overstated the coherence of knowledge, attitude, and practice, were distorted by the respondent's wish to give approved answers, and rested on an unexamined assumption that knowledge causes practice (Cleland, 1973). The core problems are three. Self-report measures practice as what people say they do, which diverges from what they do, especially for behaviors with a social expectation. Social-desirability bias inflates both reported attitudes and reported practice toward the approved answer. And the framework's implicit causal model — that measuring knowledge, attitude, and practice reveals a chain running from the first to the last — imports a theory the data do not support.

A later anthropological critique sharpened the point by asking how much a standardized survey can really capture of what people know and do. It argued that KAP surveys, by imposing predefined categories and decontextualizing responses, often miss the local meanings and practical constraints that actually govern health behavior, and that their quantified simplicity can mislead as much as inform (Launiala, 2009). The constructive response has not been to abandon the survey but to discipline it: to measure the three components independently rather than infer one from another, to pair closed items with qualitative inquiry, to validate self-reported practice where possible, and to interpret results through an explicit behavioral theory rather than the bare continuum. Contemporary guidance codifies exactly these safeguards, treating the KAP survey as a useful instrument whose validity depends on careful construction and cautious interpretation (Andrade et al., 2020). The standard synthesis of health-behavior theory supplies the theoretical lens that interpretation requires (Glanz et al., 2015).

Worked Example

The claim that practice is gated by barriers rather than carried by knowledge can be made exact with a simple model of the knowledge-attitude-practice chain. Let knowledge K and attitude A each be scored 0 to 100. Intention is a weighted combination that, following the theory of reasoned action, loads attitude more heavily than knowledge: I = 0.3 × K + 0.7 × A. Practice is intention discounted by the fraction of barriers that block it: P = I × (1 − B / 100), where B is the barrier level from 0 to 100. The KAP gap is then K − P, the distance by which practice falls short of knowledge.

Consider two populations with identical knowledge (K = 80) and identical attitude (A = 60), differing only in the barriers they face. Both have the same intention: I = 0.3 × 80 + 0.7 × 60 = 24 + 42 = 66. Population A is well-resourced, with low barriers (B = 20): P = 66 × (1 − 0.20) = 66 × 0.80 = 52.8, a gap of 80 − 52.8 = 27.2. Population B is under-resourced, with high barriers (B = 60): P = 66 × (1 − 0.60) = 66 × 0.40 = 26.4, a gap of 80 − 26.4 = 53.6. Table 1 sets the two side by side.

The arithmetic is only a weighted average and a discount, but the lesson is structural: two populations identical in what they know and how they feel diverge sharply in what they do, because practice is gated by barriers the first two components never touch. An education campaign aimed at raising knowledge would move neither population, since knowledge is already high; only lowering Population B's barriers closes its gap. This is the quantitative form of the framework's central claim and of the health belief model's finding that perceived barriers are among the strongest predictors of behavior (Carpenter, 2010). The first demonstration above lets the reader reproduce both rows and any case between them.

Discussion

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice is a modest framework with an immodest consequence. Its structure is just a division of a health stance into three measurable components, but the persistent empirical finding that the components are loosely coupled overturned the intuitive theory that information changes behavior. That finding is why the framework matters: it located the failure of knowledge-only health education and forced the field toward theories that model intention, norms, self-efficacy, and barriers explicitly. The health belief model and the theory of planned behavior are, in effect, accounts of why the KAP chain breaks where it does, and the KAP survey is the instrument that shows, for a given population, which link to repair.

The framework's weaknesses are the survey's weaknesses, and they are well understood. Self-report and social-desirability bias inflate the apparent coherence of knowledge, attitude, and practice; imposed categories can miss the local meanings that actually govern behavior; and the bare continuum invites the causal inference the data do not license. None of these is fatal, and each has a disciplined response — independent measurement of the components, mixed-methods designs, validated behavioral outcomes, and interpretation through explicit theory. What remains robust across every critique is the core observation that gave the framework its purpose: knowing, valuing, and doing are three different things, and a health program that confuses them will fail at the point where one does not produce the next.

Current Directions

The most visible recent movement is the pandemic-era revival of the KAP survey as a rapid-assessment tool. When COVID-19 made a single health behavior urgent for entire populations at once, KAP surveys were fielded within weeks to characterize public knowledge, attitudes, and protective practice and to identify the barriers blocking recommended precautions (Zhong et al., 2020) (Saqlain et al., 2020). The speed and scale were new; so was the scrutiny, as the familiar problems of self-report and social desirability reappeared in a high-stakes setting where reported and actual behavior could diverge sharply.

That scrutiny has driven a parallel methodological consolidation. Contemporary guidance now treats the KAP survey as an instrument whose validity must be engineered — through careful item construction, representative sampling, independent measurement of the three components, and interpretation anchored in an explicit behavioral theory rather than the bare continuum (Andrade et al., 2020). The broader trend is integrative: the three components are increasingly embedded in the fuller behavioral models synthesized in the standard health-behavior literature (Glanz et al., 2015), so that a KAP survey is read not as a self-contained chain but as a snapshot of inputs to a theory of intention and action. The framework is thus moving from a stand-alone method toward a measurement front end for the behavioral theories that explain the gaps it records.

Common Misconceptions

More knowledge automatically produces better health practice.

The framework's central finding is the opposite: knowledge predicts practice only weakly and indirectly, through attitudes and intentions that are themselves imperfect predictors, so education alone rarely changes behavior (Bettinghaus, 1986).

A favorable attitude is enough to ensure the behavior.

Attitudes predict behavior only modestly and only under specifiable conditions; intention also depends on subjective norms and perceived control, and intention is then gated by real barriers (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977).

A KAP survey measures what people actually do.

It measures what people report doing, which diverges from actual behavior and is inflated by social-desirability bias; this is among the oldest and best-documented limitations of the method (Cleland, 1973).

Perceived threat is the main driver of health behavior in the health belief model.

Meta-analysis shows perceived benefits and perceived barriers are the most consistent predictors, while perceived susceptibility and severity contribute less, so the cost-benefit appraisal matters more than the threat alone (Carpenter, 2010).

Glossary

Attitude (KAP component).

The favorable or unfavorable evaluation a person holds toward a health object and the recommended behavior; the mediating component between knowledge and practice.

Attitude.

A learned, enduring evaluation that disposes a person to respond favorably or unfavorably toward an object; the parent construct of the attitude component of KAP.

Cue to action.

In the health belief model, a trigger — a symptom, a reminder, a media message — that prompts a person to act on their existing beliefs.

Diffusion of innovations.

Rogers's account of how a new practice spreads through a social system over time as successive adopter groups take it up.

Health belief model.

A theory predicting health behavior from perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, and barriers, together with cues to action and self-efficacy.

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice (KAP).

A tripartite framework separating what a person knows about a health topic, how they evaluate it, and what they do; a health application of attitude.

KAP gap.

The routine finding that practice falls short of what knowledge and attitude would predict, because intention is weakly tied to knowledge and gated by barriers.

KAP survey.

A structured questionnaire that measures knowledge, attitudes, and practice separately for public-health needs assessment and evaluation.

Knowledge (KAP component).

What a person understands to be true about a health topic, its transmission, prevention, and treatment; the factual component of KAP.

Knowledge-attitude-behavior continuum.

The intuitive but weak model that information changes attitudes, which in turn change behavior in an ordered sequence.

Perceived barriers.

A person's beliefs about the costs, obstacles, and inconveniences of a health action; among the strongest predictors of whether it is performed.

Perceived benefits.

A person's beliefs about the positive consequences of a health action; with perceived barriers, the most consistent health-belief-model predictor.

Perceived severity.

A person's belief about the seriousness of a health condition and its consequences; a weaker predictor of behavior than benefits or barriers.

Perceived susceptibility.

A person's belief about their own risk of acquiring a health condition; a component of perceived threat in the health belief model.

Practice (KAP component).

What a person actually does about a health topic; the behavioral component of KAP, usually measured by self-report.

Social-desirability bias.

The tendency of respondents to give approved answers, inflating reported attitudes and practice away from the truth.

Subjective norm.

The perceived social pressure to perform a behavior; with attitude, a determinant of intention in the theory of reasoned action.

Theory of planned behavior.

Ajzen's theory that intention and perceived behavioral control jointly predict behavior; the successor to the theory of reasoned action.

Theory of reasoned action.

Fishbein and Ajzen's theory that behavioral intention follows from attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms.

Key Researchers

Icek Ajzen

(University of Massachusetts Amherst). Originator of the theory of planned behavior and co-originator of the theory of reasoned action, which explain why knowledge and attitudes do not translate directly into practice without the mediating roles of intention, norms, and perceived control. Faculty · Scholar · Wikipedia

Chittaranjan Andrade

(National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore). Author of contemporary practical guidance on designing and conducting KAP surveys, articulating modern standards for item construction, sampling, and interpretation. ORCID · Faculty

John Cleland

(London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine). Demographer whose 1973 critique of KAP studies exposed their central methodological weaknesses — the attitude-behavior gap, social-desirability bias, and over-reliance on self-report. Faculty · Scholar

Martin Fishbein

(1936-2009). Co-developer, with Icek Ajzen, of the theory of reasoned action, which formalized how beliefs and attitudes translate into behavioral intention and behavior — the conceptual spine of the KAP framework. Wikipedia

Karen Glanz

(University of Pennsylvania). Lead editor of the standard synthesis of health-behavior theory, which integrates the models — health belief model, theory of planned behavior, transtheoretical model, social cognitive theory — that underpin KAP work. ORCID · Faculty · Wikipedia

Everett M. Rogers

(1931-2004). Author of Diffusion of Innovations, which explains the staged social process by which new health practices spread through a population — a corrective to the assumption that knowledge alone changes behavior. Wikipedia · Wikidata

Irwin M. Rosenstock

(1925-2001). Principal architect of the health belief model, the first formal account of how perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, and barriers shape health practice from health beliefs. Memorial

Frequently Asked Questions

What does KAP stand for?

KAP stands for Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice: the three components of the framework, naming what a person knows about a health topic, how they evaluate it, and what they actually do about it. MeSH records it as Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, an application of the general construct of attitude to health-related objects (Rosenstock, 1974).

What is a KAP survey used for?

A KAP survey measures knowledge, attitudes, and practice separately so that public-health planners can locate a population's position and the point at which the chain from knowing to doing breaks, which tells them whether to intervene with education, persuasion, or structural change (Andrade et al., 2020).

Why does knowledge not automatically change behavior?

Because knowledge influences behavior only indirectly, through attitudes and intentions that are themselves weak predictors, and because intention is gated by social norms, perceived control, and real barriers; this is the knowledge-attitude-practice gap (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977).

What is the health belief model?

It is a theory that predicts health behavior from a person's perceived susceptibility to a condition, perceived severity, perceived benefits of acting, and perceived barriers, together with cues to action and self-efficacy; perceived benefits and barriers are its most consistent predictors (Carpenter, 2010).

How does the theory of planned behavior relate to KAP?

It explains the KAP gap directly: behavioral intention follows from attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, and intention plus control predicts behavior, so knowledge sits several weak links away from practice (Ajzen, 1991).

What is the main criticism of KAP surveys?

That they rely on self-report, which diverges from actual behavior and is inflated by social-desirability bias, and that they implicitly assume knowledge causes practice, a causal model the data do not support (Cleland, 1973).

Can a KAP survey capture local context?

Only partially. An anthropological critique argued that standardized surveys impose predefined categories and decontextualize responses, missing the local meanings and constraints that actually govern health behavior, which is why mixed-methods designs are recommended (Launiala, 2009).

Why were KAP surveys so common during COVID-19?

Because they can be fielded quickly to characterize public knowledge, attitudes, and protective practices and to identify barriers to recommended precautions; many were conducted worldwide during the pandemic's early phases (Zhong et al., 2020).

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888

Andrade, C., Menon, V., Ameen, S., & Kurariya Praharaj, S. (2020). Designing and conducting knowledge, attitude, and practice surveys in psychiatry: Practical guidance. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(5), 478-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620946111

Bettinghaus, E. P. (1986). Health promotion and the knowledge-attitude-behavior continuum. Preventive Medicine, 15(5), 475-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-7435(86)90025-3

Carpenter, C. J. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of health belief model variables in predicting behavior. Health Communication, 25(8), 661-669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.521906

Cleland, J. (1973). A critique of KAP studies and some suggestions for their improvement. Studies in Family Planning, 4(2), 42-47. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964829

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 9780201020892.

Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (Eds.). (2015). Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass. ISBN 9781118628980.

Launiala, A. (2009). How much can a KAP survey tell us about people's knowledge, attitudes and practices? Some observations from medical anthropology research on malaria in pregnancy in Malawi. Anthropology Matters, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.22582/am.v11i1.31

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. ISBN 9780743222099.

Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 328-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200403

Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education Quarterly, 15(2), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500203

Saqlain, M., Munir, M. M., Rehman, S. U., Gulzar, A., Naz, S., Ahmed, Z., Tahir, A. H., & Mashhood, M. (2020). Knowledge, attitude, practice and perceived barriers among healthcare workers regarding COVID-19: A cross-sectional survey from Pakistan. Journal of Hospital Infection, 105(3), 419-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.05.007

Zhong, B.-L., Luo, W., Li, H.-M., Zhang, Q.-Q., Liu, X.-G., Li, W.-T., & Li, Y. (2020). 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. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 16(10), 1745-1752. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.45221