Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of nurses toward Nipah virus infection prevention and control in rural Pangasinan, Philippines: a cross-sectional KAP study Cover

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of nurses toward Nipah virus infection prevention and control in rural Pangasinan, Philippines: a cross-sectional KAP study

Open Access
|Sep 2026

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

Socio-demographic and professional characteristics of participating nurses (n = 250).

Variable and categoryn%
Gender
  Female15060.0
  Male10040.0
Age group (years)
  21–306024.0
  31–407028.0
  41–508032.0
  ≥514016.0
Years of nursing experience*
  <5 years10040.0
  5–10 years9036.0
  >10 years6024.0
Facility type
  Hospital10040.0
  RHU10040.0
  Private clinic5020.0
NiV-specific training
  Yes10040.0
  No15060.0
IPC/emerging infection training (last 2 years)
  Yes10040.0
  No15060.0

Note: IPC, infection prevention and control; RHU, rural health unit;

* Experience categories are reported in broad bands to preserve participant anonymity.

Table 2.

Summary of KAP scores among nurses (n = 250).

Categoryn%Mean ± SD
Knowledge13.2 ± 3.1
  Good11044.0
  Poor14056.0
Attitudes4.1 ± 0.6
  Favorable18072.0
  Less favorable7028.0
Practices3.9 ± 0.7
  Good12048.0
  Poor13052.0

[i] Note: Cut-off points: knowledge ≥70% = good; attitudes mean score ≥4.0 = favorable; practices ≥80% of maximum = good.

[ii] Abbreviation: KAP, knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

Figure 1.

Proportion of nurses with good knowledge, favorable attitudes, and good practices (n = 250).

Table 3.

Factors associated with good knowledge of NiV IPC among nurses (n = 250).

VariableCategoryCrude OR (95% CI)AOR (95% CI)P-value
Years of experience>10 years vs <5 years2.4 (1.4–4.0)2.1 (1.2–3.7)0.009*
Facility typeHospital vs private2.1 (1.3–3.5)1.9 (1.1–3.3)0.020*
NiV-specific trainingYes vs No2.9 (1.8–4.6)2.4 (1.4–4.0)0.001*
IPC/emerging infection trainingYes vs No3.2 (2.0–5.1)2.8 (1.7–4.6)<0.001*

Note: AOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; IPC, infection prevention and control; NiV, Nipah virus; OR, odds ratio;

* Statistically significant atP < 0.05.

Table 4.

Factors associated with good IPC practices related to NiV among nurses (n = 250).

VariableCategoryCrude OR (95% CI)AOR (95% CI)P-value
Years of experience>10 years vs <5 years2.6 (1.6–4.4)2.3 (1.3–4.1)0.004*
Facility typeHospital vs private2.0 (1.2–3.4)1.8 (1.1–3.0)0.021*
NiV-specific trainingYes vs No3.1 (1.9–5.0)2.6 (1.5–4.4)<0.001*
IPC/emerging infection trainingYes vs No3.6 (2.2–5.9)3.0 (1.8–5.0)<0.001*
Good knowledge of NiVYes vs No2.7 (1.6–4.5)2.4 (1.4–4.0)0.001*

Note: AOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; IPC, infection prevention and control; NiV, Nipah virus; OR, odds ratio;

* Statistically significant atP < 0.05.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fon-2026-0042 | Journal eISSN: 2544-8994 | Journal ISSN: 2097-5368
Language: English
Page range: 383 - 394
Submitted on: Mar 7, 2026
Accepted on: Mar 24, 2026
Published on: Sep 25, 2026
Published by: Shanxi Medical Periodical Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2026 Fernan Torreno, Frincess Flores, published by Shanxi Medical Periodical Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.