Knowledge, practice, and infection status of prisoners toward dermatomycosis: a study in Nepal.

Background: Dermatophytosis, commonly known as tinea, poses a significant public health concern worldwide, especially in environments with poor hygiene and overcrowding, such as prisons. Despite its prevalence and impact on quality of life, there is a lack of research on the knowledge and hygiene practices regarding dermatophytosis among prisoners, particularly in Nepal.
Objective: The study aimed to assess prisoners' knowledge, hygiene practice and infection status regarding dermatophytosis in Central Prison, Nepal.
Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study with a sample size of 184 respondents was designed to collect data using a validated pre-tested questionnaire from September 2023 to January 2024. The collected data was then analyzed using IBM SPSS version 21. Knowledge and hygiene practices were measured on an eight and 11-point scale and rated as poor (≤4) and sound (>4), bad (≤6), and good (>6), respectively. Summary data were presented by descriptive, while Chi-square and logistic regression were used for inferential statistics at p  < 0.05.
Results: The findings revealed moderate knowledge among prisoners regarding dermatophytosis, with significant gaps in understanding its spread and prevention. While most prisoners recognized the importance of treatment, there were misconceptions about the inevitability of contracting dermatophytosis and the role of personal hygiene.
Conclusion: Despite good knowledge levels, adherence to recommended hygiene practices was suboptimal, highlighting the need for targeted interventions. The study underscores the importance of addressing knowledge gaps, changing attitudes, and promoting hygienic practices to mitigate the burden of dermatophytosis among prisoners.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
(Copyright © 2024 Dhakal, Shrestha, Shah, Rijal, Karki, Pangeni, Bhatta, Mehta, Thapa, Zeeshan, Sah, Luna, Bonilla-Aldana and Rodriguez-Morales.)