Factors associated with the consumption of chlorine dioxide to prevent and treat COVID-19 in the Peruvian population: a cross-sectional study
Author(s)
David R. Soriano‐Moreno
Daniel Fernandez‐Guzman
Fabricio Ccami‐Bernal
Cristhian Rojas-Miliano
Wendy Nieto-Gutierrez
Date Issued
17 de noviembre de 2021
Type
Article
Volume
21
Issue
1
Start Page
2109
End Page
2109
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chlorine dioxide has been promoted as an alternative for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, especially in Peru, despite the lack of evidence to support its efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the factors associated with chlorine dioxide consumption in the Peruvian population. METHODS: Analytical cross-sectional study. An adult Peruvian population was evaluated where chlorine dioxide consumption was divided into two groups according to the purpose of use: as prevention (individuals without COVID-19 history) and as treatment (individuals with COVID-19 history). The associated factors in each group were evaluated using Poisson regressions with the bootstrapping resampling method. RESULTS: Of 3610 participants included, 3213 reported no history of COVID-19, and 397 had been infected. The prevalence of chlorine dioxide consumption to prevent or treat COVID-19 was 8 and 16%, respectively. Factors either positively or negatively associated with chlorine dioxide consumption for prevention were male sex (aPR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.09-1.71), being an adult or older adult (aPR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35-0.82), having a health sciences student within the family unit (aPR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.02-1.87), using medical information as the main source of information of COVID-19 (aPR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.40-0.80), having comorbidities for COVID-19 (aPR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.01-1.82), considering COVID-19 dangerous and deadly (aPR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.45-0.74), using medications (aPR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.25-2.06) and plants to prevent COVID-19 (aPR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21-2.36), considering chlorine dioxide ineffective (aPR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.18-0.24), and being uninformed of its efficacy (aPR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.16-0.28). In addition, factors associated with chlorine dioxide consumption for treatment were considering COVID-19 dangerous and deadly (aPR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.96), considering chlorine dioxide ineffective (aPR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.12-0.42), and being uninformed of its efficacy (aPR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07-0.32). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of chlorine dioxide consumption to treat COVID-19 was higher than prevent. It is important to apply information strategies, prioritizing population groups with certain characteristics that are associated with a higher consumption pattern.
Subjects