1. Introduction
Trachoma, a bacterial infection of the eye, constitutes the second leading cause of preventable blindness worldwide. This treatable and preventable disease disproportionately affects impoverished populations. [1-4] Trachoma disproportionately affects individuals in disadvantaged rural areas with limited access to necessities like clean water and sanitation. [
5,
6] Globally, an estimated 142.2 million people are at risk of trachoma, and it is responsible for visual impairment in approximately 1.9 million individuals. [
7,
8] The World Health Organization (WHO) endorses the SAFE (Surgery, Antibiotics, Facial cleanliness, and Environmental improvement) strategy for trachoma elimination, which has been implemented in over 40 countries worldwide where trachoma is endemic. [
9,
10] The SAFE strategy can eliminate trachoma, but its proper application remains crucial as the disease continues to pose a global health threat. [
11]. Trachoma persists as a significant health issue in the world's poorest communities. Several factors contribute to an increased risk of trachoma, including limited access to clean water, poor personal hygiene, and inadequate environmental sanitation. [12-14]. In Yemen 2024, the adjusted prevalence of the clinical sign trachomatous inflammation-follicular [
15] among children aged 1–9 years in the enumeration units encompassing highly endemic areas specifically Hodeidah and Ibb was 0.9 % and 0.8%, respectively.) Unpublished (Trachoma is a substantial segment of the population that exhibits unfavorable attitudes and a lack of knowledge concerning trachoma infection. Although the implementation of various interventions, including annual mass drug administration (MDA), for trachoma control has expanded in Yemen in recent years, significant knowledge gaps persist among vulnerable populations, particularly those residing in remote rural areas and those experiencing economic hardship.) Unpublished (These populations may have limited awareness and adherence to recommended trachoma prevention and control measures. However, there is currently a dearth of data on KAP regarding trachoma prevention and control within rural communities in the six districts. The research findings shed light on critical gaps in knowledge, community practices, and perceptions surrounding trachoma, and how these factors influence patient health-seeking behavior. This valuable information is crucial for promoting health and preventing trachoma by addressing the underlying causes and drivers of disease spread. Ultimately, these findings can significantly enhance the impact of programs aimed at preventing and eliminating trachoma within the country. Furthermore, these findings will provide valuable insights for policymakers in formulating appropriate interventions to implement the SAFE strategy effectively. However, the study aimed to assess the KAP to give us more concepts for eliminating the disease.
Discussion
The study revealed significant associations between good knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding trachoma and several factors, including the age of the head of household, mother's literacy status, and father's occupation status. Good knowledge and attitudes were significantly associated with household size, while good knowledge and practices were significantly associated with the wealth index. Additionally, the gender of the head of the household was significantly associated with good knowledge.
Regarding knowledge, the majority of respondents (84.5%) had heard of trachoma, comparable to findings in Northern Ethiopia (89.2%) and Bangladesh (86%) [
18,
20]. However, this rate was higher than that reported in Kenya (65.7%) and lower than in other countries [
21,
22], suggesting that community mobilization and sensitization efforts may have been implemented in the study sites. MDA campaigns were the primary source of information for 62% of the participants, suggesting that these initiatives have significantly contributed to raising awareness of trachoma. This is similar to the findings of studies in other countries, such as Zambia, Ethiopia, and Kenya.[23-25]The present study revealed that (46.6%), (20.4%), and (17.3%) of respondents correctly reported that trachoma can be transmitted by dust, bacteria, and flies, respectively. Similar studies from Kenya and Ethiopia reported that the most reported mode of trachoma transmission was contact with flies and dirt.[
20,
26] Daily handwashing with soap and water and the use of medication were identified as the most common preventive measures. While less frequent, other preventive measures mentioned, such as avoiding contact with eye discharges and sharing clothes, demonstrate some understanding of the potential trachoma transmission routes.
This suggests a gap in the understanding of trachoma's true etiology, and the likely reason is the lack of awareness of the participants toward trachoma, which is in line with a study conducted in other countries.[
3,
27,
28] Participants identified several potential transmission routes for trachoma, including unhygienic environments, contact with nasal or eye discharges, and the sharing of clothes or contaminated items. They also recognized that trachoma can be prevented by going to the hospital or health facility, seeing specialists, using appropriate medications, improving sanitation, and regular hand and face washing with soap. Similar findings have also been reported in studies conducted in other countries.[29-31]Finally, (61.2%) of the community demonstrated inadequate knowledge of trachoma.
Regarding attitudes, the majority (74.2%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that trachoma is a health problem in their community, indicating a general awareness of the issue. Similar findings have also been reported in studies conducted in other countries.[
19,
27,
29,
32]A considerable proportion (64.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that flies are the main vector of the disease, highlighting a significant misconception about trachoma transmission, (59.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that trachoma is transmitted from person to person, indicating a partial understanding of transmission routes.[
33,
34] (23.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that trachoma may eventually lead to blindness, suggesting a limited awareness of the potential severity of the disease.[35-37] A majority (56.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that hygiene and sanitation are important for preventing the disease, indicating some understanding of preventive measures. A large proportion (70.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that taking drugs was important for prevention and control, suggesting a positive perception of medical interventions. Overall Attitude: A significant proportion (80.9%) of the community demonstrated poor attitudes towards trachoma, characterized by misconceptions about transmission, limited awareness of potential consequences, and inadequate understanding of preventive measures. It is crucial to emphasize that medication is part of a comprehensive approach to trachoma control and should be used in conjunction with other preventive measures.[14,38-40] Regarding practices, water source, and accessibility: the majority of the households (74.1%) had access to water sources within a 30-minute walk, Springs (29.8%) and wells (29.9%) were the common sources of domestic water.[41-43] Hygiene Practices: A significant proportion of households (67.1%) reported using enough water for bathing, and a significant proportion of households (86.2%) reported no presence of flies on children's faces.[
44,
45]
Environmental Factors: The majority of households (84.8%) reported no presence of feces around the house. More than half of the households (53.5%) reported the presence of animals inside their houses.[
32,
46,
47]
Reducing the burden of flies and improving environmental sanitation through proper disposal of human excreta are crucial for public health.[
48] Waste Disposal: A substantial proportion of households (57.3%) reported proper solid and liquid waste disposal management. Latrine utilization was high, with 78.4% of the households reporting using a latrine[
49,
50]
Overall Practices: A significant proportion (53.5%) of households demonstrated poor practices related to trachoma prevention.[
18,
27]
Regarding multivariate knowledge, the study found that adequate trachoma knowledge was linked to several socioeconomic factors, including the age of the household head, parental literacy, father's occupation, and household wealth.
This suggests that socioeconomic disparities significantly influence knowledge levels within the community. The finding that female-headed households demonstrate higher levels of adequate knowledge is a significant observation and warrants further investigation.[
51]
The strong association between good practices and adequate knowledge highlights the importance of promoting and reinforcing positive health behaviors within the community. Targeted interventions are needed to address the knowledge gaps among vulnerable populations, particularly those from low-income households and those with limited access to education.[
52,
53]
Regarding multivariate attitudes, several socioeconomic factors, such as the age of the household head, household size, mother's literacy status, and father's occupation status, were significantly associated with attitudes towards trachoma.[
31,
43] This suggests that socioeconomic disparities play a crucial role in shaping community attitudes.
The finding that households with good knowledge are less likely to have good attitudes towards trachoma is unexpected and warrants further investigation. Individuals with some knowledge may be more aware of the complexities of the disease and may have developed more nuanced (and potentially more negative) perspectives. Improving community knowledge about trachoma is crucial for fostering positive attitudes and promoting effective preventive behaviors. Interventions to improve attitudes towards trachoma should be tailored to address the specific needs and concerns of different population groups, such as younger heads of households and low-income households.
Regarding reparation multivariate practices, several socioeconomic factors, such as the age of the head of the household, the mother's literacy status, the father's occupation status, and household wealth, were significantly associated with good practices related to trachoma prevention.
This emphasizes the importance of addressing socioeconomic disparities to improve health outcomes. The strong association between good knowledge and good practices highlights the crucial role of health education in promoting positive health behaviors. The finding that maternal literacy is significantly associated with good practices underscores the importance of women's education in improving household health.
Trachoma prevention interventions should be tailored to address the specific needs and circumstances of different population groups such as low-income households and those with limited access to education.
5.2. Conclusion and Recommendation
Our study suggests that even in areas with low trachoma prevalence, community KAP regarding trachoma prevention and control must be enhanced to achieve elimination. This necessitates health education campaigns focused on the SAFE strategy implemented at the community level, during mass drug administration campaigns, and at health facilities. The aim was to increase knowledge, address cultural perceptions that hinder behavior change, and ultimately promote positive behaviors for trachoma prevention and control within communities. Interestingly, our findings revealed higher levels of knowledge among female-headed households, warranting further investigation of the factors contributing to this observation. Notably, we observed an association between good knowledge and less favorable attitudes toward trachoma prevention and control, suggesting the need for further research to understand this unexpected relationship and tailor interventions accordingly.
Table 1.
Sociodemographic characteristics of study participants (N=1164).
Table 1.
Sociodemographic characteristics of study participants (N=1164).
| Characteristics |
n |
(%) |
| Gender of the household head |
| Male |
369 |
31.7 |
| Female |
795 |
68.3 |
|
Age of the household head (years) |
|
40 |
671 |
57.6 |
| >40 |
493 |
42.4 |
|
Family size (members) |
|
|
|
7 |
592 |
50.9 |
| >7 |
572 |
49.1 |
| Father’s literacy status |
| Literate |
919 |
79.0 |
| Illiterate |
245 |
21.0 |
| Mother’s literacy status |
|
|
| Literate |
683 |
58.7 |
| Illiterate |
481 |
41.3 |
| Father’s employment status |
|
|
| Employed |
899 |
77.2 |
| Unemployed |
265 |
22.8 |
| Wealth index |
|
|
| Rich |
712 |
61.2 |
| Poor |
452 |
38.8 |
Table 2.
Knowledge, of study Community Toward trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
Table 2.
Knowledge, of study Community Toward trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
| Characteristics |
n |
(%) |
| Heard about trachoma disease |
| Yes |
983 |
84.5 |
| No |
181 |
15.5 |
| By what have you heard |
| MDA |
722 |
62.0 |
| Community |
90 |
7.7 |
| TV |
56 |
4.8 |
| Radio |
98 |
8.4 |
| Others |
198 |
17.0 |
| What do you think causes trachoma |
|
|
| Bacteria |
237 |
20.4 |
| Dust |
542 |
46.6 |
| Flies |
201 |
17.3 |
| Virus |
74 |
6.4 |
| I don’t know |
110 |
9.5 |
| What measures can be taken to prevent trachoma |
| Avoid contact with nasal or eye discharges |
88 |
7.6 |
| Avoid sharing clothes |
125 |
10.7 |
| Daily hand wash with water and soap |
402 |
34.5 |
| Improving access to clean water |
141 |
12.1 |
| Use medicine |
408 |
35.1 |
| What are the symptoms of trachoma that you know |
| Itching |
219 |
18.8 |
| Photophobia |
86 |
7.4 |
| Redness of the eye |
352 |
30.2 |
| Scratching of the eyelashes |
145 |
12.5 |
| Tearing of the eye |
362 |
31.1 |
| How is trachoma transmitted? |
| Unhygienic environment |
570 |
46.6 |
| Through flies landing on the face |
90 |
7.7 |
| Contact with nasal or eye discharges |
175 |
15.0 |
| Sharing clothes or fomites |
206 |
17.7 |
| I don’t know |
110 |
9.5 |
| How often should a person wash their face to prevent trachoma |
| One |
157 |
13.5 |
| Twice |
185 |
15.9 |
| Three times |
452 |
38.8 |
| When it dirty |
370 |
31.8 |
| Can trachoma be treated? |
|
|
| Yes |
941 |
80.8 |
| No |
155 |
13.3 |
| I don’t know |
68 |
5.8 |
| Where would you go if a family member had symptoms of trachoma |
| Hospital |
351 |
30.2 |
| Local Clinic |
298 |
25.6 |
| Ophthalmologist |
207 |
17.8 |
| Traditional Healer |
217 |
18.6 |
| I don’t know |
91 |
7.8 |
| Knowledge status |
| Good |
435 |
38.8 |
| Poor |
712 |
61.2 |
Table 3.
Attitude of the Study Community Toward Trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
Table 3.
Attitude of the Study Community Toward Trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
| Variables |
Likert Scale |
| Agree |
Strongly agree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Neutral |
| Trachoma is a health problem in your community |
392 (33.7%) |
471(40.5%) |
123(10.6%) |
127(10.9%) |
51(4.4%) |
| Flies are the main vector of the disease |
535(46.0%) |
219(18.8%) |
142(12.2%) |
101(8.7%) |
167(14.3%) |
| Trachoma transmitted from person to person |
426(36.6%) |
273(23.5%) |
168(14.4%) |
147(12.6%) |
150(12.9%) |
| The disease may eventually lead to blindness. |
132(11.3%) |
145(12.5%) |
191(16.4%) |
369(31.7%) |
327(28.1%) |
| Hygiene and sanitation are a preventing disease |
370(31.8%) |
288(24.7%) |
301(25.9%) |
183(15.7%) |
22(1.9%) |
| Disposing of waste is a protection from disease |
332(28.5%) |
334(28.7%) |
103(8.8%) |
291(25.0%) |
104(8.9%) |
| Taking drugs is important to prevent and control |
458(39.3%) |
360(30.9%) |
96(8.2%) |
106(9.1%) |
144(12.4%) |
| Attitude Category |
| Good |
222 (19.1%)
|
| Poor |
942 (80.9%)
|
Table 4.
Practices of study Community of trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
Table 4.
Practices of study Community of trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
| Characteristics |
n |
(%) |
| The main source of water for domestic use during the dry season |
| Rainwater |
118 |
10.1 |
| River |
87 |
7.5 |
| Spring |
347 |
29.8 |
| Transportation tankers |
264 |
22.7 |
| Well |
348 |
29.9 |
| Distance between home and water source |
| <30 Min |
862 |
74.1 |
| >30Min |
302 |
25.9 |
| The presence of flies on the child's face |
|
|
| No |
1003 |
86.2 |
| Yes |
161 |
13.8 |
| The presence the feces around the house |
|
|
| No |
987 |
84.8 |
| Yes |
177 |
15.2 |
| The presence of animals in the house |
|
|
| No |
541 |
46.5 |
| Yes |
623 |
53.5 |
| Use enough water for bathing |
|
|
| No |
383 |
32.9 |
| Yes |
781 |
67.1 |
| Having proper solid &liquid waste disposal management |
| No |
497 |
42.7 |
| Yes |
667 |
57.3 |
| Latrine utilization |
|
|
| No |
252 |
21.6 |
| Yes |
912 |
78.4 |
| Practice Category |
| Good |
541 |
46.5 |
| Poor |
623 |
53.5 |
Table 5.
Logistic regression analysis of selected variables with knowledge of study participants on trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
Table 5.
Logistic regression analysis of selected variables with knowledge of study participants on trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
| Variables |
Knowledge |
COR (95% CI) |
P-value |
AOR (95% CI) |
P-value |
| Adequate % |
Inadequate % |
| Age of the head of household (years) |
| ≤40 |
75(16.6%) |
418(58.7%) |
0.14(0.11-0.19) |
>0.001 |
0.13(0.08-0.22) |
>
0.001
|
| >40 |
377(83.4%) |
294(41.3%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Gender of the head of household |
| Male |
96(21.2%) |
273(38.3%) |
0.43(0.33-0.57) |
>0.001 |
0.59(0.37-0.96) |
0
.033
|
| Female |
356(78.8%) |
439(61.7%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Household size categories |
| ≤7 |
195(43.1%) |
397(55.8%) |
0.60(0.48-0.76) |
>0.001 |
0.62(0.40-0.99) |
0.044 |
| >7 |
257(56.9%) |
315(44.2%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Father’s literacy status |
| Literate |
373(98.2%) |
239(33.6%) |
1.44(1.065 -1.935) |
0.010 |
0.59(0.33-1.06) |
0.076 |
| Illiterate |
8(1.8%) |
473(66.4%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Mother’s literacy status |
| Literate |
444(86.6%) |
82(17.4%) |
109(53.7-224.8) |
>0.001 |
102(47.7-219.4) |
>
0.001
|
| Illiterate |
93(13.4%) |
388(82.6%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Father’s occupation status |
| Employed |
438(96.9%) |
461(64.7%) |
17.03(9.79-29.64) |
>0.001 |
43.6(22.2-85.5) |
>
0.001
|
| Unemployed |
14(3.1%) |
251(35.3%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Wealth Index |
| Rich |
366(81.0%) |
346(48.6%) |
4.50(3.41-5.94) |
>0.001 |
6.47(3.94-10.62) |
>
0.001
|
| Poor |
86(19.0%) |
366(51.4%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Practice Category |
| Good |
451(100.0%) |
89(12.5%) |
6.08(5.03-7.35) |
>0.001 |
|
|
| Poor |
0(0.0%) |
623(87.5%) |
Ref |
|
|
|
| Attitude Category |
| Good |
66(14.6%) |
156(21.9%) |
0.61(0.44-0.84) |
0.001 |
0.98(0.57-1.69) |
0.939 |
| Poor |
386(85.4%) |
556(78.1%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
Table 6.
Logistic regression analysis of selected variables with Attitude of study participants on trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
Table 6.
Logistic regression analysis of selected variables with Attitude of study participants on trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
| Variables |
Attitudes |
COR (95% CI) |
P-value |
AOR (95% CI) |
P-value |
| Good (%) |
Poor (%) |
| Age of the head of household (years) |
| ≤40 |
123(55.4%) |
370(39.3%) |
1.92(1.43-2.58) |
>0.001 |
3.12(2.23-4.36) |
>
0.001
|
| >40 |
99(44.6%) |
572(60.7%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Gender of the head of household |
| Male |
148(66.7%) |
647(68.7%) |
0.91(0.67-1.25) |
0.307 |
|
|
| Female |
74(33.3%) |
295(31.3%) |
Ref |
|
|
|
| Household size categories |
| ≤7 |
135(60.8%) |
457(48.5%) |
1.65(1.22-2.22) |
0.001 |
1.82(1.33-2.50) |
>
0.001
|
| >7 |
87(39.2%) |
485(51.5%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Father’s literacy status |
| Literate |
45(20.3%) |
200(21.2%) |
0.94(0.656-1.36) |
0.415 |
|
|
| Illiterate |
177(79.7%) |
742(78.8%) |
Ref |
|
|
|
| Mother’s literacy status |
| Literate |
160(72.1%) |
523(55.5%) |
2.07(1.50-2.85) |
>0.001 |
3.60(2.50-5.17) |
>
0.001
|
| Illiterate |
62(27.9%) |
419(44.5%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Father’s occupation status |
| Employed |
147(66.2%) |
752(79.8%) |
0.50(0.36-0.68) |
>0.001 |
0.43(0.31-0.61) |
>
0.001
|
| Unemployed |
75(38.8%) |
190(20.2%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Family ownership of land |
| Rich |
133(59.9%) |
579(61.5%) |
0.94(0.70-1.26) |
0.362 |
|
|
| Poor |
89(40.1%) |
363(38.5%) |
Ref |
|
|
|
| Knowledge Category |
| Good |
66(29.7%) |
386(41.0%) |
0.61(0.44-0.84) |
0.001 |
|
|
| Poor |
156(70.3%) |
556(59.0%) |
Ref |
|
|
|
| Practice Category |
| Good |
155(69.8%) |
386(41.0%) |
3.33(2.43-4.56) |
>0.001 |
|
|
| Poor |
67(30.2%) |
556(59.0%) |
Ref |
|
|
|
Table 7.
Logistic regression analysis of selected variables with Practice of study participants on trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
Table 7.
Logistic regression analysis of selected variables with Practice of study participants on trachoma in Four Evaluation Units in Yemen,2025.
| Variables |
Practices |
COR (95% CI) |
P-value |
AOR (95% CI) |
P-value |
| Good (%) |
Poor (%) |
| Age of the head of household (years) |
| ≤40 |
106(19.6%) |
387(62.1%) |
0.15(0.11-0.19) |
>0.001 |
0.26(0.18-0.39) |
>
0.001
|
| >40 |
435(80.4%) |
236(37.9%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Gender of the head of household |
| Male |
133(24.6%) |
236(37.9%) |
0.54(0.42-0.69) |
>0.001 |
0.70(0.47-1.06) |
0.088 |
| Female |
408(75.4%) |
387(62.1%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Household size categories |
| ≤7 |
234(43.3%) |
358(57.5%) |
0.56(0.45-0.71) |
> 0.001 |
0.75(0.50-1.11) |
0.148 |
| >7 |
307(56.7%) |
265(42.5%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Father’s literacy status |
| Literate |
105(19.4%) |
140(22.5%) |
1.20(0.91-1.60) |
0.114 |
|
|
| Illiterate |
436(80.6%) |
483(77.5%) |
Ref |
|
|
|
| Mother’s literacy status |
| Literate |
533(98.5%) |
150(24.1%) |
210(102-432) |
> 0.001 |
170(82-358) |
>
0.001
|
| Illiterate |
8(1.5%) |
473(75.9%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Father’s occupation status |
| Employed |
457(84.5%) |
442(70.9%) |
2.23(1.67-2.98) |
> 0.001 |
3.67(2.35-5.73) |
>
0.001
|
| Unemployed |
84(15.5%) |
181(29.1%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Wealth Index |
| Rich |
380(70.2%) |
332(53.3%) |
2.07(1.62-2.65) |
> 0.001 |
1.57(1.03-2.40) |
0
.038
|
| Poor |
161(29.8%) |
291(46.7%) |
Ref |
|
Ref |
|
| Knowledge Category |
| Good |
452(83.5%) |
623(100.0%) |
0.12(0.10-0.15) |
> 0.001 |
|
|
| Poor |
89(16.5%) |
0(0.0%) |
Ref |
|
|
|
| Attitude Category |
| Good |
155(28.7%) |
67(10.8%) |
3.33(2.43-4.56) |
> 0.001 |
|
|
| Poor |
386(71.3%) |
556(89.2%) |
Ref |
|
|
|