The results of this study revealed that 48.4% of HCWs had good knowledge about post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for HIV. These results significantly lower compared to studies conducted in Nigeria (83.3%), Addis Ababa (71.0%) and Gondar (63.1%) (Ekundayo and Ogbaini-Emovon 2014, Eticha and Gemeda 2019, Teshale, Tessema et al. 2021). The results showed that 91.3% of participants had heard about PEP, which is higher than a study conducted in Pakistan at 53.4% (Ojara, Owomugisha et al. 2021), but lower than a similar study done in Uganda at 95%, and slightly higher than a study done in Assela, Ethiopia at which was (88.8%) (Jemaneh 2014, Ojara, Owomugisha et al. 2021).
This study showed that 78.5% of HCWs know the best time to start PEP; this is low as compared to a study conducted in India, 87.0% (Ekundayo and Ogbaini-Emovon 2014). This may due low in advancement in healthcare development in Ethiopia. This study showed that about75.0 percentage HCWs did not take PEP with in the recommended time bound (72 h). This is comparable with a study conducted in Gondar, Ethiopia, which showed 72.3% (Doda, Negi et al. 2018).
In this study, 54.2% of respondents had a favorable attitude. Which is low compared to the study conducted in Gondar, Ethiopia, at 75.4% (Doda, Negi et al. 2018). This may be due to the difference in the knowledge status of the study participants about PEP between these two studies.
In this study, most of the HCWs (90.1%) agreed on the advantages of post-exposure HIV prophylaxis. This is higher than that a study conducted in Pakistan (35.5%) (11). And Nigeria showed (73.0%), but lower than a study conducted in Gondar, Ethiopia, at 98.5%. According to the findings of this study, 69.2% of respondents believe that PEP reduces the likelihood of being HIV positive. This is significantly higher than the study conducted in Pakistan, at 25.9% (Dhanya, Hegde et al. 2017). And a study conducted in Uganda, at 61%, but a similar study conducted in Gondar, Ethiopia, showed that it was 78.5% (Samusodza 2020). The difference could be due to study population and setup differences.
This study showed that of the 312 HCWs, 63.5% exposed to any fluids or sharp cuts while at work. Among the exposed, 63.3% of respondents washed with soap and water immediately after exposure. This is better than a study conducted in Pakistan, at 31.7% (Cohen, Vittinghoff et al. 2015). This study showed that the majority of respondents exposed to needle stick injury, 54.8%. It is higher than a study conducted in Nigeria, which showed 47.3% (14), and in Hawassa, which showed 35.8% (Samusodza 2020).
Among the exposed respondents, 79.1% (for HIV risky conditions) took post exposure prophylaxis. This is congruent with a study conducted at Gondar University hospital that, showed, 74.2% took prophylaxis. A study conducted in Assela, showed that 25.5% experienced Needlestick injuries (Tesfaye, Gebeyehu et al. 2014). It is significantly higher than a study conducted in Nigeria at (10%). Only 37.5% of them completed the 4 weeks of HIV prophylaxis (Habib, Baye et al. 2018). This is significantly higher than a study conducted in Nigeria at (10%). Only 37.5% of them completed the 4 weeks of HIV prophylaxis (Eticha and Gemeda 2019). This shows that there is an increasing practice of using PEP among healthcare workers. The difference might be due to the lack of proper protocol, guidelines, adherence, and lack of information observed in these institutions.