Results Among 379 participants, 245 (64.6%) were males, and 134 (35.3%) were females. The mean age of the participants was years 35.2 ± 11.3 (SD). Most of them (37.9%) belonged to upper-lower socioeconomic status, followed by lower (20.8%), upper (14.5%), lower-middle (14.2%), and upper-middle (11.3%) categories as per the Kuppuswamy socioeconomic scale (Table 2). Statistical analysis of these findings did not reveal any association between age, gender, and socioeconomic status with the COVID-19 positive test result. Table 2 General characteristics and risk factors of the study population RT-PCR - reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction General characteristics RT-PCR positive n=126 (33.2%) RT-PCR negative n=253 (66.8%) p-value Mean age (in years) ±SD 36.6 ± 12.4 34.5 ± 10.7 0.09 Sex 0.7      Male 80 (63.5)   165 (65.2)        Female 46 (36.5)   88 (34.8)   Socioeconomic status (Kuppuswamy index) 0.610      Upper   18 (14.5)   37 (14.7)        Upper middle   17 (13.7)   26 (10.4)        Lower middle   21 (16.9)   33 (13.1)      Upper lower   46 (37.1)   98 (39.0)        Lower 22 (17.7) 57 (22.7) Occupation 0.009      Doctor/ Faculty 3 (2.4)   4 (1.6)        Doctor/ Resident 16 (12.7)   78 (31.2)        Nursing officer 8 (6.3)   10 (4.0)        Laboratory technician   6 (4.8)   10 (4.0)        OT technician   6 (4.8)   9 (3.6)        Security guard   6 (4.8)   3 (1.2)        Housekeeping staff   20 (15.9)   31 (12.4)        Others 61 (48.4) 108 (43.2) Overcrowding at home 17 (13.5) 39 (15.4) 0.619 Mode of commute to workplace 0.452      Alone   19 (15.1)   44 (17.4)        Public transport with single occupancy   2 (1.6)   9 (3.6)        Public transport with multiple occupancy 105 (83.3)   200 (79.1) Out of 379 patients, 126 (33.2%) were detected to be COVID-19 positive. Two hundred and one (53%) participants were healthcare workers, and 94 (46.7%) of them were the resident doctors who had been tested for COVID-19 (Table 2). Occupation of the patients was statistically associated with the development of the disease (p=0.009). It was found that the resident doctors were at the least risk to develop the disease (odds ratio: 0.39) (Table 3). Table 3 Adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios against the risk factors Risk factors Unadjusted odds ratio (95% CI) Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) Social distancing of six feet or more         Almost always (more than 90%)   1 1      Commonly (about 50%)   0.32 (0.10-0.97)   0.15 (0.07-0.32)        Sometimes (about 25%) 0.40 (0.01- 0.21)   0.08 (0.03-0.19)        Rarely (less than 10%) 0.20 (0.03-1.21) 0.15 (0.05-0.46)   Hand hygiene frequency         Once every hour   1 1      Every 2-3 hourly 0.80 (0.24-2.68) 0.36 (0.15-0.82)        Every 3-4 hourly   0.35 (0.11-1.10)   0.08 (0.03-0.22)        Less than that 0.25 (0.07-0.80) 0.14 (0.06-0.34)   Ensuring N-95 mask fitness 2.04 (0.83-4.99)   0.35 (0.18-0.66) Resident doctors 0.27 (0.05-1.34)   0.39 (0.19-0.79) Participants were enquired about their living conditions at their residence, and only 56 (14.7%) of them gave a history of overcrowding at home. A large proportion of the participants (n=305, 80.4%) used public transport with multiple occupancies to commute to their workplace in this pandemic situation. Among the rest, 16.6% used to commute alone either by walking or in their own vehicles, and only 3% traveled to their workplace in public transports with single commuter options (Table 2). Overcrowding at home and the nature of commuting to the workplace did not reveal any statistical correlation with the acquisition of the disease. We enquired about the medications that they were taking for prophylaxis against COVID-19. Eighty-one patients (21.3%) took hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis as per India's national guidelines [7]. Some of the participants (30.3%) used alternative medicines as prophylaxis against COVID-19 (Table 4). These traditional medicines are used for ages in this part of the world for their possible role in promoting immunity against infections [8]. The use of hydroxychloroquine was not found to be protective (p=0.059), while the alternative medicines have shown to be protective against COVID-19 (p=0.002) while used prophylactically. Only sixty-seven of the participants (17.7%) followed social distancing of six feet or more at more than 90% of occasions, and 61.5% of the patients followed the same at 50% or less of the occasions (Table 4). When inquired about hand hygiene practices, 144 (37.9%) of respondents performed hand washing (either with alcohol-based hand rub or soap water) once in every 2-3 hours intervals. The appropriate duration of handwashing was ensured by only 118 (31.1%) patients. Almost all of the participants used N-95 masks routinely, but only 86 (22.6%) used their masks after an appropriate fit check (Table 4). We observed that maintaining social distancing of six feet or more, practicing hand hygiene, ensuring proper duration of handwashing, and adhering to N-95 mask fit checks were statistically significant (p<0.001) with the prevention of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Table 4 Reported compliance with preventive practices against COVID-19 RT-PCR - reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction Preventive practices RT-PCR positive n=126 (33.2%) RT-PCR negative n=253 (66.8%) p-value Use of drugs for COVID-19 prophylaxis        Hydroxychloroquine     20 (16.3)     61 (24.9)     0.059        Alternative medicines 52 (41.9) 63 (26.2) 0.002 Practice social distancing of staying 6 feet away from each other < 0.001      Almost always (more than 90%)   42 (33.3)   25 (9.9)        Mostly (about 75%)   33 (25.2)   46 (18.1)        Commonly (about 50%)   25 (19.8)   68 (26.9)        Sometimes (about 25%)   17 (13.5)   90 (35.6)        Rarely (less than 10%) 9 (7.1) 24 (9.4) Practiced mask fit check 42 (33.3) 44 (17.4) < 0.001 Hand hygiene            Frequency         < 0.001             Once every hour   38 (32.8)   26 (10.3)             Every 2-3 hourly   30 (25.9)   50 (19.7)             Every 3-4 hourly   21 (18.1)   77 (30.4)             Less than that   37 (31.9)   100 (39.5)        Appropriate duration ensured   59 (46.8)   59 (23.3)   < 0.001 In order to understand the protective efficacy of personal protective equipment (PPE), we also assessed the appropriate usage of PPE and different PPE kits from the answers gathered from 150 of the participants (doctors, nursing staff, laboratory technicians, and the OT technicians) (Table 5). The use of face shields for eye protection as a part of other PPE components was significantly associated (p=0.021) with a reduced chance of risk of acquiring the infection. Table 5 PPE use among health care workers PPE - personal protective equipment; RT-PCR - reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction Use of PPE during working in hospital by healthcare workers (n = 150)   RT-PCR positive n=39 (26%)   RT-PCR negative n=111 (74%) p-value N-95 mask with fit check   18 (46.2) 67 (60.4) 0.124 Gown   16 (41.0) 57 (51.4) 0.267 Goggles   8 (20.5) 41 (36.9) 0.060 Face shield   10 (25.6) 52 (46.8) 0.021 Cap   11 (28.2) 49 (44.1) 0.080 Shoe covers   12 (30.8) 48 (42.3) 0.171 The unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios were calculated for preventive practices, which had a statistical influence on the development of COVID-19 (Table 5). The practice of social distancing of more than six feet, maintenance of hand hygiene, ensuring the appropriate duration of hand washings, compliance with N-95 mask fit checks were found to be protective when analyzed against COVID-19 test results.