Abstract

<p>Introduction: Stroke is increasingly a problem of public health significance globally. It is a major cause of disability and mortality. Healthcare professionals must have a good attitude, sufficient knowledge, and practice of stroke prevention to reduce the burden of the disease. Methods: This study utilized a cross-sectional design among 200 Healthcare workers in the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, Nigeria, selected by systematic sampling technique. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect data on the research variables. Data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS version 25 statistical package. Results: A total of 200 Healthcare workers participated in the study. About 77% and 84% of respondents have good aggregate attitudes and knowledge towards stroke prevention respectively. This did not influence their poor practice (54%) of stroke prevention. There was a significant association (p &lt; 0.0001) of good knowledge of stroke by Clinical Healthcare workers [Chi-squares =27.1, 95%CI= (0.029-0.256)] when compared with non-clinical healthcare workers. This is in contrast with their poor practice of stroke prevention (Chi-squares=3.570, p = 0.02, 95%CI (0.321-1.023). However, there was no significant association (p=0.423) between the good attitude toward stroke prevention by the Clinical Health care workers [Chi-square=0.130, 95%CI= (0.458-1.713)], when compared with Non-Clinical Health care workers. Conclusion: It is possible to improve the practice of stroke prevention by encouraging health educational programs on Knowledge and behavior-changing strategies towards stroke prevention. Amidst vaccine safety hesitancy risks, this analysis applies CREAC method to interpret Ghana’s Food and Drugs Law 1992 (PNDCL 305B) establishing regulation alongside Public Health Act 2012 (Act 851) enabling compulsion, evaluating policy levers balancing access assurance and outbreak response efficacy with dissent and rights protections. Key amendments and guidance recommended affirm nuanced applications upholding exemption and exclusion fairness amidst necessity, minimizing restrictions through transparent and accountable procedures. Significantly, codifying posterity considerations builds trust in oversight systems with Phase IV post-market surveillance while proactive rights jurisprudence presses judicious state action – fostering adoption not resistance.</p>