Use of face coverings in public during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Public health agencies have recommended that the public wear face coverings, including face masks, to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. However, the extent to which the public has adopted this recommendation is unknown. An observational study of 3,271 members of the public in May and June 2020 examined face covering use at grocery stores across Wisconsin. We found that only 41.2% used face coverings. Individuals who appeared to be female or older adults had higher odds of using face coverings. Additionally, location-specific variables such as expensiveness of store, county-level population and county-level COVID-19 case prevalence were associated with increased odds of using face coverings. To our knowledge, this is the first direct observational study examining face covering behavior by the public in the U.S., and our findings have implications for public health agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.09.20126946: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Our study has limitations due to its cross-sectional design, use of convenience sampling and its lack of observations in northern Wisconsin. Face covering misclassification could occur if the face covering was removed prior to …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.09.20126946: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Our study has limitations due to its cross-sectional design, use of convenience sampling and its lack of observations in northern Wisconsin. Face covering misclassification could occur if the face covering was removed prior to the observation at the store’s exit door. Further, gender expression and apparent age could have been misclassified due to observer bias. However, reassuringly, inter-rater reliability was determined to be high for these observed variables. Our results have important implications for public health agencies. Our results suggest the need to develop and test interventions to promote face covering usage by the general public in the United States. Future directions from this report include examining the reasons why some individuals choose not to wear face coverings in public.
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-