Imprecise assessment of mask use may obscure associations with SARS-CoV-2 positivity
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Masks are effective measures to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, however, lack of a national mandate coupled with poor adherence has led to suboptimal levels of transmission reduction. Although data has suggested that mask adherence is high, few studies have captured details on how mask wearing changes with activities and how these behaviors are associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity. We recruited an online sample of 3,058 respondents from three US states (MD, FL, IL; n∼1000/state) between September 16 - October 15, 2020. The median age of the sample was 47; 53% were female, 56% were white and 22% were working outside the home. Seventy three percent of the sample reported always wearing a mask indoors and outdoors based on local guidelines, however, 78% of participants who reported always wearing a mask reported taking their mask off when outside the home. While overall masking according to guidelines was not significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity, sometimes, often or always removing a mask during activities were significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity (adjusted odds ratio for always vs never removing mask: 9.92; 95% CI: 1.16 – 85.1). These findings suggest that masks were most effective when worn without removal reflecting the need for consistent use.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.30.20249033: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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…
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.30.20249033: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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.
- Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.
-
