How do the general population behave with facemasks to prevent COVID-19 in the community? A multi-site observational study

  1. Colin Deschanvres
  2. Thomas Haudebourg
  3. Nathan Peiffer-Smadja
  4. Karine Blanckaert
  5. David Boutoille
  6. Jean-Christophe Lucet
  7. Gabriel Birgand

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

The appropriate use of facemasks, recommended or mandated by authorities, is critical to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the community. We aim to evaluate frequency and quality of facemask use in general populations.

Methods

A multi-site observational study was carried out from June to July 2020 in the west of France. An observer was positioned at a predetermined place, facing a landmark, and all individual passing between the observer and the landmark were included. The observer collected information on facemask use (type, quality of positioning), location and demographic characteristics.

Results

A total of 3354 observations were recorded. A facemask was worn by 56.4% (n = 1892) of individuals, including surgical facemasks (56.8%, n = 1075) and cloth masks (43.2%, n = 817). The facemask was correctly positioned in 75.2% (n = 1422) of cases. The factors independently associated with wearing a facemask were being indoors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.28–3.19), being in a mandatory area (aOR, 6.92; 95% CI 5–9.7), female gender (aOR, 1.75; 95% CI 1.54–2.04), age 41–65 years (aOR, 1.7; 95% CI 1.43–2.02) and age > 65 years (aOR, 2.28; 95% CI 1.83–2.85). The factors independently associated with correct mask position were rural location (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI 1.07–1.79), being in an indoor area (aOR, 1.85; 95% CI 1.49–2.3), use of clothmask (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI 1.23–1.91), and age > 40 years (aOR, 1.75 95%CI 1.37–2.23).

Conclusions

During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the frequency and quality of facemask wearing remained low in the community setting. Young people in general, and men in particular, represent the priority targets for information campaigns. Simplifying the rules to require universal mandatory facemasking seemed to be the best approach for health authorities.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1186/s13756-021-00927-6
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.18.20195669: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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:
    However, the visual and potentially subjective evaluation of the criteria should be acknowledging as potential limitations. Despite the inclusion of a range of situations at the regional scale, the generalizability is questionable.

    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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.18.20195669v1 on medRxiv