Abstract
Importance This study assessed the longitudinal impact of new COVID-19 cases when a mask ordinance was implemented in 2 of a 5-county Midwestern U.S. metropolitan region over a 3-month period of time. Reduction in case growth was significant and reduced infection inequities by race and population density.
Objective The objective of this study was to assess the impact that a mandatory mask wearing requirement had on the rate of COVID-19 infections by comparing counties with a mandatory policy with those neighboring counties without a mandatory masking policy.
Design This was a quasi-experimental longitudinal study conducted over the period of June 12-September 25, 2020.
Setting This study was a population-based study. Data were abstracted from local health department reports of COVID-19 cases.
Participants Raw cases reported to the county health departments and abstracted for this study; census-level data were synthesized to address county-level population, income and race.
Intervention(s) (for clinical trials) or Exposure(s) (for observational studies) The essential features of this intervention was an instituted mask mandate that occurred in St. Louis City and St. Louis County over a 12 week period.
Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) The primary study outcome measurement was daily COVID-19 infection growth rate. The mask mandate was hypothesized to lower daily infection growth rate.
Results Over the 15-week period, the average daily percent growth of reported COVID-19 cases across all five counties was 1.81% (±1.62%). The average daily percent growth in incident COVID-19 cases was similar between M+ and M- counties in the 3 weeks prior to implementation of mandatory mask policies (0.90% [±0.68] vs. 1.27% [±1.23%], respectively, p=0.269). Crude modeling with a difference-in-difference indicator showed that after 3 weeks of mask mandate implementation, M+ counties had a daily percent COVID-19 growth rate that was 1.32 times lower, or a 32% decrease. At 12 weeks post-mask policy implementation, the average daily COVID-19 case growth among M- was 2.42% (±1.92), and was significantly higher than the average daily COVID case growth among M+ counties (1.36% (±0.96%)) (p<0.001). A significant negative association was identified among counties between percent growth of COVID-19 cases and percent racial minorities per county (p<0.001), as well as population density (p<0.001).
Conclusions and Relevance These data demonstrate that county-level mask mandates were associated with significantly lower incident COVID-19 case growth over time, compared to neighboring counties that did not implement a mask mandate. The results highlight the swiftness of how a mask ordinance can impact the trajectory of infection rate growth. Another notable finding was that following implementation of mask mandates, the disparity of infection rate by race and population density was no longer significant, suggesting that regional-level policies can not only slow the spread of COVID-19, but simultaneously create more equal environment.
Question How are local mask ordinances associated with growth of COVID-19 cases among adjacent counties?
Findings Ecological longitudinal analysis reveals a significant slowing of daily COVID-19 case growth after mask ordinance implementation among counties.
Meaning Local-level policy of mask ordinances are shown to be an effective COVID-19 mitigation strategy even within locations of diverse populations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding to declare.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study falls under IRB exemption relative to secondary data analysis. All protocols and methods relevant to the study followed the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Access to data is freely available from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, New York Times, and U.S. Census Bureau.
