Mask adherence and rate of COVID-19 across the United States

Introduction

Mask wearing has been advocated by public health officials as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19(1, 2, 3). In the United States, policies on mask wearing have varied from state to state over the course of the pandemic (4). For the period of April 1 through October 31, 2020, less than half of states had issued a mandate for mask wearing in public and nearly a third had not made any recommendation. Even as more and more government leaders encourage mask-wearing (5), many citizens still resist the notion. Individuals’ mask-wearing behaviors are not only influenced by recommendations and mandates issued by state leaders, but also by print, televised, and social media. Thus, adherence to mask wearing in public remains a challenge for mitigating the spread of COVID-19.

Public health policy-making requires navigating the balance of public good and individual rights (6). The adoption of universal masking policies is increasingly polarized and politicized, demanding that public health authorities balance the values of health and individual liberty. Adherence to public policy is influenced by a complex interplay of factors such as public opinion, cultural practices, individual perceptions and behaviors (7), which are difficult to quantify. The politicization of COVID-19 epidemiology (8) has further complicated policy-making, messaging, and uptake. Nevertheless, adherence is essential for policy effectiveness. Research on lax public health policies and lack of adherence is warranted because they can carry real risks to health, with myriad downstream effects including increased death, stressed health care systems, and economic instability (9). We examined the impact of state-based mask-wearing policy and adherence on COVID-19 case rates during the summer and early fall of 2020 in order to quantify this effect.

Methods

For all 50 states and D.C., data on mask wearing and physical distance policies, mask adherence, COVID-19 cases, and demographics were abstracted from publicly available sources. We utilized the COVID-19 US State Policy Database, created by Dr. Julia Raifman at Boston University School of Public Health (10), for policy and demographic information. We abstracted data on whether the state issued a mandate of mask use by all individuals in public spaces, and if so, the dates of implementation and whether the mandate was enforced by fines or criminal charge/citation(s). For policies on physical distancing, we recorded whether a stay-at-home order was issued and, if so, when. For mask adherence levels, we utilized the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) COVID-19 Projections online database (11), and abstracted daily percentages of the population who say they always wear a mask in public. To calculate monthly COVID-19 case rates, we abstracted the number of new cases reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (12) and state population sizes in 2019 (13).

Results

Table 1 shows the states in COVID-19 high-risk categories. Because stay-at-home order, mask-wearing policy, mask adherence, and COVID-rates can vary from month to month, we listed those states with consistent classifications across the period April through September (or May through October for COVID-19 rates). Fifteen states had no mask policy and four states had low adherence throughout this period of months.

Our comparison of states with high COVID-19 rates by month focused on July, August, September and October. For the low and high mask adherence categories, cut-off values for the low and high quartiles were 31% and 46% in June, 53% and 72% in July, 55% and 71% in August, and 55% and 68% in September. Only six states in May and one state in June had rates in the high category, which limited our ability to compare mask adherence data. In the subsequent four months, 16 (31%), 18 (35%), 16 (31%), and 30 (59%) states had high rates of adherence. Figure 1 shows the proportions of states with high COVID-19 rates among those with low and high mask adherence in the preceding month. States with low mask adherence had high COVID-19 rates in the subsequent month. In contrast, for the states with high mask adherence, just one state in July, August, and September and three in October had high COVID-19 rates in the subsequent month. Of the 8 states and D.C. with at least 75% mask adherence (Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont), none state experienced a high COVID-19 rate in the subsequent month.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Proportion of states with high COVID-19 rates among with those with low and high mask adherence in the preceding month

Figure 2 shows the proportions of states and D.C. with high COVID-19 rates among with those with no and any mask-wearing policy for the general public in the preceding month. Among states and D.C. with no mask-wearing policy, 40 to 73% had high COVID-19 rates in the subsequent month. In contrast, less than 20% of states with a mask-wearing policy had high COVID-19 rates, except in September when over half experienced high rates. Fourteen of the 15 states with no mask-wearing policy for the general public from June through September reported a high COVID-19 rate.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Proportion of states with high COVID-19 rates among with those with no and some mask-wearing policy for the general public in the preceding month

Table 2 shows odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for average mask adherence and mask policy for the general public in relation to high COVID-19 rates in the subsequent month. Mask adherence was associated with decreased odds of high COVID-19 rates. For every 1% increase in average adherence in June, the fully adjusted odds of high COVID-19 in July decreased by 5%. Similar decreases were observed for July and August mask adherence in relation to COVID-19 rates in August and September, respectively. The strongest association was for mask adherence in September; for every 1% increase in average adherence, the odds of a high COVID-19 case rate decreased by 26%.

Crude and adjusted odds ratios for any mask policy in relation to high COVID-19 rates in the subsequent month were decreased; but confidence intervals were wide. For mask policy and adherence in September in relation to high COVID-19 rates in October, collinearity caused the odds ratio to flip.

Discussion

We show supporting evidence for reducing the spread of COVID-19 through mask wearing. This protective effect of mask wearing was evident across four months of the pandemic, even after adjusting the associations for mask policy, distance policy, and demographic factors. We observed some benefit of mask policy on COVID-19 rates, but the findings were unstable. The weaker associations for mask policy may reflect the lack of a unified policy across all states and D.C. and the inconsistent messaging by the media and government leaders. Our observed associations should influence policy-makers and contribute to public health messaging by government officials and the media that mask wearing is a key component of COVID-19 mitigation.

Our study accounted for temporality by staggering COVID-19 outcome data after adherence measures. Nevertheless, it is possible that average mask adherence in a given month does not capture the most effective time period before increases in COVID-19 rates. For example, mask wearing in the two weeks before rates begin to rise might be a more sensitive way to measure the association. If this is true, we would expect associations between mask adherence and high COVID-19 rates to be even stronger. It is also possible that survey respondents misreported their mask-wearing adherence; whether they would be more less likely to over or under-report is open to speculation. The lag between mask adherence measures and COVID-19 rates should reduce reverse causation, but high COVID-19 rates early in a month could affect mask adherence levels later in that month.

Our adjustment for demographic factors at the state population level may not represent the true underlying forces that put individuals at greater risk of contracting COVID-19. Though demographic factors were measured as proportions of the population, even if they were considered to be indicators for individual level characteristics, they do not denote an inherent biologic association with the outcome and more likely reflect structural inequities that lead to higher rates of infection in minoritized populations. Another consideration is that access to COVID-19 testing appears to vary from state to state (16). If states with less accessible COVID-19 testing also have less mask adherence, the associations we report here may be under-estimates.

Our analysis of state and D.C.-level data does not account for variations in policy, adherence, and demographic factors at smaller geographic levels, such as county-levels. Further analyses of more granular geographic regions would be a logical next step. Indeed, the mix of very rural and many densely populated cities in California may explain why it was the only state to have high mask adherence and high COVID-19 rates in the subsequent month.

In conclusion, we show that mask-wearing adherence, regardless of mask-wearing policy, may curb the spread of COVID-19 infections. We recommend renewed efforts be employed to improve adherence to mask wearing.