The use of facemasks may not lead to an increase in hand–face contact

Tao, Zhi‐Yong; Dong, Juan; Culleton, Richard

doi:10.1111/tbed.13698

Cited by 25 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results correspond with the prior studies, which either report no association (4,5) or a negative association (7), especially with respect to t-zone touches (6). Taken as a whole, current and prior evidence alleviate the concern that mask-wearing has a positive and adverse face-touching effect (3).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…These results yield additional and robust evidence in favor of the result found in Study 1 and replicated in Study 2: Mask-wearing has a negative relationship with direct hand-to-face contact, while mask-wearing is not associated with touching of the facial region, whether mask covered or not. 5 Figure 1. Sign and significance rates across the multiverse of data and model specifications.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The temperature measures were constructed using publicly available data from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). The measurement of whether the person was alone or together with someone had an inter-rater score of .95 5. For full transparency, we note that we found one condition under which the effect of mask-wearing on touches of face or mask was positively associated (B = 0.09, CI 95% [-0.01, 0.17], p = .024, BF01 = 1.42).…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…One concern regarding the use of face masks among members of the public is that mask-wearers may adjust or otherwise touch their mask, thus creating a hand-to-face route for the virus to enter the body through the nose, eyes, and mouth (i.e., the t-zone) (1)(2)(3). Fortunately, a small but rapidly growing body of naturalistic observational evidence offers some reassurance, with reports of either no association (4,5) or a negative association (6,7) between mask-wearing and face-touching. For example, in the most extensive study published to date, Chen and colleagues (6) video observed 7586 members of the public across East Asia, Western Europe, and North America, before and during the coronavirus pandemic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Face-touching behavior as a possible correlate of mask-wearing: A video observational study of public place incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic

Liebst¹,

Ejbye-Ernst²,

Bruin³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most countries in the world recommend or mandate face masks in public places during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, until very recently, no studies have examined the potentially adverse effect of face masks on face-touching. Here, we video observed face-touching behavior among members of the public in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, during the pandemic. Our confirmatory analysis shows that face masks are not associated with face-touching, defined as touches of the face or the mask. However, a subsequent exploratory analysis found suggestive evidence that face masks are specifically associated with direct face contact. Our results add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that face masks are either not associated or negatively associated with face-touching, and thus are unlikely to have any adverse self-touching effect, as this has been raised as a concern.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Face-touching behavior as a possible correlate of mask-wearing: A video observational study of public place incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic

Liebst¹,

Ejbye-Ernst²,

Bruin³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other possible causes of the latter include discomfort associated with mask wearing, exacerbation of pre-existing acne, occupational dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis or rosacea [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Nonetheless, certain studies demonstrated that wearing face masks tends to decrease face touching behaviors, both in the general public [ 27 , 28 ] and also in HCW [ 29 ]. Additionally, the self-reported prevalence of sensitive skin, acne and atopic predisposition in our cohort was similar to other epidemiological studies [ 30 , 31 , 32 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Utilization of Protective Face Masks among Polish Healthcare Workers during COVID-19 Pandemic: Do We Pass the Exam?

Reszke

Matusiak

Krajewski

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relevant personal protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic include face masks, possibly decreasing the risk of infection among the general population and healthcare workers (HCW) if utilized properly. The aim of the study was to assess whether different Polish HCW utilize face masks according to the 2020 World Health Organization guidance (WHO) criteria. This cross-sectional study included 1156 respondents who participated in an internet survey evaluating mask-related behaviors. All the WHO criteria were complied with by 1.4% of participants, regardless of medical profession, specialty or place of employment. HCW mostly adhered to criterion 1 (C1; strict covering of the face and mouth with the mask; 90.8%), C4 (washing/disinfecting the hands after touching/taking off the mask; 49%) and C3 (taking off the mask properly without touching the anterior surface; 43.4%), whereas C2 (avoidance of touching the mask with hands) was complied with least commonly (6.8%). HCW with mask-induced itch (31.6%) complied to C2 less often (odds ratio 0.53; p = 0.01). The study reveals that Polish HCW rarely adhere to all the 2020 WHO guidance criteria on the use of masks, whereas the adherence to particular criteria is variable and may be associated with the presence of skin-related conditions and other factors. Better compliance with the recommendations in the future is necessary to increase personal safety of HCW and prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

show abstract

Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): An evidence and gap map

Hanratty

Keenan²,

O'Connor

et al. 2023

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic, caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. Common recommended measures to limit risk of infection include frequent handwashing, reducing the frequency of social interactions and the use of face coverings. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of these protective behaviours.ObjectivesWe aimed to identify and map the existing evidence (published and unpublished) on psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to behaviours aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID‐19.Search MethodsOur extensive search included electronic databases (n = 12), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories including both published peer reviewed, pre‐prints and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID‐19), (2) behaviours of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health‐Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with recommended behaviours, to capture both malleable and non‐malleable determinants (i.e. determinants that could be changed and those that could not).Selection CriteriaThis Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) includes all types of studies examining determinants of common recommended behaviours aimed at mitigating human‐to‐human spread of COVID‐19. All potential malleable and non‐malleable determinants of one or more behaviours are included in the map. As part of the mapping process, categories are used to group determinants. The mapping categories were based on a previous rapid review by Hanratty 2021. These include: ‘behaviour’, ‘cognition’, ‘demographics’, ‘disease’, ‘emotions’, ‘health status’, ‘information’, ‘intervention’, and ‘knowledge’. Those not suitable for categorisation in any of these groups are included in the map as ‘other’ determinants.Data Collection and AnalysisResults were imported to a bibliographic reference manager where duplications of identical studies gathered from multiple sources were removed. Data extraction procedures were managed in EPPI‐Reviewer software. Information on study type, population, behaviours measured and determinants measured were extracted. We appraised the methodological quality of systematic reviews with AMSTAR‐2. We did not appraise the quality of primary studies in this map.Main ResultsAs of 1 June 2022 the EGM includes 1034 records reporting on 860 cross‐sectional, 68 longitudinal, 78 qualitative, 25 reviews, 62 interventional, and 39 other studies (e.g., mixed‐methods approaches). The map includes studies that measured social distancing (n = 487), masks and face coverings (n = 382), handwashing (n = 308), physical distancing (n = 177), isolation/quarantine (n = 157), respiratory hygiene/etiquette (n = 75), cleaning surfaces (n = 59), and avoiding touching the T‐zone (n = 48). There were 333 studies that assessed composite measures of two or more behaviours. The largest cluster of determinants was ‘demographics’ (n = 730 studies), followed by ‘cognition’ (n = 496 studies) and determinants categorised as ‘other’ (n = 447). These included factors such as ‘beliefs’, ‘culture’ and ‘access to resources’. Less evidence is available for some determinants such as ‘interventions’ (n = 99 studies), ‘information’ (n = 101 studies), and ‘behaviour’ (149 studies).Authors' ConclusionsThis EGM provides a valuable resource for researchers, policy‐makers and the public to access the available evidence on the determinants of various COVID‐19 health‐related behaviours. The map can also be used to help guide research commissioning, by evidence synthesis teams and evidence intermediaries to inform policy during the ongoing pandemic and potential future outbreaks of COVID‐19 or other respiratory infections. Evidence included in the map will be explored further through a series of systematic reviews examining the strength of the associations between malleable determinants and the uptake and maintenance of individual protective behaviours.

show abstract

The use of facemasks may not lead to an increase in hand–face contact

Cited by 25 publications

References 7 publications

Face-touching behavior as a possible correlate of mask-wearing: A video observational study of public place incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic

Face-touching behavior as a possible correlate of mask-wearing: A video observational study of public place incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic

The Utilization of Protective Face Masks among Polish Healthcare Workers during COVID-19 Pandemic: Do We Pass the Exam?

Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): An evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About