Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Epidemiology Unit , Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of face covering may help prevent COVID‑19 transmission. However, there
is a lack of data on behavioral drivers of face covering use and compliance to mandatory face
covering policy at health facilities. This study aimed to describe behavioral drivers and observed
face covering use among outpatients and visitors at a tertiary hospital in Southern Thailand during
the COVID‑19 pandemic.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a hospital‑based, cross‑sectional study in June 2020.
We developed, pilot‑tested and finalized an interview questionnaire in Thai. We also developed a
structured observation questionnaire. Two trained enumerators recruited outpatients and visitors at
the hospital’s internal medicine outpatient department (OPD), surgery OPD, and the pharmacy using
the convenience sampling. Another enumerator conducted structured observation of face covering
use among outpatients and visitors when interviews were not taking place. We analyzed the data
using the descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 206 persons that our interview enumerators approached agreed to
participate (n = 206; response rate = 62.4%). Nearly all participants stated that the use of face
covering was beneficial in preventing COVID‑19 infection from others and preventing others from being
infected (94.0% and 98.0%, respectively). Common barriers included inconvenience in breathing and
speaking (19.7%) and pain at the ears (9.6%). Structured observation of 408 outpatients and visitors
showed that nearly everyone (>99%) had a face covering on their person, most of whom (94.6%)
covered both their nose and mouth.
CONCLUSION: We found near‑universal perceived benefits and compliance, but variations in
perceived barriers, cues, and social norms for the use of face coverings. The findings of this study
can inform future intervention programs on face covering use promotion.
Keywords
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?. [Last accessed
on 2021 Jan 17].
2. BikdeliB, TalasazAH, RashidiF, Sharif‑KashaniB, FarrokhpourM,
Bakhshandeh H, et al. Intermediate versus standard‑dose
prophylactic anticoagulation and statin therapy versus placebo
in critically‑ill patients with COVID‑19: Rationale and design
of the INSPIRATION/INSPIRATION‑S studies. Thromb Res
2020;196:382‑94.
3. The Royal Society. Face Masks and Coverings for the General
Public: Behavioural Knowledge, Effectiveness of Cloth Coverings
and Public Messaging; 2020. Available from: https://royalsociety.
org/‑/media/policy/projects/set‑c/set‑c‑facemasks.pdf. [Last
accessed on 2021 Feb 15].
4. van der Westhuizen HM, Kotze K, Tonkin‑Crine S, Gobat N,
Greenhalgh T. Face coverings for covid‑19: From medical
intervention to social practice. BMJ 2020;370:m3021.
5. Chan KH, Yuen KY. COVID‑19 epidemic: Disentangling the
re‑emerging controversy about medical facemasks from an
epidemiological perspective. Int J Epidemiol 2020;49:1760.
6. MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, Hien NT, Nga PT, Chughtai AA,
et al. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with
medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open 2015;5:e006577.
7. Xiao J, Shiu EY, Gao H, Wong JY, Fong MW, Ryu S, et al.
Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings‑personal protective and environmental
measures. Emerg Infect Dis 2020;26:967‑75.
8. Eikenberry SE, Mancuso M, Iboi E, Phan T, Eikenberry K,
Kuang Y, et al. To mask or not to mask: Modeling the potential
for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID‑19
pandemic. Infect Dis Model 2020;5:293‑308.
9. Greenhalgh T, Schmid MB, Czypionka T, Bassler D, Gruer L.
Face masks for the public during the covid‑19 crisis. BMJ
2020;369:m1435.
10. Sharma SK, Mishra M, Mudgal SK. Efficacy of cloth face mask
in prevention of novel coronavirus infection transmission:
A systematic review and meta‑analysis. J Educ Health Promot
2020;9:192.
11. Mahase E. Covid‑19: What is the evidence for cloth masks? BMJ
2020;369:m1422.
12. Tola HH. Risk communication during novel corona‑virus disease
2019 pandemic in low health service coverage setup: The case of
Ethiopia. J Educ Health Promot 2020;9:143.
13. Wichaidit W, Naknual S, Kleangkert N, Liabsuetrakul T.
Installation of pedal‑operated alcohol gel dispensers with
behavioral nudges and changes in hand hygiene behaviors during
the COVID‑19 pandemic: A hospital‑based quasi‑experimental
study. J Public Health Res 2020;9:1863.
14. Jones CL, Jensen JD, Scherr CL, Brown NR, Christy K, Weaver J.
The Health Belief Model as an explanatory framework in
communication research: Exploring parallel, serial, and
moderated mediation. Health Commun 2015;30:566‑76.
15. Bicchieri C. Norms in the Wild: How to Diagnose, Measure and
Change Social Norms/Christina Bicchieri. New York: Oxford
University Press; 2017. p. 239.
16. WichaiditW, SteinacherR, OkalJA, Whinnery J, Null C, Kordas K,
et al. Effect of an equipment‑behavior change intervention on
handwashing behavior among primary school children in Kenya:
The Povu Poa school pilot study. BMC Public Health 2019;19:647.
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID‑19): How to Protect Yourself & Others; 2020.
Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‑ncov/
prevent‑getting‑sick/prevention.html. [Last accessed on
2021 Feb 15].
18. Cheng VC, Wong SC, Chuang VW, So SY, Chen JH, Sridhar S,
et al. The role of community‑wide wearing of face mask for
control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) epidemic due
to SARS‑CoV‑2. J Infect 2020;81:107‑14.
19. Khan AM. R‑software: A newer tool in epidemiological data
analysis. Indian J Community Med 2013;38:56‑8.
20. Bellato A. Psychological factors underlying adherence to
COVID‑19 regulations: A commentary on how to promote
compliance through mass media and limit the risk of a second
wave. Soc Sci Humanit Open 2020;2:100062.
21. Nakayachi K, Ozaki T, Shibata Y, Yokoi R. Why do Japanese
people use masks against COVID‑19, even though masks are
unlikely to offer protection from infection? Front Psychol
2020;11:1918.
22. Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S ,
Schünemann HJ, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and
eye protection to prevent person‑to‑person transmission
of SARS‑CoV‑2 and COVID‑19: A systematic review and
meta‑analysis. Lancet 2020;395:1973‑87.
23. Isaacs D, Britton P, Howard‑Jones A, Kesson A, Khatami A,
Marais B, et al. Do facemasks protect against COVID‑19? J Paediatr
Child Health 2020;56:976‑7.
24. Bicchieri C, Dimant E, Gaechter S, Nosenzo D. Observability,
Social Proximity, and the Erosion of Norm Compliance. CESifo;
2020. (CESifo Working Paper Series 8212). Available from:
https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_8212.html. [Last
accessed on 2021 Feb 15]
25. Arp NL, Nguyen TH, Graham Linck EJ, Feeney AK, Schrope JH,
Ruedinger KL, et al. Use of face coverings by the public during
the COVID‑19 pandemic: An observational study. medRxiv
2020.06.09.20126946
26. Esposito S, Principi N, Leung CC, Migliori GB. Universal use
of face masks for success against COVID‑19: Evidence and
implications for prevention policies. Eur Respir J 2020;55:2001260.
27. Wang J, Pan L, Tang S, Ji JS, Shi X. Mask use during COVID‑19:
A risk adjusted strategy. Environ Pollut 2020;266:115099.
28. World Health Organization. Rational Use of Personal Protective
Equipment for Coronavirus Disease(COVID‑19) and Considerations
during Severe Shortages: Interim Guidance; 2020. Available
from: https://www.who.int/publications‑detail‑redirect/
r a t i o n a l ‑ u s e ‑ o f ‑ p e r s o n a l ‑ p r o t e c t i v e ‑ e q u i p m e n t
‑for‑coronavirus‑disease‑(covid‑19)‑and ‑considerations‑during
‑severe‑shortages. [Last accessed on 2021 Feb 15]
)