School District Prevention Policies and Risk of COVID-19 Among In-Person K-12 Educators, Wisconsin, 2021

Parents' and Caregivers' Support for in-School COVID-19 Mitigation Strategies: A Socioecological Perspective

Informed by the social ecological model, which asserts that health behaviors and beliefs are the result of multiple levels of influence, we examined factors related to parents' support for in-school COVID-19 mitigation strategies. Using data from a survey of 567 parents/caregivers of public elementary and middle school students in eight Maryland counties, we employed regression models to examine relationships between parent-, child-, family-, school-, and community-level factors and acceptability of mitigation strategies. Acceptance of COVID-19 mitigation strategies was positively correlated with child- and family-level factors, including child racial identity (parents of Black children were more accepting than those of White children, odds ratio [OR]: 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.5, 4.1]), parent receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine (OR: 2.4, 95% CI = [1.5, 3.7]), and parent Democrat or Independent political affiliation (compared with Republican affiliation, OR: 4.2, 95% CI = [2.6, 6.7]; OR: 2.2, 95%CI = [1.3, 3.8], respectively). Acceptance was also positively associated with parents' perceptions of their school's mitigation approach, including higher school mitigation score, indicating more intensive mitigation policies (OR: 1.1, 95% CI = [1.0, 1.1]), better school communication about COVID-19 (OR: 1.7, 95% CI = [1.4, 1.9]) and better school capacity to address COVID-19 (OR: 1.9, 95% CI = [1.5, 2.4]). Community-level factors were not associated with acceptance. Child- and parent-level factors identified suggest potential groups for messaging regarding mitigation strategies. School-level factors may play an important role in parents' acceptance of in-school mitigation strategies. Schools' capacity to address public health threats may offer an underappreciated and modifiable setting for disseminating and reinforcing public health guidance.

People interact closer when a face mask is worn but risk compensation is at best partial

BACKGROUND

Wearing a face mask and keeping a minimal distance from others are common nonpharmaceutical interventions that governments may mandate or recommend to contain the spread of infectious diseases. The article addresses the following questions: (i) Do people interact closer when the face mask is worn? (ii) Do people interact closer because they believe that the mask reduces the risk of contagion? (iii) If the mask induces people to interact closer, does the increase in risk entailed by shorter distances entirely offset the decrease in risk offered by the mask?

METHODS

With a view to maximizing both the external and the internal validity of the study, between 2021 and 2022 we performed a large field experiment on real-life interactions (n > 4500) and a controlled laboratory experiment in virtual reality.

RESULTS

Converging between the field and the lab, the results indicate that in general people interact closer when the mask is worn, and in particular when they believe that the mask reduces the risk of contagion. However, even assuming a very low filtration efficacy and an extremely large distance-reducing effect of the mask, the counteracting effect of shorter interpersonal distances is never strong enough to entirely offset the mask's protection.

CONCLUSION

The distance-reducing effect of the mask is real but warrants no serious objection against a face mask policy.

Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review

This rapid systematic review of evidence asks whether (i) wearing a face mask, (ii) one type of mask over another and (iii) mandatory mask policies can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, either in community-based or healthcare settings. A search of studies published 1 January 2020-27 January 2023 yielded 5185 unique records. Due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies were included in the analysis. We analysed 35 studies in community settings (three RCTs and 32 observational) and 40 in healthcare settings (one RCT and 39 observational). Ninety-five per cent of studies included were conducted before highly transmissible Omicron variants emerged. Ninety-one per cent of observational studies were at 'critical' risk of bias (ROB) in at least one domain, often failing to separate the effects of masks from concurrent interventions. More studies found that masks (n = 39/47; 83%) and mask mandates (n = 16/18; 89%) reduced infection than found no effect (n = 8/65; 12%) or favoured controls (n = 1/65; 2%). Seven observational studies found that respirators were more protective than surgical masks, while five found no statistically significant difference between the two mask types. Despite the ROB, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these study populations. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.