MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323294715 · doi:10.2196/42128

Spatiotemporal Trends in Self-Reported Mask-Wearing Behavior in the United States: Analysis of a Large Cross-sectional Survey

2023· article· en· W4323294715 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juliana C. Taube, Zachary Susswein, Shweta Bansal

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsMasking (illustration)Survey data collectionPandemicPublic healthSample (material)Health Information National Trends SurveyPerceptionPsychologyDemographyEnvironmental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)StatisticsGeographyMedicineHealth careDiseaseMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Face mask wearing has been identified as an effective strategy to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, yet mask mandates were never imposed nationally in the United States. This decision resulted in a patchwork of local policies and varying compliance, potentially generating heterogeneities in the local trajectories of COVID-19 in the United States. Although numerous studies have investigated the patterns and predictors of masking behavior nationally, most suffer from survey biases and none have been able to characterize mask wearing at fine spatial scales across the United States through different phases of the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: Urgently needed is a debiased spatiotemporal characterization of mask-wearing behavior in the United States. This information is critical to further assess the effectiveness of masking, evaluate the drivers of transmission at different time points during the pandemic, and guide future public health decisions through, for example, forecasting disease surges. METHODS: We analyzed spatiotemporal masking patterns in over 8 million behavioral survey responses from across the United States, starting in September 2020 through May 2021. We adjusted for sample size and representation using binomial regression models and survey raking, respectively, to produce county-level monthly estimates of masking behavior. We additionally debiased self-reported masking estimates using bias measures derived by comparing vaccination data from the same survey to official records at the county level. Lastly, we evaluated whether individuals' perceptions of their social environment can serve as a less biased form of behavioral surveillance than self-reported data. RESULTS: We found that county-level masking behavior was spatially heterogeneous along an urban-rural gradient, with mask wearing peaking in winter 2021 and declining sharply through May 2021. Our results identified regions where targeted public health efforts could have been most effective and suggest that individuals' frequency of mask wearing may be influenced by national guidance and disease prevalence. We validated our bias correction approach by comparing debiased self-reported mask-wearing estimates with community-reported estimates, after addressing issues of a small sample size and representation. Self-reported behavior estimates were especially prone to social desirability and nonresponse biases, and our findings demonstrated that these biases can be reduced if individuals are asked to report on community rather than self behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Our work highlights the importance of characterizing public health behaviors at fine spatiotemporal scales to capture heterogeneities that may drive outbreak trajectories. Our findings also emphasize the need for a standardized approach to incorporating behavioral big data into public health response efforts. Even large surveys are prone to bias; thus, we advocate for a social sensing approach to behavioral surveillance to enable more accurate estimates of health behaviors. Finally, we invite the public health and behavioral research communities to use our publicly available estimates to consider how bias-corrected behavioral estimates may improve our understanding of protective behaviors during crises and their impact on disease dynamics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207