Changes in Masking Policies in US Healthcare Facilities in the First Quarter of 2023: Do COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, or Local Political Preferences Predict Loosening Restrictions?
Miller, S. L.; Prasad, V.
Show abstract
IntroductionIn the first half of 2023, many US healthcare facilities updated their policies on the required use of face masks by patients and employees. Despite statewide lifts of mask mandates in healthcare settings, the decisions by individual healthcare facilities have remained controversial and inconsistent. We sought to understand these decisions by examining COVID-19 case rates, hospitalization rates, and political affiliation, among counties where hospitals reported updated masking policies in news or social media posts. MethodsWe searched Twitter, Facebook, and Google for news stories related to changes in US healthcare facility masking policies between February 1st and April 30th, 2023. We extracted county-level COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations using data from the CDC and political affiliation was measured using the 2020 presidential election results. We performed logistic regression using COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and political affiliation as predictors and a complete lifting of masking requirements as the outcome. ResultsWe found that the odds of lifting the mask requirement was not associated with COVID-19 cases (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 - 1.02, p-value = 0.54), or hospitalizations (OR 1.06 95% CI 0.88-1.27, p-value = 0.33). We found that for every 10% increase in Republican votes in the 2020 presidential election, there was a 1.33 (95% CI 1.07 - 1.64, p-value = 0.01) increase in odds of having lifted masking requirements completely. DiscussionWe found that the odds of lifting the face mask requirement in healthcare facilities was not associated with COVID-19 cases or hospitalizations but was associated with county-level political affiliation. Our results raise the concern that public health measures may be increasingly seen as political gestures or a response to local political factors.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Relative contribution of COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection to population-level seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies in a large integrated health system 91%
- The COVID-19 health equity twindemic: Statewide epidemiologic trends of SARS-CoV-2 outcomes among racial minorities and in rural America 91%
- Mask adherence and rate of COVID-19 across the United States 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- An Evaluation of the Vulnerable Physician Workforce in the United States During the Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic 91%
- Impact of Primary Care Team Configuration on Access and Quality of Care 91%
- Association of patients’ past misdiagnosis experiences with trust in their current physician: the TRUMP 2 -Net study 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- NIH Funding of COVID-19 Research in 2020: a Cross Sectional Study 91%
- Surgery & COVID-19: A rapid scoping review of the impact of COVID-19 on surgical services during public health emergencies 91%
- Cohort Profile: A national prospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic outcomes in the U.S. - The CHASING COVID Cohort Study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- An Observational Study of COVID-19 from A Large Healthcare System in Northern New Jersey: Diagnosis, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes 90%
- Racial and ethnic disparities for SARS-CoV-2 positivity in the United States: a generalizing pandemic 90%
- Association of Chronic Acid Suppression and Social Determinants of Health with COVID-19 Infection 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.