Factors Associated With Mask Use in New York City Neighborhood Parks During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Observational Study

Abstract

Background: Mask use is a cost-effective measure to decrease COVID-19 transmission. Mask mandates and guideline intend to increase mask compliance but are often ambiguous when it comes to public outdoor spaces, such as parks.Methods: We used an observational study to examine mask use in New York City neighborhood parks during COVID-19. 1453 park visitors were observed in 13 parks during July-August 2020 using a modified and validated park use audit tool (SOPARC) that included items on general and proper mask use (i.e., mask covering both nose and mouth). GEE regression was used to determine the association between proper mask use and demographic (sex and age) and behavioral (physical and social activity) variables, while adjusting for community-level covariates.Findings: Overall, 39·0% of park visitors used masks (24·4% properly, 14·6% improperly). Females (p = 0·023), adults (p = 0·025), and seniors (p = 0·006) showed higher rates of proper mask use compared to males and younger visitors. Physical and social activity were not significantly associated with proper mask use.Interpretation: Continuing mask use is important despite the rollout of vaccines. There is a need for improved messaging regarding the proper use of masks, particularly among males and younger people. Future research should focus on developing and evaluating targeted public health messages regarding proper mask use.Funding Information: Funded in part by the National Cancer Institute (R01CA206877), New York State Health Foundation (#16-04236), Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (E4A Program Grant #76473), Bryant Park Corporation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U48DP006396).Declaration of Interests: We declare no conflict of interests.Ethics Approval Statement: The PARCS study received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the City University of New York. However, SOPARC audits are based on field observations in public spaces and are thus not considered human subject research. As the SOPARC data used were collected by the city and shared with the authors of this paper for research, the current paper is considered secondary data analysis in nature.