Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns were raised that face covering use may elicit risk compensation; a false sense of security resulting in reduced adherence to other protective behaviours such as physical distancing. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of face covering use on adherence to other COVID-19 related protective behaviours. Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, EmCare, medRxiv preprints, Research Square and WHO COVID-19 Research Database were searched. All primary research studies published from 1 January 2020 to 17th May 2022 which investigated the effect of face covering use on adherence to other protective behaviours in public settings during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Papers were selected and screened in accordance with the PRISMA framework. Backwards and forwards citation searches of included papers were also conducted on 16th September 2022, with eligible papers published between 1st January 2020 and that date being included. A quality appraisal including risk of bias was assessed using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ Quality Criteria Checklist. This review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42022331961. 47 papers were included, with quality ranging from low to high. These papers investigated the effects of face covering use and face covering policies on adherence to six categories of behaviour: physical distancing; mobility; face-touching; hand hygiene; close contacts; and generalised protective behaviour. Results reveal no consistent evidence for or against risk compensation, with findings varying according to behaviour and across study types. There is a suggestion that face covering use might reduce face-touching and face covering mandates might increase mobility, though the lack of robust evidence means these are tentative claims. Evidence on the other protective behaviours is largely inconsistent, and therefore confident conclusions cannot be made in these areas. Any policy decisions related to face coverings must consider the inconsistencies and caveats in this evidence base.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=331961
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work. HC and CS are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Units (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), King's College London and the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, UKHSA or other government departments
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Typo removed from line 96 (double full-stop).
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
