Skip to main content

Explicating gender disparity in wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Background

The available evidence suggests that women were more likely to wear face masks as a precaution during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, few studies have explicated this gender disparity in wearing face masks. This study investigates associations of demographic factors with wearing face masks in Malaysia during the COVID-19 pandemic, then explicates gender disparity in wearing face masks from the lens of the Protection Motivation Theory.

Methods

The first part of this study employed a structured online survey of 708 Malaysian adult participants. Data collected were quantitatively analyzed by means of descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multiple linear regression. The second part of this study was conducted among 28 women to better understand gender disparity in protection motivations from the perspectives of women.

Results

Gender has the strongest positive association with wearing face masks (p-value < .001), followed by age (p-value = .028). The Protection Motivation Theory adequately explicated the gender disparity in wearing face masks. Additionally, women were motivated to wear face masks beyond protection from the SARS-CoV-2.

Conclusion

Understanding the underlying motivations for wearing face masks informs design of gender-based public health messages to increase compliance with public health regulations and reduce morbidity and mortality for present and future public health crises.

Peer Review reports

Background

Despite the availability of vaccines since December 2020, the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unabetted due to new waves and new variants of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Moreover, there are other issues related to vaccines, such as supply constraints [1], cost of procurement, unequitable distribution, stockpiling for strategic reasons, concerns about the effectiveness of vaccines against new variants of SARS-CoV-2, side effects from vaccinations, waning vaccine effectiveness over time [2, 3] and the well-described phenomenon of breakthrough infection after vaccination [2, 4].

Although a large section of the population was vaccinated, wearing face masks in specific situations and public settings remained an important public health intervention to protect healthy persons (i.e., prevention) and suppress onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from one infected individual to the others (i.e., source control) [5,6,7,8]. Because face masks offer protection against all variants of SARS-CoV-2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [9] recommends that fully vaccinated people wear a face mask in public settings irrespective of the level of community transmission.

However, wearing a face mask per se is insufficient to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 [7, 10] and may create a false sense of safety [7, 11, 12]. Consequently, at the individual level, a combination of nonpharmaceutical interventions are essential to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, such as the usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), improved personal hygiene, improved ventilation, reduction of attendance at gatherings, and physical barriers or physical distancing, is essential [13, 14]. The World Health Organization recommends using PPE, such as hand gloves, hand sanitizer, face shields, and medical/surgical face masks, as part of a comprehensive strategy for infection prevention and control of the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [7, 15].

Greenhalgh et al. [11] contend that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Using the principle of precaution, the authors suggest that there is little to lose and potentially something to gain from wearing face masks. Wearing face masks as a precaution has been escalated to double masking, that is, wearing a cloth mask over a surgical mask [16]. Wearing a face mask provides various benefits as masks are cheap and easy to use, have strong sustainability, and are good for health and economy [6, 10,11,12, 17, 18], in contrast to other stringent measures (for instance, isolation and social-distancing) with significant societal and economic costs [12, 19]. The extant body of literature suggests that wearing face masks is contingent upon various factors. Fundamental factors include feasibility of use, availability, affordability, and comfort [7, 20]. Contextual factors include demographics, individual values, culture, and social norms [7, 18, 21].

Moreover, the effectiveness of face masks to prevent and control the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants is contingent upon correct wearing of face masks and community-wide adoption most of the time [5,6,7, 10,11,12, 18, 20, 22]. Modeling results suggest a potentially high value of wearing face masks by the general public to curtail community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [6]. Community-wide wearing face masks is not a new nonpharmaceutical intervention. Dr. Lien Teh Wu, a Malayan epidemiologist, pioneered the development of surgical face masks and encouraged medical staff and the public to wear them during the Manchurian plague of 1910–1911 [23]. However, individual compliance for wearing face masks varies [8, 24, 25]. For instance, although wearing face masks in Malaysia was mandatory from August 1, 2020, the highest share for wearing face masks was 92% [26].

Prior research suggests that, in general, women are more risk averse than men [27], including the health/safety domain [28, 29]. Women were generally much more likely than men to appraise threat from SARS-CoV-2 as a severe health problem while men tend to have a more cavalier and macho attitude [28]. Men were more optimistic that they would not be seriously affected by the COVID-19 pandemic [30], although men were generally more susceptible to infectious diseases than women [31, 32]. Recent evidence suggests that the morbidity and mortality related to the COVID-19 pandemic are higher in men than in women [33,34,35]. This worldwide phenomenon, with few exceptions, is supported by a meta-analysis [36]. The available evidence suggests a gender divide in personal hygiene, with women being better at proper personal hygiene than men [33, 37,38,39]. Additionally, women were more likely to wear face masks as a precaution during the COVID-19 pandemic [30, 40] and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic [41]. Men were more likely to perceive wearing face masks as shameful, uncool, a sign of weakness, a stigma, threatening their masculine image and infringing their independence [30, 38, 42,43,44,45]. In sum, men are the “weak links in hygienic discipline” [46].

The public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic requires large-scale and significant shifts in individual behavior [18, 28] and imposes significant psychological burdens on individuals. As such, insights from the discipline of psychology can help align human behavior with recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts [18]. The Protection Motivation Theory [47] postulates that increases in threat severity, threat vulnerability, response efficacy, and self-efficacy promote adaptive behaviors to protect oneself or others. Antithetically, decreases in maladaptive response rewards and adaptive response costs promote adaptive behaviors to protect oneself or others. Response efficacy is the belief that adaptive behavior will be effective in protecting oneself or others. Self-efficacy is the perceived ability to perform adaptive behavior. Response costs are costs related to engaging in adaptive behavior, such as monetary, time, effort, etc.

An understanding of the underlying motivations of wearing face masks is critical for targeted messaging to increase the overall prevalence of wearing face masks among groups with lower rates of wearing face masks [40] during public health crises. As such, this study investigates associations of demographic factors with wearing face masks in Malaysia during the COVID-19 pandemic and explicates gender disparity in wearing face masks from the lens of the Protection Motivation Theory.

Methods

Study design

The research methodology for the first part of this study was quantitative using a survey to collect data. The time frame of this study was cross-sectional.

Measures

This self-administered online questionnaire contained demographic variables [13], such as gender (coded as 1 = man and 2 = woman), ethnicity, occupation, age, numbers of children under 18 years old living in the same household, health condition [13] (ranging from 1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, and 5 = excellent), frequency of washing hands (ranging from 1 = never to 7 = every time), sufficient personal protective equipment (ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always), and frequency of wearing face masks (ranging from 1 = never to 7 = every time) [24, 43]. The questionnaire used for this study is in the Additional file 1.

To minimize response and measurement biases, this study followed the standard survey approaches [48], such that there was no social pressure to influence responses, no questions that would provoke defensiveness or threaten esteem, and no payoff or cost for particular responses. Given the multicultural nature of Malaysia, the questionnaire is offered in three major languages: Malay, Mandarin, and English [49].

Participants

Malaysian adults above the age of 18 years old were eligible to participate in this survey (i.e., inclusion criteria). Participation in this survey was voluntary, and participants could opt out at any time. Moreover, participants were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. All participants consented to participate in this online survey. For the second part of this study, 28 women provided their views on gender disparity in wearing face masks.

Data collection

This study used Google Forms, an online survey questionnaire, which was a safe and feasible way of collecting data during the pandemic [50]. This study utilised several data collection strategies, including professional and personal networks [51] and snowball sampling technique [52] to reach as many participants as possible all over the country. The links to access the online questionnaires were distributed via WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and, email in May 2020. A valid response implies that the participant is a Malaysian, 18 years old or above, and answered all questions in the questionnaire. A total of 708 valid responses were received.

To better understand gender disparity in protection motivations from the perspective of women, the second part of this study was conducted among 28 women. The open-ended question mentioned, “I conducted a survey recently and found that women were more likely to put on face masks than men. The existing literature suggests that men perceive wearing face masks as incongruent with their masculine image. In other words, wearing face masks infringes on men’s independence or men wearing face masks may be perceived by others as weak. However, I would like to explain this phenomenon from women’s perspective: why women are more likely to wear face masks than men. As such, I would like to solicit your personal opinions. Please feel free to express your opinions as there are no right or wrong answers. The results will be presented in aggregate, and no person will be identified.”

Data analysis

Data collected from the online questionnaire were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS), version 26. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze participants’ demographics. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) checked gender disparities in health condition, usage of PPE, frequency of washing hands and frequency of wearing face masks. The multiple linear regression checked the nature and degree of association between the independent variables of demographics and the dependent variable of the frequency of wearing face masks. Data collected from the second part of this study were analyzed for their contents.

Results

The data were checked for normality using the normal Q–Q plot and results suggested that there was no serious violation. Thus, the use of parametric tests such as the ANOVA and the multiple linear regression was justified. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the participants. The survey received responses from all the states and federal territories in Malaysia. The percentage of men and women participants was almost equal. Moreover, the participants were also found to be heterogenous. In contrast to Cowling et al. [17], who reported a lower level of wearing face masks compared with hand hygiene and other nonpharmaceutical interventions, this study found a higher level of wearing face masks compared with washing hands and usage of PPE. This result could be due to wearing face masks is visible. Hence, there were higher levels of wearing face masks in Malaysia.

Table 1 Demographic and descriptive statistics of participants

The bivariate correlations (Table 2) revealed that gender (coded as 1 = man and 2 = woman) was positively correlated with the frequency of washing hands, usage of PPE, and frequency of wearing face masks. The frequency of washing hands and usage of PPE were correlated with the frequency of wearing face masks. Overall, the bivariate correlation results indicated the absence of multicollinearity.

Table 2 Bivariate correlations

Table 3 summarizes the analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for health condition, usage of PPE, frequency of washing hands, and frequency of wearing face masks between men and women. There were statistically significant differences in these variables between men and women. This finding corroborates prior studies that women consistently have a higher rate of wearing face masks than men [53,54,55].

Table 3 Summary of ANOVA

Table 4 presents the multiple linear regression results using the dependent variable of the frequency of wearing face masks. Among the demographic factors, gender (coded as 1 = man and 2 = woman) was the strongest positive predictor of the frequency of wearing face masks (p-value < .001), followed by age (p-value = .028). All variance inflation factors (VIFs) were close to one, indicating the absence of multicollinearity. Taken together, the results from Tables 3 and 4 indicated that women were more likely to wear face masks than men.

Table 4 Demographic factors associated with the frequency of wearing face masks

To better understand gender disparity in protection motivations from women’s perspectives, that is, alternative explications to masculinity found in the extant literature, the second part of this study was conducted among women. The responses from 28 women were then classified by the frequency of each element in the Protection Motivation Theory (Table 5) and are described below.

Table 5 Frequency of each element in the Protection Motivation Theory

Intrinsic rewards

Intrinsic rewards for women wearing face masks include boosting their confidence, having a sense of security, or reducing inferiority complexes. Wearing face masks can hide one’s social phobia or genuine facial expression without faking a smile. On the contrary, the intrinsic reward for men not wearing face masks is probably a sense of independence.

Extrinsic rewards

Extrinsic rewards for women wearing face masks include covering blemishes on their faces and avoiding unwanted attention from men. Additionally, face masks can be a fashion or accessory item, for instance, face masks with different colors and designs. Men tend to perceive negative extrinsic rewards for wearing face masks. Interestingly, women disagree with men’s perception of threat to their masculine image because of wearing face masks, indicating that this perception may be a fallacy among men. Stated differently, men are prisoners of their own device.

Vulnerability

Consistent with the recent literature [30], the women surveyed reported that men tend to believe that they will be relatively unaffected by the SARS-CoV-2. In other words, men underestimated health risks. In the first part of this study, men reported significantly better health conditions than women (p-value = .003 in Table 3). Many women mentioned that they were vulnerable (25 mentions), citing that they were more worried, anxious, cautious, careful, safety-conscious, and willing to take precautionary measures for safety. As such, women choose a safer and more comprehensive approach, motivating them to be more alert about their health and practice better personal hygiene to prevent infection by the SARS-CoV-2, which explains why women reported higher levels of PPE usage, a higher frequency of washing hands and a higher frequency of wearing face masks in the first part of this study (Table 3).

Response efficacy

The perceived weaker immune system among women may lead to their greater response efficacy, that is, they believe that the adaptive behavior of health and personal hygiene will be effective in protecting themselves and others against infection by the SARS-CoV-2. This response efficacy is also manifested in women’s self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy

Women’s self-efficacy (i.e., perceived ability) was divided into compliance and social responsibility/altruism. Many women mentioned that women were naturally more obedient, compliant, and strictly abided by the law to wear face masks. Many women felt more responsible/altruistic toward their family and community. Their “mother’s instinct” coupled with their altruistic values (14 mentions) motivated them to protect themselves first, to love, care and protect people around them, such as reminding the whole family to wear face masks. These findings corroborated with a previous study [28]. In sum, it can be deduced that women have a high coping ability for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Response costs

Women’s response costs for wearing face masks were reduced in terms of saving their time (i.e., less preparation) and lower expenses for make-up (17 mentions). Physiologically, women considered wearing face masks as another thing that they need to wear with a small marginal cost, whereas men’s response costs were higher because they perceived wearing face masks as an additional preparation or something troublesome.

Discussion

Principal findings

Consistent with a recent study [42], this study found that women reported significantly higher levels of usage of PPE, frequency of washing hands and frequency of wearing face masks than men (Table 3). The triangulation of findings from this study with previous study provided scientific evidence in support of the notion that men were the “weak links in hygienic discipline” [46].

Prior studies consistently found that women were more likely to wear face masks than men but failed to offer any coherent explanation. The literature suggests several explanations as to why men have higher rates of morbidity and mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic than women, broadly known as gender differences in biological, psychological, behavioral, and social factors [37]. Biologically, women have stronger immune responses against the SARS-CoV-2 [34, 56]. Behaviorally, men tend to engage in high-risk behaviors or lifestyles, leading to higher morbidity and mortality as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic [33, 34, 37, 56].

Scholars have called for public health and health-promotion interventions for changing a variety of health behaviors to be based on social and behavioral science theories [57]. In response to this call, this study explicated gender disparity in wearing face masks from the theoretical lens of the Protection Motivation Theory [47] supported by empirical evidence. This approach of health behavior theory in perspective [57] revealed a variety of underlying psychological motivations why women were more likely to wear face masks than men.

In contrast to Teasdale et al.’s [58] findings that coping appraisal solely predicted behavioral responses to pandemic flu, the present study employed the threat appraisal and coping appraisal of the Protection Motivation Theory to more comprehensively explain the gender divide in protection motivations for the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of threat appraisal, vulnerability was most frequently cited by women. In terms of coping appraisal, women perceived response efficacy (i.e., effectiveness of their responses to threat), self-efficacy (especially their altruism), and negative response costs (e.g., wearing a face mask lower their costs compared with make-up), resulting in their high coping appraisal. In sum, the combination of threat appraisal and coping appraisal increased protection motivations of women in comparison with men, as predicted by the Protection Motivation Theory. Additionally, women were motivated to wear face masks beyond protection from the SARS-CoV-2. Their motivations can include cosmetic, fashion, social and reduced response costs unexplored by prior studies.

Understanding the cognitive beliefs (i.e., motivations) of wearing face masks underlying gender difference, it may be possible to change these beliefs. There is sufficient evidence at this point to suggest that men need more convincing and/or incentive to wear face masks than women. Consequently, designing men-friendly public health messages is a mainstay in the twenty-first century [38]. To encourage safer behaviors and reduce the spread of the disease, public health officials can consider the insights generated from this study, which go beyond prior suggestions to superficially target pandemic messaging to men differently than to women. Based on the responses from the women surveyed in the part two of this study, it appeared that multiple strategies may be necessary to increase the frequency of wearing face masks by men. Public health messages to promote wearing face masks directed toward men should highlight the illusions of invulnerability, promote men’s perceived and actual ability (i.e., self-efficacy) to engage in preventative behaviors when in public, anticipate and address men’s negative psychological beliefs about the likely costs (e.g., wearing a face mask is not unmanly, the fallacy of masculine image or producing macho face masks for men), feature men’s responsibilities to protect themselves and others (e.g., “You are our hero”), and emphasize the benefits of preventative behaviors to reduce the impacts of current and future public health crises. Given that men underestimated health risks, more information on health risks should be targeted at men to increase their compliance behaviors. Parenthetically, enlisting credible sources to appear in public health messages may be effective in shaping men’s preventative behaviors [18].

Limitations and future work

This study has several limitations that can be addressed by future research. First, the sample is not representative. Thus, the results are not generalizable. A more representative sampling method is warranted to improve the generalizability of future findings. Second, in terms of methodology, this study used an online survey. Thus, people with no internet access, and lack of computing literacy not being surveyed. Third, the results might be subject to social desirability bias due to the self-report of participants. Fourth, other potential covariates (e.g., comorbidities) were not surveyed in the present study, which may positively bias the results. Fifth, in addition to combating epidemics or pandemics, there are many other issues related to wearing face masks, including social and cultural issues. Future research investigating factors associated with wearing face masks post the COVID-19 pandemic in different settings would be valuable in improving pandemic preparedness.

Conclusion

Wearing face masks in public places has become a global symbol of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization has warned that more lethal viruses will emerge in the future [59]. As such, it is envisaged that wearing face masks will continue to play an important role in infection prevention and control during the next pandemic until a new vaccine is widely available.

Explicating gender disparity in the frequency of wearing face masks is an interesting phenomenon worth exploring. This study found that being a woman has the strongest positive association with the frequency of wearing face masks and provided evidence that gender disparity can be adequately explicated by the Protection Motivation Theory. The central contribution of this study lies in offering a coherent explication for gender disparity in the frequency of wearing face masks via a psychological lens. Understanding the underlying motivations for wearing face masks informs design of gender-based public health messages to increase compliance with public health regulations and reduce morbidity and mortality for present and future public health crises.

Availability of data and materials

The data generated and/or analysed during the current study is available in the Mendeley Data repository, https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/hvg8wd6jdp/3.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Ten things you need to know about pandemic influenza (update of 14 October 2005). 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Keehner J, Horton LE, Binkin NJ, Laurent LC, Pride D, Longhurst CA, et al. Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a highly vaccinated health system workforce. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1330–2.

  3. Thompson MG, Natarajan K, Irving SA, et al. Effectiveness of a third dose of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19–associated emergency department and urgent care encounters and hospitalizations among adults during periods of Delta and omicron variant predominance — VISION network, 10 states, August 2021 – January 2022. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:139–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. del Rio C, Omer S, Malani PN. Winter of omicron — the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Med Assoc. 2022;32794:319–20. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.24315.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng VC, Wong SC, Chuang VW, So SY, Chen JH, Sridhar S, et al. The role of community-wide wearing of face mask for control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic due to SARS-CoV-2. J Infect. 2020;81(1):107–14.

  6. Eikenberry SE, Mancuso M, Iboi E, Phan T, Eikenberry K, Kuang Y, et al. To mask or not to mask: modeling the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic. Infect Dis Model. 2020;5:293–308.

  7. World Health Organization. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19. Interim guidance 2020. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332293

    Google Scholar 

  8. Koebele EA, Albright EA, Dickinson KL, Blanch-Hartigan D, Neuberger L, DeLeo RA, et al. Perceptions of efficacy are key determinants of mask-wearing behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Hazards Rev. 2021;22(3).

  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Omicron Variant: What You Need to Know. 2022. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/omicron-variant.html

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ma Q-X, Shan H, Zhang H-L, Li G-M, Yang R-M, Chen J-M. Potential utilities of mask-wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2020;92(9):1567–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Greenhalgh T, Schmid MB, Czypionka T, Bassler D, Gruer L. Face masks for the public during the COVID-19 crisis. Br Med J. 2020;369:m1435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Javid B, Weekes MP, Matheson NJ. COVID-19: should the public wear face masks? Br Med J. 2020;369(m1442):1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hao F, Shao W, Huang W. Understanding the influence of contextual factors and individual social capital on American public mask wearing in response to COVID–19. Health Place. 2021;68(102537).

  14. Wang J, Pan L, Tang S, Ji JS, Shi S. Mask use during COVID-19: a risk adjusted strategy. Environ Pollut. 2020;266.

  15. World Health Organization. Rational use of personal protective equipment for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and considerations during severe shortages. Interim guidance 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/rational-use-of-personal-protective-equipment-for-coronavirus-disease-(COVID-19)-and-considerations-during-severe-shortages

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brooks JT, Beezhold DH, Noti JD, Coyle JP, Derk RC, Blachere FM, et al. Maximizing fit for cloth and medical procedure masks to improve performance and reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission and exposure. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2021;70(7):254–7.

  17. Cowling BJ, Zhou Y, Ip DKM, Leung GM, Aiello AE. Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review. Epidemiol Infect. 2010;138(4):449–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Bavel JJ, Baicker K, Boggio PS, Capraro V, Cichocka A, Cikara M, et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4:460–71.

  19. Li T, Liu Y, Li M, Qian X, Dai SY. Mask or no mask for COVID-19: a public health and market study. PLoS One. 2020;15(8).

  20. Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention. CDC Science Brief: Community use of cloth masks to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. 2021. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fmore%2Fmasking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1619457332454.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Leffler CT, Ing E, Lykins JD, Hogan MC, McKeown CA, Grzybowski A. Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;103(6):2400–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen X, Ran L, Liu Q, Hu Q, Du X, Tan X. Hand hygiene, mask-wearing behaviors and its associated factors during the COVID-19 epidemic: a cross-sectional study among primary school students in Wuhan, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(8).

  23. Wu L. T. the second pneumonic plague epidemic in Manchuria, 1920–21. A general survey of the outbreak and its course. Epidemiol Infect. 1923;21:262–88.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Looi KH. Contextual factors of wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations to increase compliance. Malays J Med Sci. 2022; 29(1):147–53.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang SX, Looi KH, Li N, Wan X, Li L. Individual-level heterogeneity in mask wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021;105(6):1516–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Statista. Share of people who wore face masks in public places during COVID-19 outbreak in Malaysia from February 2020 to July 2022. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1110960/malaysia-wearing-masks-during-covid-19-outbreak/

  27. Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD. Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(3):367–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Galasso V, Pons V, Profeta P, Becher M, Brouard S, Foucault M. Gender differences in COVID-19 attitudes and behavior: Panel evidence from eight countries. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Weber EU, Blais A, Betz NE. A domain specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak. 2002;15(4):263–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Capraro V, Barcelo H. The effect of messaging and gender on intentions to wear a face covering to slow down COVID-19 transmission 2020 Available from: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.05467.pdf.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Giefing-Kröll C, Berger P, Lepperdinger G, Grubeck-Loebenstein B. How sex and age affect immune responses, susceptibility to infections, and response to vaccination. Aging Cell. 2015;14(3):309–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Klein SL, Flanagan KL. Sex differences in immune responses. Nat Rev Immunol. 2016;16(10):626–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bwire GM. Coronavirus: why men are more vulnerable to COVID-19 than women? SN Comprehensive Clin Med. 2020;2(7):874–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Capuano A, Rossi F, Paolisso G. COVID-19 kills more men than women: an overview of possible reasons. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2020;7(131).

  35. Department of Statistics Malaysia. Statistics on causes of death, Malaysia, 2022. Available from: https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=401&bul_id=QkxLckg3WjlzcEZyVzRIajllenBIQT09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09

    Google Scholar 

  36. Peckham H, de Gruijter NM, Raine C, Radziszewska A, Ciurtin C, Wedderburn LR, et al. Male sex identified by global COVID-19 meta-analysis as a risk factor for death and ITU admission. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Griffith DM, Sharma G, Holliday CS, Enyia OK, Valliere M, Semlow AR, et al. Men and COVID-19: a biopsychosocial approach to understanding sex differences in mortality and recommendations for practice and policy interventions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2020;17:E63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Business Insider. These surprisingly relevant vintage ads show how officials tried to convince people to wear masks after many refused during the 1918 flu pandemic 2020 Available from: https://www.businessinsider.nl/people-vintage-mask-ads-spanish-flu-1918-pandemic-2020-5/

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ipsos. Hygiene and cleanliness in the U.S. 2018. Available from: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/Hygiene-and-Cleanliness

    Google Scholar 

  40. Beckage B, Buckley TE, Beckage ME. Prevalence of wearing face masks in northern Vermont in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Rep. 2021;136(4):451–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tang CS, Wong C. Factors influencing the wearing of facemasks to prevent the severe acute respiratory syndrome among adult Chinese in Hong Kong. Prev Med. 2004;39:1187–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hearne BN, Niño MD. Understanding how race, ethnicity, and gender shape mask-wearing adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the COVID impact survey. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2022;9:176–83.

  43. Howard MC. Gender, face mask perceptions, and wearing face masks: are men being dangerous during the COVID-19 pandemic? Personal Individ Differ. 2021;170.

  44. Lee LY-K, Lam EP-W, Chan C-K, Chan S-Y, Chiu M-K, Chong W-H, et al. Practice and technique of using face mask amongst adults in the community: a crosssectional descriptive study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–11.

  45. Palmer CL, Peterson RD. Toxic mask-ulinity: the link between masculine toughness and affective reactions to mask wearing in the COVID-19 era. Polit Gend. 2020;16:1044–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Scerri M, Grech V. To wear or not to wear? Attitudes towards mask wearing then and now. Hektoen international a. J Med Hum. 2021;1–6.

  47. Floyd DL, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW. A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30(2):407–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hughes K. How to prevent response bias when conducting surveys. 2019. Available from: https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/prevent-response-bias-surveys

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dai H, Zhang SX, Looi KH, Su R, Li J. Perception of health conditions and test availability as predictors of adults’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey study of adults in Malaysia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15).

  50. Srivastav AK, Sharma N, Samuel AJ. Impact of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) lockdown on physical activity and energy expenditure among physiotherapy professionals and students using web-based open e-survey sent through WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram messengers. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2020;9:78–84.

  51. Azlan AA, Hamzah MR, Tham JS, Suffian Hadi Ayub SH, Mohamad E. Public knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in Malaysia. PLoS One. 2020;15:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Son C, Hegde S, Smith A, Wang X, Sasangohar F. Effects of COVID-19 on college students’ mental health in the United States: interview survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9).

  53. Margraf J, Brailovskaia J, Schneider S. Behavioral measures to fight COVID-19: an 8-country study of perceived usefulness, adherence and their predictors. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0243523.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Hassen S, Adane M. Facemask-wearing behavior to prevent COVID-19 and associated factors among public and private bank workers in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0259659.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Furnaz S, Baig N, Ali S, Rizwan S, Khawaja UA, Usman MA, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practice of wearing mask in the population presenting to tertiary hospitals in a developing country. PLoS One. 2022;17(3):e0265328.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Dehingia N, Raj A. Sex differences in COVID-19 case fatality: do we know enough? Lancet Glob Health. 2020;9(1):e14–e5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Glanz K, Bishop DB. The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:399–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Teasdale E, Yardley L, Schlotz W, Michie S. The importance of coping appraisal in behavioural responses to pandemic flu. Br J Health Psychol. 2012;17(1):44–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Parkhill M. When it comes to pandemics, COVID-19 might not be ‘the big one’: WHO: CTV News; 2020.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the Xiamen University Malaysia Research Fund [grant number XMUMRF/2019-C4/ISEM/0022]. The funding body has no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

There is only one author for this manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Hoe Looi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Xiamen University Malaysia (reference number: REC-2004.01). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The Author declares that there is no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. 

Questionnaire.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Looi, K.H. Explicating gender disparity in wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health 22, 2273 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14630-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14630-7

Keywords