Use of Respiratory Protection Devices by Medical Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The use of face masks has assumed a leading spot among nonspecific prevention measures during the coronavirus pandemic. The effectiveness of this protective measure depends on the specifics of individual use. The purpose of our study was to analyze the use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) by medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation of face mask use was based on the results of a survey of medical students at Sechenov University. There were 988 participants in the study: 97.5% used RPE during the pandemic, 89.1% used disposable medical and hygienic face masks, 27.4% used reusable cloth face masks, and 13.2% used respirators. The majority of respondents (75.2%) were found to wear face masks correctly. However, 17.0% of the respondents were found to cover only their mouths with a face mask, while 7.8% reported often shifting their face mask under the chin due to perceived discomfort. Only 25.1% of respondents changed their disposable face mask after 2–3 h of wearing, while 13.0% decontaminated and used it several times. Most cloth face mask users (93.7%) decontaminated their marks, but only 55.7% of respondents did so daily. Face masks were most often worn in medical organizations (91.5%), and 1.4% of respondents did not use respiratory protection anywhere. In conclusion, we consider it necessary to introduce a special module on nonspecific prevention in the discipline of hygiene

Analysis of the Face Mask Use by Public Transport Passengers and Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

(1) Background: The use of face masks and gloves in public places directly shows the commitment of the population to the established regulations. Public transport is one of the most-at-risk places of contamination. The aim of the study was to analyze the face mask use by public transport passengers and workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. (2) Methods: Public transport passengers and workers were surveyed. Periodic intermittent selective observation was used to gauge the level of adherence to the established regulations among public transport passengers. Factor analysis was used to identify factors determining the face-mask-wearing comfort. (3) Results: The majority of passengers (87.5%) and all transport workers (100%) used face masks and gloves. Most of the users wore only face masks. Only 41.6% of passengers and 74.7% of transport workers wore face masks correctly. Motivational attitudes at the implementation of preventive measures were determined: established regulations in the public place (55.8%) and the protection of one’s own health and the health of family members (44.2%). Only 22.5% of those wearing face masks believed that doing so will have any effect on the spread of an infectious disease, and 10.8% wore masks to maintain the health of people around themselves. A low level of social responsibility was demonstrated. For 53.4% of workers, face mask wearing was uncomfortable. The majority of workers had adverse reactions to mask wearing: feeling short of breath (52.8%), hyperemia of face skin (33.8%), and facial hyperhidrosis (67.4%). (4) Conclusions: The comfort of wearing a mask is determined by adverse reactions occurrence, the properties of the mask, working conditions, and the duration of wearing the face mask. It is necessary to develop recommendations to reduce wearing discomfort. These recommendations, along with methods of raising the social responsibility of the population, can contribute to a greater commitment of the population to non-specific prevention measures