Face mask use in healthcare settings: effects on communication, cognition, listening effort and strategies for amelioration

Lee, Emily; Cormier, Kayla; Sharma, Anu

doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00353-7

Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

Table 2 Linear Regression Outcomes

From: Face mask use in healthcare settings: effects on communication, cognition, listening effort and strategies for amelioration

	Beta coefficient	Delta R²	F value (df)	P value
Listening Effort with a Mask
Hearing loss	0.93	0.09	23.87 (1,235)	< 0.001*
Respondent	− 0.37	0.03	6.17 (1,235)	0.061
Age	0.00	0.00	0.02 (1,235)	0.912
Gender	− 0.10	0.00	0.39 (1,235)	0.732
Respondenthearing loss*	− 0.10	0.00	0.10 (1,235)	0.890
Agehearing loss*	0.00	0.01	0.15 (1,235)	0.866
Genderhearing loss*	− 0.39	0.00	1.32 (1,235)	0.485
Trouble understanding conversation
Listening effort with a mask	0.05	0.06	13.58 (1,233)	< 0.001*
Hearing loss	0.12	0.04	8.34 (1,233)	0.026*
Respondent	− 0.08	0.03	6.73 (1,233)	0.047*
Age	0.00	0.01	1.09 (1,233)	0.505
Gender	− 0.05	0.01	4.06 (1,233)	0.373
Respondenthearing loss*	− 0.09	0.01	2.15 (1,233)	0.340
Agehearing loss*	0.00	0.00	0.14 (1,233)	0.866
Genderhearing loss*	− 0.18	0.03	6.67 (1,233)	0.047*
Listening effort with a maskhearing loss*	− 0.11	0.06	15.59 (1,233)	< 0.001*
Interest in conversations with a mask
Listening effort with a mask	− 0.41	0.17	6.47 (1,32)	0.063
Hearing loss	0.61	0.03	1.12 (1,32)	0.505
Age	0.02	0.11	3.83 (1,32)	0.192
Gender	1.01	0.10	3.45 (1,32)	0.220
Agehearing loss*	0.01	0.00	0.13 (1,32)	0.866
Genderhearing loss*	− 1.71	0.07	2.48 (1,32)	0.310
Listening effort with a maskhearing loss*	0.34	0.03	1.13 (1,32)	0.505
Connecting with patients with masks
Listening effort with a mask	0.61	0.09	18.52 (1,195)	< 0.001*
Hearing loss	− 0.10	0.00	0.08 (1,195)	0.896
Age	− 0.01	0.00	0.54 (1,195)	0.651
Gender	0.27	0.00	0.69 (1,195)	0.588
Agehearing loss*	0.04	0.02	4.65 (1,195)	0.111
Genderhearing loss*	0.60	0.00	0.84 (1,195)	0.536
Listening effort with a maskhearing loss*	0.26	0.00	0.86 (1,195)	0.536
Cognition patient—more difficult remember
Listening effort with a mask	0.45	0.19	7.50 (1,32)	0.047*
Hearing loss	0.13	0.00	0.05 (1,32)	0.912
Age	0.00	0.00	0.03 (1,32)	0.912
Gender	− 0.21	0.01	0.15 (1,32)	0.866
Agehearing loss*	− 0.03	0.05	1.82 (1,32)	0.384
Genderhearing loss*	0.21	0.00	0.04 (1,32)	0.912
Listening effort with a maskhearing loss*	− 0.56	0.08	2.86 (1,32)	0.260
Cognition patient—more focus
Listening effort with a mask	0.44	0.33	16.08 (1,32)	< 0.001*
Hearing loss	− 0.41	0.03	1.10 (1,32)	0.505
Age	− 0.01	0.03	0.87 (1,32)	0.536
Gender	− 0.93	0.17	6.31 (1,32)	0.063
Agehearing loss*	− 0.02	0.10	3.37 (1,32)	0.219
Genderhearing loss*	0.99	0.05	1.78 (1,32)	0.384
Listening effort with a maskhearing loss*	− 0.37	0.08	2.88 (1,32)	0.260
Clinical efficiency
Listening effort with a mask	0.51	0.14	30.37(1,195)	< 0.001*
Hearing loss	0.04	0.01	1.01(1,195)	0.514
Age	0.00	0.00	0.01 (1,195)	0.929
Gender	0.01	0.00	0.07 (1,195)	0.896
Agehearing loss*	0.00	0.00	0.01 (1,195)	0.929
Genderhearing loss*	− 0.03	0.00	0.18 (1,195)	0.866
Listening effort with a maskhearing loss*	0.04	0.01	1.73 (1,195)	0.384

Outcome variables were rated on Likert scales. For each of these scales, higher scores were indicative of more difficulty or greater changes with mask use, except regarding interest in conversations for which a higher score denoted more interest in conversations. Estimated beta coefficients for categorical variables denote the difference in average ratings between the groups (hearing loss vs no hearing loss, healthcare provider vs patient, female vs male). For continuous measures (age or listening effort), the beta coefficients indicate the predicted change in the outcome variable for each 1 unit increase in the predictor variable. Both trouble understanding conversations and change in clinical efficiency were log transformed for analysis. Delta R² represents the percent of variable variation explained by each predictor in the model. In these linear regressions, listening effort with a mask was often associated with communication, cognitive, and clinical efficiency outcomes. All reported p-values were adjusted using the Benjamini–Hochberg False Discovery Rate procedure. *p < 0.05

Back to article page