Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content

Table 3 Multivariable associations1 (adjusted odds ratios [AOR]) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs): multivariate associations between social, environmental and intervention exposure factors and condom use with non-commercial partners. Five models (MODEL1-MODEL5) were constructed for each of the five explanatory variables for intervention exposure and each of the two outcomes, for 10 models total.

From: A dose-response relationship between exposure to a large-scale HIV preventive intervention and consistent condom use with different sexual partners of female sex workers in southern India

  

Consistent condom use2 with most recent non-paying partner

Consistent condom use2 with husband or cohabiting partner

  

AOR [95% CIs]

P

AOR [95% CIs]

P

1

Ever contacted by intervention staff (versus not ever contacted)

1.40 [0.47-4.18]

0.542

0.35 [0.11-1.16]

0.085

2

Had a condom demonstration by intervention staff (versus never had a condom demonstration)

1.72 [0.60-4.91]

0.311

0.50 [0.17-1.43]

0.194

3

Duration since first contacted by intervention staff

Has not been contacted

Less than one year (greater than zero)

One year

Two-three years

Test for trends

1.0 (ref)

1.05 [0.34-3.29]

1.52 [0.43-5.40]

2.74 [0.64-11.74]

0.930

0.515

0.173

/

1.0 (ref)

0.39 [0.11-1.44]

0.48 [0.13-1.78]

0.20 [0.03-1.43]

0.156

0.272

0.108

/

4

Number of times contacted by intervention staff

Zero

Five or fewer (greater than zero)

Greater than five

Test for trends

1.0 (ref)

1.66 [0.56-4.93]

0.43 [0.09-2.09]

0.358

0.293

0.146

1.0 (ref)

0.42 [0.13-1.36]

0.43 [0.11-1.66]

0.146

0.219

/

5

Number of condom demos by staff seen past month

Zero

One

Two

Three or greater

Test for trends

1.0 (ref)

3.43 [0.95-12.48]

3.39 [0.89-12.97]

1.02 [0.28-3.67]

0.061

0.074

0.979

/

1.0 (ref)

0.86 [0.23-3.15]

0.64 [0.18-2.27]

0.33 [0.10-1.00]

0.815

0.491

0.072

0.045

  1. 1 Models were all adjusted for variables that were included a priori and variables that were significantly associated with each outcome on the p<0.10-level in bivariate analysis. For all three outcomes, a priori variables included district and typology of sex work (place of solicitation); for condom use with the husband or cohabiting partners, models were also adjusted by age at first sex work.
  2. 2 Consistent condom use is defined as reporting always (100%) using condoms.
  3. / Test for trend not significant in bivariate analysis, and was not tested in multivariable models.