Table 2.
Intervention effects on month 6 measures of alter cervical cancer (CC) prevention advocacy (full scale and each item) and potential mediators
| Outcome measures [beta (SE)]a | Potential mediators [beta (SE)]a | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Discussed the importance of getting screened for CC risk (scale: 1–5) | (2) Discussed how and/or where to get screened for CC risk (scale: 1–5) | (3) Discussed how to prevent CC (scale: 1–5) | (4) Discussed the need to use condoms to limit the risk of getting HPV-infected and CC (scale: 1–5) | (5) Discussed the benefits of having fewer sexual partners to limit the risk of getting HPV-infected and CC (scale: 1–5) | (6) Discussed the importance of getting treatment, if screening shows signs of CC risk (scale: 1–5) | (7) Mean prevention advocacy by alter (scale: 1–5) | (8) CC knowledge (scale: 0–16) | (9) CC enacted stigma (scale: 1–3) | (10) Level of CC prevention advocacy received by alter from index (scale: 0–3) | (11) CC risk management self-efficacy (scale: 0–10) | |
| Treatment (binary) | 1.56*** (0.24) | 1.61*** (0.26) | 1.82*** (0.26) | 1.74*** (0.26) | 1.76*** (0.25) | 1.91*** (0.22) | 1.74*** (0.23) | 4.69*** (0.65) | 0.07 (0.08) | 0.35*** (0.09) | 2.70*** (0.72) |
| Observations | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 |
| Reference (control) mean at month 6 | 2.2 (0.89) | 2.02 (0.99) | 1.42 (0.75) | 1.24 (0.71) | 1.2 (0.69) | 2.02 (0.87) | 1.68 (0.69) | 6.13 (2.93) | 1.6 (0.36) | 1.91 (0.48) | 6.58 (2.11) |
| Socio-demographic controlsb | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
aThe beta [SE] values were estimated using multiple linear regression models, with the month 6 measure as the outcome and the intervention assignment as the independent variable
bThe regressions controlled for the baseline measure, alter age, secondary education status, and the presence of a main sexual partner