Table 3.

HIV Testing and HIV Prevention Outcomes Among Refugee Youth Participants (n = 117 ^a ) in the Todurujo na Kadurok (Empowering Youth) Randomized Controlled Trial, Bidi Bidi Refugee Settlement, Uganda.

		Odds ratio (OR) or beta coefficient (β)	95% confidence interval (CI)	p	Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) b or adjusted beta coefficient (aβ) b	95% CI	p
Primary outcome
Any HIV test at Time 2 (OR)
	HIV self-test kit alone arm (HIVST) versus standard of care arm (SOC)	4.16	1.57, 11.08	.004	2.81	0.96, 8.16	.058
	Comic versus SOC	3.48	1.40, 8.65	.007	4.14	1.58, 10.87	.004
	HIVST + comic versus SOC	7.51	2.23, 25.35	.001	8.46	2.87, 24.97	<.001
Secondary outcomes
HIV-related stigma: Public attitudes about people with HIV (β)
	HIVST versus SOC	−0.84	−1.67,−0.001	.05	−0.95	−1.88,−0.03	.04
	Comic versus SOC	−0.01	−0.90, 0.87	.98	−0.33	−1.29, 0.63	.50
	HIVST + comic versus SOC	−0.02	−0.85, 0.81	.97	−0.22	−1.17, 0.73	.64
HIV knowledge scale (β)
	HIVST versus SOC	−0.53	−1.28, 0.22	.17	−0.61	−1.46, 0.25	.16
	Comic versus SOC	−0.55	−1.46, 0.36	.24	−0.30	−1.23, 0.63	.53
	HIVST + comic versus SOC	0.45	−0.29, 1.19	.23	0.59	−0.31, 1.48	.20
Safer sex efficacy (β)
	HIVST versus SOC	−0.07	−3.26, 3.12	.97	0.54	−2.81, 3.90	.75
	Comic versus SOC	0.68	−2.62, 3.98	.69	−0.62	−4.20, 2.96	.73
	HIVST + comic versus SOC	1.92	−1.28, 5.11	.24	1.63	−1.55, 4.81	.32
Condom use during last sex c (OR)
	HIVST versus SOC	0.25	0.09, 0.69	.01	0.21	0.07, 0.65	.01
	Comic versus SOC	1.17	0.44, 3.15	.75	0.99	0.33, 3.01	.99
	HIVST + comic versus SOC	0.45	0.17, 1.17	.10	0.39	0.13, 1.20	.10
Consistent condom use in last 3 months c (OR)
	HIVST versus SOC	0.08	0.01, 0.67	.02	0.10	0.02, 0.58	.01
	Comic versus SOC	1.26	0.40, 3.99	.70	1.07	0.29, 3.89	.92
	HIVST + comic versus SOC	0.43	0.10, 1.82	.25	0.42	0.10, 1.74	.23
Adolescent SRH stigma (β)
	HIVST versus SOC	0.12	−0.81, 1.04	.81	−0.09	−1.18, 1.00	.88
	Comic versus SOC	0.11	−0.98, 1.20	.84	−0.20	−1.57, 1.17	.76
	HIVST + comic versus SOC	0.07	−0.81, 0.94	.88	−0.23	−1.34, 0.89	.69
Sexual Relationship Power: Relationship control subscale (β)
	HIVST versus SOC	−0.91	−4.13, 2.31	.58	−0.50	−3.75, 2.75	.76
	Comic versus SOC	−1.79	−4.59, 1.01	.21	−2.50	−5.35, 0.35	.09
	HIVST + comic versus SOC	−0.50	−3.48, 2.48	.74	−0.80	−3.82, 2.23	.61
Sexual relationship power: decision-making dominance subscale (β)
	HIVST versus SOC	0.24	−1.87, 2.35	.82	0.43	−0.65, 1.51	.44
	Comic versus SOC	0.78	−1.44, 3.00	.49	0.48	−0.61, 1.57	.39
	HIVST + comic versus SOC	−0.50	−2.68, 1.68	.65	−0.62	−1.74, 0.49	.27
Sexual relationship power scale overall score (β)
	HIVST versus SOC	−0.016	−0.31, 0.28	.92	0.021	−0.18, 0.23	.84
	Comic versus SOC	−0.0039	−0.30, 29	.98	−0.064	−0.25, 0.13	.51
	HIVST + comic versus SOC	−0.068	−0.36, 0.22	.65	−0.095	−0.30, 0.11	.36

^a Regression models were conducted among participants who had outcomes measured at Time 1 and Time 2 (n = 117); those who were lost to follow-up at Time 2 (n = 3) were not included.

^b Adjusted for the baseline measure of the respective outcome, pre-specified covariates (age, gender, length of stay in Uganda) and baseline imbalances (history of vaginal sex, condom use during the last sexual intercourse, and ever HIV test at T1). To note, although education and sexual orientation were imbalanced at baseline, these covariates perfectly predicted failures in the outcomes so they were not adjusted for in the models.

^c Condom use models were conducted among those who had sex between Time 1 and 2 (n = 86).