Table 4.
Logistic regression analyses predicting high intention (0 = no, 1 = yes) to use condoms with steady sex partners (N = 149)
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | OR | 95% CI | B | OR | 95% CI | B | OR | 95% CI | B | OR | 95% CI | B | OR | 95% CI | |
| Step 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Education level | .25 | 1.3* | 1.1–1.6 | .11 | 1.1 | .86–1.5 | .07 | 1.1 | .81–1.4 | .07 | 1.1 | .81–1.4 | .01 | 1.0 | .74–1.4 |
| Partner HIV statusa | −1.2 | .30** | .14–.64 | −.43 | −.65 | .24–1.8 | −.40 | .67 | .24–1.9 | −.40 | .67 | .23–1.9 | −.35 | .70 | .22–2.3 |
| Step 2 | |||||||||||||||
| Attitudinal beliefs | .49 | 1.6 | .67–4.0 | .35 | 1.4 | .55–3.7 | .37 | 1.5 | .53–4.0 | 1.1 | .37–3.1 | ||||
| Subjective norms | .67 | 2.0 | 1.0–3.8 | .61 | 1.8 | .92–3.7 | .62 | 1.9 | .92–3.7 | .07 | .64 | .20–2.1 | |||
| Self-efficacy | 1.7 | 5.4*** | 2.1–13.7 | 1.6 | 4.9** | 1.7–13.6 | 1.6 | 4.9** | 1.7–14.3 | −.44 | 2.7 | .82–8.9 | |||
| Step 3 | |||||||||||||||
| ACSb | −.02 | .98 | .71–1.4 | −.02 | .98 | .70–1.4 | −.01 | .99 | .70–1.4 | ||||||
| ACOc | .24 | 1.3 | .88–1.8 | .24 | 1.3 | .88–1.8 | .22 | 1.3 | .85–1.8 | ||||||
| ARd | .29 | 1.3 | .50–3.5 | .28 | 1.3 | .50–3.5 | .21 | 1.2 | .43–3.5 | ||||||
| Step 4 | |||||||||||||||
| Sexual motives | .02 | 1.0 | .70–1.5 | −.04 | 1.0 | .65–1.4 | |||||||||
| Step 5 | |||||||||||||||
| Personal norms | 2.4 | 10.8** | 2.0–57.5 | ||||||||||||
| Nagelkerke R2 | .13 | .53 | .54 | .54 | .62 | ||||||||||
| Model χ2 | 15.8 | 74.5 | 77.1 | 77.1 | 92.1 | ||||||||||
Note. At each step, variables were included in the equation simultaneously.
aVariable coding: 0 = HIV-negative or unknown, 1 = HIV-positive.
bAwareness consequences self.
cAwareness consequences others.
dAscription of responsibility.
*p <.05.
**p <.01.
***p <.001 (two-tailed).