Table 3.
Adjusted effects of gender on risk behavior
| Consistent Sites | Inconsistent/outlying Sites | Data not available | |
| Receptive Sharing | 1.14 (0.94 – 1.37) | - | - |
| Distributive Sharing | 1.06 (0.87 – 1.30) | - | - |
| Cooker/Cotton/Rinse Water Sharing | 1.79 (1.43 – 2.24) | Minsk: 0.57 (0.35 – 0.91) | - |
| Drawing From a Common Solution | 1.15 (0.93 – 1.42) | - | - |
| Pre-Filled Syringe | 1.58 (1.18 – 2.10) | Kharkiv: 0.59 (0.38 – 0.93) | Beijing |
| Frontloading/Backloading/Splitting | 1.48 (1.17 – 1.85) | - | - |
| Receptive Sharing Primary Sex Partner | 3.67 (2.74 – 4.91) | Hanoi: 50.23 (12.67 – 351.20) | - |
| Receptive Sharing Close Friend | 0.78 (0.61 – 0.98) | Kharkiv: 0.36 (0.21 – 0.59) | - |
| Distributive Sharing Primary Sex Partner | 2.62 (1.94 – 3.54) | - | Beijing and Santos |
| Distributive Sharing Close Friend | 0.63 (0.48 – 0.82) | Nairobi: 3.70 (1.06 – 15.36) | Beijing |
| Bogota: 1.92 (1.00 – 3.70) | |||
| Unprotected Sex Primary Partners | 1.67 (1.39 – 2.00) | - | - |
| Unprotected Sex Casual Partners | 0.52 (0.39 – 0.69) | Hanoi: 7.48 (3.61 – 16.01) | - |
Notes: Cell contents are adjusted odds ratios with 95% profile likelihood confidence intervals in parentheses. In Beijing, only two IDUs injected with a pre-filled syringe, and these were both males. In Santos, only 2 IDUs engaged in distributive syringe sharing with a primary sex partner, and these were both males. In both of these cases, the odds ratio estimated for the adjusted gender effect was very extreme and the standard error for the gender coefficient also was quite large. IDUs in Beijing were not asked about distributive sharing with primary sex partners and close friends.