Table 3.
Associations between consistent diaphragm use with “helping” partner during previous 2 weeks and selected demographic characteristics and attitudes toward diaphragm use, Nairobi, Kenya, 2004-2005*.
| No. of intervals with consistent use | No. of intervals without consistent use | Bivariable model | Multivariable model† | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | (95% CI) | OR | (95% CI) | |||
| Time-independent factors | ||||||
| Age | ||||||
| ≤27 years | 63 | 49 | Referent | |||
| 28–34 years | 75 | 45 | 1.4 | (0.7, 2.7) | ||
| ≥35 years | 46 | 35 | 1.1 | (0.5, 2.4) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Never married and cohabiting | 57 | 34 | 1.2 | (0.6, 2.2) | ||
| Cohabiting, divorced or widowed | 127 | 95 | Referent | |||
|
| ||||||
| Education completed | ||||||
| 0–8 years | 141 | 104 | Referent | |||
| 9–12 years | 43 | 25 | 1.3 | (0.6, 2.8) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Parity | ||||||
| 0-1 children | 45 | 35 | Referent | |||
| ≥2 children | 139 | 94 | 1.2 | (0.6, 2.3) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Time-dependent factors | ||||||
| Study follow-up visit | ||||||
| 2-month | 55 | 53 | Referent | |||
| 4-month | 63 | 40 | 1.4 | (0.9, 2.2) | ||
| 6-month | 66 | 36 | 1.5 | (1.0, 2.4) | ||
|
| ||||||
| All sex partners in past 2 weeks | ||||||
| 1–5 | 106 | 61 | 1.2 | (0.8, 1.9) | ||
| 6–42 | 78 | 68 | Reference | |||
|
| ||||||
| Coital acts with all partners in past 2 weeks | ||||||
| 0–5 acts | 31 | 17 | 1.5 | (0.7, 2.8) | ||
| 6–15 acts | 109 | 73 | 1.3 | (0.8, 2.2) | ||
| ≥16 acts | 44 | 39 | Referent | |||
|
| ||||||
| Consistent condom use with “helping” partner in past 2 weeks | ||||||
| Yes | 57 | 26 | 1.5 | (0.9, 2.6) | ||
| No | 127 | 103 | Referent | |||
|
| ||||||
| Component 1 (Perceived partner support of diaphragm use) | 1.3 | (1.1, 1.7) | 1.4 | (1.1, 1.7) | ||
| Component 2 (Attitudes toward study product attributes) | 1.2 | (1.0, 1.5) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Diaphragm + gel use is easier than condom use | ||||||
| Yes | 140 | 81 | 1.9 | (1.2, 3.1) | 2.0 | (1.2, 3.1) |
| No | 44 | 48 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Important to participant that diaphragm use does not interrupt sex | ||||||
| Yes | 176 | 119 | 2.7 | (1.1, 6.6) | 2.8 | (1.1, 7.1) |
| No | 8 | 10 | Referent | |||
OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval
*Analyzed with logistic regression model with generalized estimating equations based on 313 intervals from 121 women who reported having sex with “helping” partner during at least one follow-up interval.
† Adjusted for all variables in column.
The following variables also were analyzed but were not associated with consistent diaphragm use: ethnicity (Kikuyu versus other), education (≤9 USD versus >9 USD); important to prevent pregnancy (not at all versus moderately or a lot); worry about pregnancy (not at all versus moderately or a lot); worry about HIV (not at all versus moderately or a lot); new main sex partners in past 2 weeks (0 versus 1-2 versus ≥3); under the influence of alcohol during sex with “helping” partner in past 2 weeks (never versus ≥1 time); under the influence of “bhang” or other drugs during sex with “helping” partner in past 2 weeks (never versus ≥1 time); and the remaining factors that did not load in principal component analysis (listed in the footnote for Table 2).