Table 5.
Associations between consistent diaphragm use with “other” partners in 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 | OR | (95% CI) | OR | (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bivariable model | Multivariable model† | |||||
| Time-independent factors | ||||||
| Age | ||||||
| ≤27 years | 73 | 53 | Referent | |||
| 28–34 years | 81 | 40 | 1.5 | (0.8, 3.0) | ||
| ≥35 years | 79 | 36 | 1.6 | (0.8, 3.3) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Never married and cohabiting | 64 | 36 | Referent | |||
| Cohabiting, divorced or widowed | 169 | 93 | 1.1 | (0.6, 2.0) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Education completed | ||||||
| 0–8 years | 193 | 105 | 1.1 | (0.5, 2.2) | ||
| 9–12 years | 40 | 24 | Referent | |||
|
| ||||||
| Parity | ||||||
| 0–1 children | 45 | 43 | Referent | Referent | ||
| ≥2 children | 188 | 86 | 2.2 | (1.2, 4.0) | 2.1 | (1.1, 4.0) |
|
| ||||||
| Time-dependent factors | ||||||
| Study follow-up visit | ||||||
| 2-month | 75 | 53 | Referent | |||
| 4-month | 78 | 44 | 1.2 | (0.8, 1.8) | ||
| 6-month | 80 | 32 | 1.7 | (1.1, 2.6) | ||
|
| ||||||
| All sex partners in past 2 weeks | ||||||
| 1–5 | 116 | 54 | 1.5 | (1.0, 2.1) | ||
| 6–42 | 117 | 75 | Referent | |||
|
| ||||||
| Coital acts with all partners in past 2 weeks | ||||||
| 0–5 acts | 41 | 14 | 2.1 | (1.0, 4.3) | ||
| 6–15 acts | 129 | 72 | 1.2 | (0.8, 2.0) | ||
| ≥16 acts | 63 | 42 | Referent | |||
|
| ||||||
| Consistent condom use with “other” partners in past 2 weeks | ||||||
| Yes | 165 | 70 | 2.0 | (1.2, 3.4) | 2.1 | (1.2, 3.7) |
| No | 68 | 59 | Referent | Referent | ||
| Component 1 (Perceived partner support of diaphragm use) | 1.2 | (0.9, 1.4) | ||||
| Component 2 (Attitudes toward study product attributes) | 1.2 | (1.0, 1.5) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Diaphragm + gel use is easier than condom use | ||||||
| Yes | 189 | 79 | 2.5 | (1.5, 4.1) | 2.3 | (1.4, 3.8) |
| No | 44 | 50 | Referent | Referent | ||
|
| ||||||
| Important that diaphragm use does not interrupt sex | ||||||
| Yes | 222 | 117 | 2.9 | (1.3, 6.5) | 2.2 | (1.0, 5.0) |
| No | 11 | 12 | Referent | |||
|
| ||||||
| No need for condoms is benefit of diaphragm + gel use | ||||||
| Yes | 50 | 26 | 1.8 | (1.0, 3.1) | 2.3 | (1.3, 4.2) |
| No | 183 | 103 | Referent | Referent | ||
OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.
*Analyzed with logistic regression model with generalized estimating equations based on 362 bimonthly study visits from 135 women who reported having sex with “other” partner during at least one bimonthly visit.
† 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 sex partners in past 2 weeks (0 versus 1-2 versus ≥3); and the remaining factors that did not load in principal component analysis (listed in the footnote for Table 4).