Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: Soc Sci Med. 2010 May 25;71(4):832–839. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.039

Table 3.

Associations between peer norms and consistent condom use with FSWs: bivariate and multivariate analyses

	Unadjusted model	Adjusted model

	OR(95%CI) (n=562)	Model 1 AOR(95%CI) (n=562)	Model 2 AOR(95%CI) (n=562)
Age^a	0.94(0.93,0.95)^***	0.94(0.93,0.94)^***	0.93(0.93,0.94)^***
Monthly income (>=1,000 yuan)	1.37(1.09,1.72)^**	0.94(0.61,1.44)	0.95(0.65,1.38)
Married	1.17(0.93,1.46)⁺	2.09(1.28,3.40)^**	2.14(1.34,3.41)^**
Commercial sex visit with friends (vs. alone)	1.30(0.72,2.36)	0.73(0.40,1.35)	0.30(0.13,0.69)^**
Number of peers who had paid for sex	0.99(0.97,1.01)	---	---
High descriptive norm	6.84(4.60,10.18)^***	5.95(3.96,8.92)^***	9.94(4.87,20.32)^***
High injunctive norm	2.50(1.65,3.80)^**	1.94(1.00,3.74)^*	0.81(0.55,1.20)
More communication	1.78(1.11,2.84)^*	1.48(0.98,2.23)⁺	1.16(0.44,3.07)
High descriptive norm × Commercial sex visit with friends	---	---	0.50(0.31,0.80)^**
High injunctive norm × Commercial sex visit with friends	---	---	3.49(1.33,9.13)^*
More communication × Commercial sex visit with friends	---	---	1.42(1.01,3.26)^*

^a

Age was centered by mean of 37 years old.

⁺

p<.10

^*

p<.05

^**

p<.01

^***

p<.001