Table 3.
Variable | n | Condom use at last sex | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
OR | (95% CI) | P-value | ||
Multiple sexual partners in the last 12 months | ||||
No | 83 | Ref. | ||
Yes | 60 | 0.77 | (0.35 - 1.67) | 0.504 |
Age (years) | ||||
10 - 14 | 28 | Ref. | ||
15 - 19 | 115 | 3.69 | (1.21 - 11.25) | 0.022 |
District of residence | ||||
Rufiji | 43 | Ref. | ||
Kigoma | 15 | 7.45 | (1.79 - 31.06) | 0.006 |
Kilombero | 39 | 8.89 | (2.91 - 27.21) | < 0.001 |
Ulanga | 46 | 5.88 | (2.00 - 17.31) | 0.001 |
If you wish, could you get a condom? | ||||
No | 14 | Ref. | ||
Yes | 129 | 4.00 | (0.79 - 20.29) | 0.095 |
n = Number of respondents for variable category; OR = Odds ratio; CI = Confidence interval; Ref. = Reference category.
The influence of multiple sexual partners on condom use is adjusted for age, district of residence and whether or not one can obtain a condom if he/she wants. Factors that do not appear in this table (regardless of their significance level in the test of associations in table 2) presented immaterial effect on condom use and this remained impervious when the log likelihood ratio test was used. Since this was somewhat a small sample, the log likelihood ratio test was used to select variables for the multivariate model (rather than relying on the P < 0.2 criterion), except multiple sexual partnerships which was the exposure variable of interest.