Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addiction. 2011 Jun 1;106(10):1780–1787. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03459.x

Table 2.

Comparisons of social network components between young opiate users with and without concurrent sexual partners

Weighted Median/Mean (IQRa/SDb)
Crude
Adjustedc
Concurrency Non-concurrency ORd 95%CIe OR 95%CI
Support network size 7 (5–10) 6 (4–9) 1.05 0.99–1.12 1.05 0.98–1.13
Sexual network size 1 (0–2) 1 (0–1) 1.71 1.39–2.10 f 1.91 1.52–2.39
Drug-use network size 3 (2–5) 2 (1–4) 1.13 1.04–1.23 1.16 1.03–1.27
Tangible support from sex-partner alters 13.69 (8.40) 10.92 (4.81) 1.06 1.03–1.10 1.06 1.02–1.11
Emotional support from sex-partner alters 12.53 (8.03) 9.89 (4.74) 1.07 1.02–1.10 1.06 1.02–1.11
Tangible support from drug-use alters 14.25 (13.04) 12.15 (12.74) 1.01 0.99–1.03 1.02 0.99–1.04
Emotional support from drug-use alters 14.90 (12.96) 13.96 (13.02) 1.01 0.99–1.02 1.01 0.99–1.03
Tangible support from family-member alters 17.07 (9.42) 21.06 (13.52) 0.97 0.95–0.99 0.97 0.95–0.99
Emotional support from family-member alters 14.27 (8.52) 17.82 (13.76) 0.97 0.95–0.99 0.97 0.95–1.00
Tangible support from friend alters 29.05 (21.68) 29.10 (29.35) 1.00 0.99–1.01 1.00 0.99–1.01
Emotional support from friend alters 29.33 (21.10) 29.00 (29.99) 1.00 0.99–1.01 1.00 0.99–1.01
a

Interquartile range

b

Standard deviation

c

Adjusted for gender, age, ethnicity, education, marital status and job.

d

Odds ratio

e

95% confidence interval

f

P<0.05 in bold