Table 4. Factors associated with using female sex work among Indian men reporting any non-regular partner in the past year in the low-HIV states, 2006.
| No FSW | ≥1 FSW | Adjusteda PR (95% CI) | |||
| n | (%) | n | (%) | ||
| Unmarried men in the low-HIV states (n = 1619) | |||||
| Socio-demographic characteristics | |||||
| Residence | |||||
| Rural | 565 | (82.7) | 148 | (17.3) | 1.0 |
| Urban | 680 | (73.8) | 226 | (26.3) | 1.4 (1.2–1.8) |
| Education | |||||
| Secondary or higher | 966 | (81.2) | 258 | (18.8) | 1.0 |
| Primary or none | 279 | (73.2) | 116 | (26.8) | 1.3 (1.1–1.7) |
| Employed in transport sector | |||||
| No | 1200 | (80.3) | 337 | (19.7) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 45 | (55.1) | 37 | (44.9) | 1.6 (1.2–2.1) |
| Sexual behaviour indicators | |||||
| Genital discharge or ulcer in past year | |||||
| No | 1177 | (80.2) | 332 | (19.8) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 66 | (63.2) | 42 | (36.9) | 1.7 (1.3–2.3) |
| Number of NRP in past year | |||||
| 1 | 850 | (89.3) | 114 | (10.7) | 1.0 |
| 2 or more | 391 | (64.0) | 252 | (36.0) | 3.1 (2.4–3.9) |
| Consistent condom use with NRP in past year | |||||
| No | 606 | (84.2) | 130 | (15.9) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 628 | (74.5) | 241 | (25.6) | 1.5 (1.2–1.9) |
| Married men in the low-HIV states (n = 951) | |||||
| Socio-demographic characteristics | |||||
| Employed in transport sector | |||||
| No | 519 | (65.8) | 302 | (34.2) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 49 | (44.7) | 80 | (55.3) | 1.3 (1.0–1.5) |
| HIV/STI knowledge and awareness | |||||
| Aware of local HIV test centre | |||||
| No | 309 | (61.2) | 220 | (38.8) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 252 | (67.2) | 151 | (32.8) | 0.7 (0.6–0.9) |
| Sexual behaviour indicators | |||||
| Number of NRP in past year | |||||
| 1 | 371 | (75.4) | 135 | (24.6) | 1.0 |
| 2 or more | 196 | (49.9) | 236 | (50.1) | 2.1 (1.8–2.6) |
| Consistent condom use with NRP in past year | |||||
| No | 308 | (75.8) | 113 | (24.2) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 255 | (52.0) | 260 | (48.0) | 2.0 (1.6–2.5) |
FSW = female sex worker; PR = prevalence ratio; NRP = non-regular partner. Frequencies (sample-weighted percentages) for each variable exclude missing data.
a
Unmarried model (model n = 1591) is adjusted for age and the variables shown in the upper portion of the table; married model (model n = 906) is adjusted for age, education, and the variables shown in the lower portion of the table.