Table 3.

Baseline Socio-Demographics, IMB (information, motivation, and behavioral skills) and Social Influence Measures, and Outcome Measures by Intervention Conditions.^a

	Intervention (N=351)b	Control (=373)b	Difference
Socio-demographic characteristics:
Age	25.19	23.98	1.21
Currently married (%)	29.63	28.69	0.94
Senior high school or more education (%)	35.90	38.87	2.97
Migrant (%)	96.29	94.62	1.67
Months in Shanghai	31.41	30.37	1.04
Monthly income	5,823.14	4,188.60	1,634.54
IMB measures (composite scores)
HIV information	10.85	10.51	0.34
Prevention intentions (stable)	3.85	3.83	0.02
Prevention intentions (non-stable)	6.01	5.50	0.51*
Negative attitude toward condom	14.59	14.99	0.40
Self-efficacy (stable)	22.39	21.35	1.04
Self-efficacy (non-stable)	27.55	24.62	2.93**
Social influence measures (composite scores)
Traditional gender norms	29.15	29.15	0.00
Peer discussion of prevention	16.93	15.45	1.48*
Peer support for condom use (stable)	12.21	11.54	0.67
Peer support for condom use (non stable)	13.89	12.40	1.49**
Lack of relationship power	13.44	13.62	0.18
Venue support	36.40	33.90	2.50*
Condom use in the last month (%)
Always use a condom (stable)	19.15	14.39	4.76
Always use a condom (non stable)	72.73	47.87	24.86**
Condom use in the last three intercourses (%)
Use a condom in all three (stable)	33.43	28.05	5.38
Use a condom in all three (non stable)	76.82	49.23	27.59**
Always carrying condoms last month (%)	27.51	14.32	13.19

Notes:

^aResults are based on svy methods (survey design-based methods) in STATA, which correct intra-cluster (establishment) correlations in the significance tests of the between-group differences.

^bSample size varies slightly among the different measures because of missing values. The only exception is condom use in the last three sexual intercourses with a non stable partner, for which only 220 in the intervention condition and 130 in the control condition provided a valid answer on that measure.

^*p<0.05;

^**p<0.01