Table 3.
Consistent condom use2 with most recent non-paying partner | Consistent condom use2 with husband or cohabiting partner | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AOR [95% CIs] | P | AOR [95% CIs] | P | ||
1 | Ever contacted by intervention staff (versus not ever contacted) | 1.40 [0.47-4.18] | 0.542 | 0.35 [0.11-1.16] | 0.085 |
2 | Had a condom demonstration by intervention staff (versus never had a condom demonstration) | 1.72 [0.60-4.91] | 0.311 | 0.50 [0.17-1.43] | 0.194 |
3 | Duration since first contacted by intervention staff Has not been contacted Less than one year (greater than zero) One year Two-three years Test for trends |
1.0 (ref) 1.05 [0.34-3.29] 1.52 [0.43-5.40] 2.74 [0.64-11.74] |
0.930 0.515 0.173 / |
1.0 (ref) 0.39 [0.11-1.44] 0.48 [0.13-1.78] 0.20 [0.03-1.43] |
0.156 0.272 0.108 / |
4 | Number of times contacted by intervention staff Zero Five or fewer (greater than zero) Greater than five Test for trends |
1.0 (ref) 1.66 [0.56-4.93] 0.43 [0.09-2.09] |
0.358 0.293 0.146 |
1.0 (ref) 0.42 [0.13-1.36] 0.43 [0.11-1.66] |
0.146 0.219 / |
5 | Number of condom demos by staff seen past month Zero One Two Three or greater Test for trends |
1.0 (ref) 3.43 [0.95-12.48] 3.39 [0.89-12.97] 1.02 [0.28-3.67] |
0.061 0.074 0.979 / |
1.0 (ref) 0.86 [0.23-3.15] 0.64 [0.18-2.27] 0.33 [0.10-1.00] |
0.815 0.491 0.072 0.045 |
1 Models were all adjusted for variables that were included a priori and variables that were significantly associated with each outcome on the p<0.10-level in bivariate analysis. For all three outcomes, a priori variables included district and typology of sex work (place of solicitation); for condom use with the husband or cohabiting partners, models were also adjusted by age at first sex work.
2 Consistent condom use is defined as reporting always (100%) using condoms.
/ Test for trend not significant in bivariate analysis, and was not tested in multivariable models.