Table 5.
Condom Breakage or Slippage | P† | Condom Breakage or Slippage: Non-main Partnerships | P† | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adjusted OR | [95% CI] | Adjusted OR | [95% CI] | |||||
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
| ||||||||
Education | ||||||||
High school or less | 2.78 | 1.03 | 7.48 | 0.0432 | 2.92 | 0.95 | 8.94 | 0.0603 |
More than high school | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| ||||||||
PARTNER CHARACTERISTICS
| ||||||||
Partner had STI prior 3 months | ||||||||
No | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Yes or not known | 1.84 | 0.84 | 4.02 | 0.1296 | 1.93 | 0.83 | 4.51 | 0.1264 |
| ||||||||
Partner is HIV positive | ||||||||
No | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Yes or not known | 1.31 | 0.57 | 3.03 | 0.5239 | 1.27 | 0.50 | 3.24 | 0.6221 |
| ||||||||
Reported partner is main partner | ||||||||
No | 4.14 | 1.47 | 11.68 | 0.0073 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Yes | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| ||||||||
Partner had sex with others | ||||||||
No | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Yes or not known | 0.82 | 0.40 | 1.68 | 0.5879 | 1.25 | 0.49 | 3.19 | 0.6418 |
| ||||||||
Partner-specific condom use efficacy | 0.93 | 0.61 | 1.43 | 0.7493 | 0.87 | 0.53 | 1.42 | 0.5718 |
| ||||||||
Perceived partner support for condom use | 1.02 | 0.63 | 1.67 | 0.9217 | 1.09 | 0.57 | 2.10 | 0.7939 |
| ||||||||
PARTNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS
| ||||||||
Had sex while either partner drunk or high | ||||||||
No | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Yes | 2.01 | 1.07 | 3.79 | 0.0299 | 2.19 | 1.08 | 4.44 | 0.0289 |
| ||||||||
Condom use consistency | ||||||||
0%< use < 100% | 1.62 | 0.69 | 3.79 | 0.2656 | 1.76 | 0.71 | 4.40 | 0.2237 |
100% use | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A | Ref | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| ||||||||
Number of acts with condom | 1.01 | 0.97 | 1.05 | 0.5611 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 1.05 | 0.9559 |
GEE is used. Characteristics are significantly associated with condom breakage/slippage if p<0.05. All models are adjusted by study time frame (baseline versus follow-up) and intervention condition (video intervention versus control).