Table 3. Adjusted association between hearing MC was protective, HIV risk perceptions and condom use behaviors – men.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| OLS | Probit | Probit | Probit | |
| Perception ofHIV risk (0–3) | Used Condomat Last Sex | Always/usuallyUsed Condoms | Riskier Unprotected Sex | |
| Heard Male Circumcision is Protective | 0.174* | 0.0869* | −0.00266 | −0.0673 |
| (0.0926) | (0.0453) | (0.0534) | (0.0418) | |
| Age | −0.0126 | 0.00314 | −0.0249** | 0.000650 |
| (0.0177) | (0.00832) | (0.00994) | (0.00728) | |
| Education | −0.0155 | 0.00723 | 0.0197 | −0.0279*** |
| (0.0217) | (0.0109) | (0.0129) | (0.0103) | |
| Logged Per Capita Monthly Household Income | 0.0291 | 0.0276 | 0.0448 | −0.0122 |
| (0.0505) | (0.0235) | (0.0273) | (0.0231) | |
| Employed | −0.0484 | 0.0114 | −0.0761 | −0.0504 |
| (0.0868) | (0.0422) | (0.0504) | (0.0398) | |
| Currently Married | −0.109 | −0.255** | −0.377*** | |
| (0.207) | (0.110) | (0.125) | ||
| Age First Sex | −0.0260 | 0.0143 | 0.0240* | −0.00107 |
| (0.0238) | (0.0115) | (0.0142) | (0.0110) | |
| Previous STD | 0.300*** | 0.0298 | −0.0621 | 0.0888** |
| (0.0987) | (0.0465) | (0.0559) | (0.0444) | |
| Concurrent Network | 0.0422 | 0.0679 | −0.0246 | 0.111*** |
| (0.0880) | (0.0427) | (0.0511) | (0.0410) | |
| Knows Someone Who Died of HIV | 0.291*** | 0.0484 | −0.102* | −0.0866** |
| (0.0874) | (0.0451) | (0.0525) | (0.0423) | |
| HIV Knowledge Score | 0.0999* | 0.0277 | 0.0126 | 0.000321 |
| (0.0522) | (0.0253) | (0.0318) | (0.0254) | |
| HIV Conspiracy Belief | 0.0378 | −0.154*** | −0.104* | −0.0290 |
| (0.103) | (0.0473) | (0.0554) | (0.0426) | |
| N | 310 | 350 | 360 | 336 |
Notes: The coefficients for the model for Perception of HIV Risk were estimated using OLS. The coefficients in the models for the condom use variables and Riskier Unprotected Sex reflect probit marginal effects.
Robust standard errors in parentheses.
***
p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
See Table 1 notes and main text for variable definitions.