Table 4. Building the final proportional odds regression model to predict higher levels of condom use for men with regular partners in the 2006 National Sexual Behavior Survey of Thailand (N = 1,998).
| Sociodemographic model | Condom/partner model | Full model | Final model | |||||
| Odds Ratio | 95% CI | Odds Ratio | 95% CI | Odds Ratio | 95% CI | Odds Ratio | 95% CI | |
| Sociodemographic | ||||||||
| Age | 0.95*** | 0.94–0.96 | 0.95*** | 0.94–0.97 | 0.95 *** | 0.94–0.97 | ||
| Rural residence | 1 | (ref) | - | - | ||||
| Urban residence | 1.19 | 0.96–1.49 | ||||||
| Less than grade 4 | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | ||
| Grade 5–7 | 1.33 | 0.95–2.08 | 1.29 | 0.82–2.02 | 1.31 | 0.84–2.06 | ||
| Junior high school | 2.19*** | 1.39–3.45 | 2.18*** | 1.38–3.44 | 2.21 *** | 1.40–3.49 | ||
| Senior high school | 2.59*** | 1.66–4.05 | 2.50*** | 1.59–3.92 | 2.58 *** | 1.65–4.04 | ||
| Vocational/BA or higher | 4.48*** | 2.82–7.10 | 4.38*** | 2.75–6.96 | 4.45 *** | 2.81–7.07 | ||
| Professional | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | ||
| Skilled technical | 0.64** | 0.46–0.89 | 0.62* | 0.45–0.86 | 0.62 * | 0.42–0.92 | ||
| Sales/service | 0.72 | 0.51–1.01 | 0.74 | 0.52–1.04 | 0.74 | 0.53–1.04 | ||
| Labor | 0.51** | 0.34–0.77 | 0.50** | 0.33–0.76 | 0.63 ** | 0.45–0.87 | ||
| Unemployed | 1.03 | 0.67–1.58 | 1.03 | 0.67–1.58 | 1.00 | 0.62–1.53 | ||
| Unmarried | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | ||
| Married & registered | 0.29*** | 0.21–0.39 | 0.32*** | 0.23–0.45 | 0.30 *** | 0.22–0.42 | ||
| Married, not registered | 0.32*** | 0.23–0.43 | 0.34*** | 0.25–0.46 | 0.33 *** | 0.24–0.45 | ||
| Condom/partner | ||||||||
| Condom access | 0.83 | 0.67–1.02 | - | - | ||||
| Condom knowledge | 2.06*** | 1.64–2.60 | 1.38* | 1.07–1.78 | 1.41 ** | 1.09–1.81 | ||
| Pro-condom strategy | 1.82*** | 1.49–2.24 | 1.34* | 1.07–1.68 | 1.38 ** | 1.10–1.72 | ||
| More than one partner | 2.25*** | 1.58–3.20 | 1.04 | 0.71–1.53 | - | |||
| Relationship duration more than 90 days | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | ||
| Relationship duration 31–90 days | 0.90 | 0.67–1.21 | 0.79 | 0.57–1.09 | 0.83 | 0.61–1.13 | ||
| Relationship duration 30 days or less | 0.69** | 0.53–0.91 | 0.65** | 0.48–0.87 | 0.68 ** | 0.51–0.91 | ||
| Never gave money for sex | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | - | |||
| Gave money for sex more than a year ago | 0.69*** | 0.56–0.86 | 1.04 | 0.81–1.32 | ||||
| Gave money for sex within the past year | 1.03 | 0.62–1.72 | 1.71 | 0.99–2.95 | ||||
| R2 | 0.2981 | 0.0981 | 0.3105 | 0.3077 | ||||
| -2 log L | 2620.948 | 2998.819 | 2595.001 | 2598.505 | ||||
*
p<0.05
**
p<0.01
***
p<0.001.