Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012 Dec 1;61(4):515–521. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31827076a4

Table 3.

Characteristics of 419 Dyads in Sexual Network

Number (%) of Dyads or Median
Characteristics* Traceable Partner (n=266) Untraceable Partner (n=153) P-value
Age difference between partner and client
 Median 3 4 0.13
 Range −28 to 32 −4 to 17
 Interquartile range −1 to 7 1 to 9
Type of sexual behavior
 Oral 21 (10.3) 5 (5.4) 0.19
 Anal 55 (27.0) 39 (41.9) 0.01
 Vaginal 14 (6.9) 5 (5.4) 0.80
 Oral and anal 114 (55.9) 39 (41.9) 0.03
 Oral and vaginal 0 5 (5.4)
Frequency of sexual encounters
 One time only 82 (40.1) 80 (80.8) <0.001
 2–5 times 48 (33.8) 12 (12.1) <0.001
 More than 5 times 37 (26.1) 7 (7.1) <0.001
Condom utilization
 Never 59 (43.7) 12 (26.7) 0.04
 Inconsistent 53 (39.3) 25 (55.6) 0.06
 Always 23 (17.8) 8 (17.8) 0.91
How partners met
 Online 69 (40.6) 31 (52.5) 0.05
 At school or work 18 (10.6) 16 (27.1) 0.002
 Through friend or roommate 22 (12.9) 3 (5.1) 0.10
 Unknown/couldn’t recall 24 (14.1) 2 (3.4) 0.03
 Bar or club 18 (10.6) 1 (1.7) 0.03
 Non-sexual physical venue 8 (4.7) 4 (6.8) 0.54
 Sex venue 5 (2.9) 2 (3.4) 1.0
 Phone chat line 4 (2.4) 0
 At church 2 (1.2) 0
*

A total of 419 dyads were examined in this study. The number of respondents with data for each item varied, reflected in column totals for each characteristic.

Wilcoxon rank-sum testing was used to compare medians. Indicator (dummy) variables were used with Pearson’s χ2 test to calculate P-values for individual categories.

Positive numbers indicate that sex partners were older than the client, and negative numbers show that the client was older than the sex partner. For dyads with traceable partners, n=211; for those with untraceable partners, n=43.