Table 3.

Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) from multi-level multivariate logistic regression models predicting unprotected sex with a particular partner

Variable	Unprotected Sex (n = 305 respondents, 665 partners)
	OR (95% CI)
Individual characteristics
Age	0.96 (0.91, 1.01)
Respondent ethnicity – Black (vs. White)	1.08 (0.29, 4.02)
Respondent ethnicity – Hispanic (vs. White)	0.28 (0.04, 1.84)
Respondent ethnicity – Other (vs. White)	0.22 (0.02, 2.05)
Income ($100 dollars per month)	1.01 (0.91, 1.13)
Months homeless lifetime	1.00 (0.99, 1.01)
PTSD	1.72 (0.58, 5.09)
MHI	0.97 (0.95, 1.00)*
Total female partners in past 6 months	1.02 (0.97, 1.08)
Total male partners in past 6 months	2.18 (1.10, 4.33) *
Concern about getting a woman pregnant	0.97 (0.58, 1.61)
Condom efficacy	0.31 (0.12, 0.78) *
Negative condom beliefs	2.16 (1.07, 4.36) *
HIV susceptibility	1.38 (0.77, 2.48)
Proportion of non-sex partners in social network rated as likely to engage in risky sex	1.01 (0.99, 1.03)
Culturally Relevant Masculinity Beliefs	3.23 (0.19, 55.82)
Partner/Relationship Level Variables
Partner is homeless	1.17 (0.46, 2.96)
Respondent met partner on the street	2.64 (1.17, 5.92) *
Partner is HIV+ or had unknown HIV status	0.51 (0.20, 1.32)
Frequency of contact between respondent and	1.53 (1.01, 2.29) *
Respondent felt emotionally close to partner	3.94 (1.43, 10.83) **
Respondent received tangible support from the partner	1.12 (0.47, 2.66)
Relationship commitment	1.84 (1.17, 2.89) **
Partner and respondent talked about HIV risk and/or protection	0.10 (0.04, 0.29) **
Partner and respondent talked about condoms	0.05 (0.02, 0.14) **
Centrality (closeness) of partner in respondents network	1.02 (1.00, 1.04) *

Note.

^#p < .10,

^*p < .05,

^**p < .01