Table 1.
Characteristics associated with female sex workers’ and intimate male partners’ concerns of male partners’ angera regarding microbicide use in Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez, Mexico (n=370).
| Concerned about male partners’ angera (n=59, 17%) | Not concerned about male partners’ angera (n=311, 83%) | Overall (n=370, 100%) | Concerned about male partner’s anger: marginal effect (robust standard error)b | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women (n=185) | Men (n=185) | ||||
| Socio-Demographics | |||||
| Female gender (vs. male) | 37 (63%) | 148 (48%) | 815 (50%) | -- | -- |
| Study site is Tijuana (vs. Ciudad Juárez) | 54 (92%) | 104 (33%) | 158 (43%) | 0.34*** (0.04) | 0.27*** (0.06) |
| Median age in years (IQR c) | 37 (29–44) | 35 (30–42) | 36 (30–42) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) |
| Median educational attainment in years (IQR) | 7 (6–9) | 6 (6–9) | 6 (6–9) | 0.00 (0.01) | 0.01 (0.01) |
| Income ≥2500 pesos per month (>USD $200) | 39 (66%) | 201 (65%) | 240 (65%) | 0.01 (0.06) | 0.00 (0.05) |
| Median Rosenberg self-esteem score (IQR) | 13 (12–14) | 14 (12–14) | 14 (12–14) | −0.05*** (0.01) | 0.01 (0.02) |
| Relationship Factors | |||||
| Median relationship duration in years (IQR) d | 3 (2–5) | 3 (2–6) | 3 (2–6) | 0.00 (0.01) | 0.00 (0.01) |
| Median trust of partner on 10-point scale (IQR) | 8 (7–10) | 8 (8–10) | 8 (8–10) | −0.02 (0.02) | −0.01 (0.01) |
| Median relationship satisfaction on 20-point scale (IQR) | 15 (10–15) | 15 (14–15) | 15 (13–15) | −0.03** (0.01) | 0.01 (0.02) |
| Male financial dependence on FSW’s incomed | 24 (41%) | 88 (28%) | 112 (30%) | 0.11* (0.06) | 0.03 (0.05) |
| Any psychological aggression, past yeard | 46 (78%) | 232 (75%) | 278 (75%) | 0.01 (0.07) | 0.05 (0.06) |
| Any physical assault, past yeard | 30 (51%) | 138 (44%) | 168 (45%) | 0.03 (0.06) | 0.04 (0.05) |
| Any sexual coercion, past yeard | 13 (22%) | 43 (14%) | 56 (15%) | 0.06 (0.08) | 0.09* (0.06) |
| Any injury, past yeard | 22 (37%) | 64 (22%) | 86 (23%) | 0.07 (0.07) | 0.14*** (0.05) |
| Sexual Behaviours | |||||
| Sexually satisfied with steady partner (vs. not satisfied) | 44 (75%) | 284 (91%) | 328 (89%) | −0.18** (0.07) | −0.15** (0.07) |
| Male partner had any outside sex partners (past 6 months; men only) | 14 (64%) | 52 (32%) | 66 (36%) | 0.19*** (0.05) | 0.13*** (0.05) |
| Had any ‘steady’ concurrent sex partners (including regular clients; past year) | 18 (31%) | 42 (14%) | 60 (16%) | 0.15** (0.06) | 0.07 (0.09) |
| FSW often/always uses condoms with clients (vs. rarely/never; past month; FSWs only) | 17 (77%) | 99 (84%) | 116 (83%) | −0.06 (0.08) | 0.63*** (0.16) |
| Drug Abuse (past 6 months) | |||||
| Heroin | 30 (51%) | 186 (60%) | 216 (58%) | −0.05 (0.06) | −0.05 (0.05) |
| Cocaine | 6 (10%) | 24 (8%) | 30 (8%) | −0.03 (0.10) | 0.11 (0.08) |
| Crack | 3 (5%) | 37 (12%) | 40 (11%) | −0.09 (0.10) | −1.05*** (0.17) |
| Methamphetamine | 33 (54%) | 64 (21%) | 97 (26%) | 0.24*** (0.05) | 0.16*** (0.05) |
| Injected any drugs | 29 (49%) | 184 (59%) | 213 (58%) | −0.06 (0.06) | −0.06 (0.05) |
a
FSWs’ concern that intimate male partners would become angry if she used microbicides; male partners’ concern that they would become angry if FSW-partner used microbicides.
b
Marginal effects calculated from bivariate probit models; represents change in probability of anger concern associated with a 1-unit change of variable.
c
Interquartile range.
d
Dyad average of both partners’ responses within a given couple.
*
p<.10,
**
p<.05,
***
p<.01.