Table 3.
Estimated effect of recent (past 30 days) stimulant use on engagement in HIV care in past year.
| Ref. no missed appointments | Model 1a | Model 2b | Model 3c |
|---|---|---|---|
| RRRd (95% CIe), P value |
RRR (95% CI), P value |
RRR (95% CI), P value |
|
| Missed appointment(s) | |||
| Stimulant use | 1.84 (0.87, 3.87), P = 0.111 |
1.99 (0.91, 4.37), P = 0.085 |
1.73 (0.72, 4.16), P = 0.218 |
| Age | —f | 0.98 (0.94, 1.01), P = 0.121 |
0.97 (0.94, 1.01), P = 0.127 |
| Nonwhite race/ethnicity | — | 1.56 (0.82, 2.96), P = 0.173 |
1.68 (0.85, 3.32), P = 0.136 |
| Education | |||
| High school or less | — | Ref. | Ref. |
| Technical school/some college | — | 0.45 (0.19, 1.08), P = 0.075 |
0.51 (0.20, 1.28), P = 0.152 |
| College degree | — | 0.20 (0.08, 0.52), P = 0.001 |
0.21 (0.08, 0.58), P = 0.003 |
| Depression | — | — | 1.04 (0.48, 2.27), P = 0.915 |
| Life chaos | — | — | 1.17 (1.09, 1.26), P = 0.000 |
|
| |||
| Not in HIV medical care | |||
| Stimulant use | 2.84 (1.07, 7.58), P = 0.036 |
3.16 (1.13, 8.84), P = 0.028 |
3.44 (1.17, 10.15), P = 0.025 |
| Age | — | 0.97 (0.92, 1.01), P = 0.152 |
0.97 (0.92, 1.01), P = 0.162 |
| Nonwhite race/ethnicity | — | 2.33 (0.95, 5.70), P = 0.063 |
2.58 (1.04, 6.40), P = 0.041 |
| Education | |||
| High school or less | — | Ref. | Ref. |
| Technical/some college | — | 0.64 (0.17, 2.31), P = 0.491 |
0.73 (0.20, 2.73), P = 0.642 |
| College degree | — | 0.22 (0.05, 0.94), P = 0.040 |
0.22 (0.05, 0.98), P = 0.047 |
| Depressiong | — | — | 0.54 (0.19, 1.52), P = 0.242 |
| Life chaosh | — | — | 1.11 (0.99, 1.23), P = 0.065 |
Notes: aunadjusted model; bModel 1 plus demographic variables significantly associated with treatment engagement in the bivariate analyses; cModel 2 plus psychosocial variables significantly associated with treatment engagement in the bivariate analyses, 5 missing cases; drelative risk ratio; econfidence interval; fvariable not included in model; gusing the 10-item CES-D scale [30]; husing the life chaos scale [32].