Table 2. HSV-2 seroprevalence at enrolment and associations with socio-demographic, sexual behaviour and biological characteristics, among women working in food and recreational facilities in northern Tanzania.
| Factor | N (column %) [1] | HSV-2 prevalence,row % | Town- and age-adjustedOR (95% CI) [2] | Adjusted OR(95% CI) [2], [3] |
| Overall | 1376 (100%) | 67% | – | – |
| SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS | ||||
| Town | P<0.001 | P<0.001 | ||
| Geita | 375 (27%) | 73% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Kahama | 305 (22%) | 75% | 1.14 (0.79,1.64) | 1.01 (0.62,1.66) |
| Shinyanga | 284 (21%) | 76% | 0.91 (0.62,1.32) | 0.98 (0.59,1.62) |
| Moshi | 412 (30%) | 52% | 0.29 (0.21,0.40) | 0.45 (0.29,0.71) |
| Type of job | P = 0.02 | P = 0.02 | ||
| Waitress | 608 (44%) | 67% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Mamalishe | 204 (15%) | 78% | 1.02 (0.68,1.54) | 1.20 (0.70,2.06) |
| Other staff | 564 (41%) | 64% | 0.69 (0.53,0.91) | 0.67 (0.47,0.95) |
| Age, years | P<0.001 | P<0.001 | ||
| <20 | 105 (8%) | 40% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| 20–24 | 431 (31%) | 54% | 2.17 (1.39,3.40) | 2.22 (1.18,4.18) |
| 25–29 | 344 (25%) | 72% | 4.92 (3.06,7.91) | 4.75 (2.44,9.26) |
| ≥30 | 496 (36%) | 82% | 9.86 (6.11,15.9) | 8.73 (4.37,17.5) |
| Highest formal education | P<0.001 | P = 0.005 | ||
| None/incomplete primary | 337 (25%) | 78% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Complete primary | 810 (59%) | 69% | 0.65 (0.47,0.90) | 1.04 (0.69,1.58) |
| ≥Secondary | 228 (17%) | 46% | 0.33 (0.22,0.49) | 0.53 (0.31,0.88) |
| Marital status | P<0.001 | P = 0.32 | ||
| Married | 356 (26%) | 69% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Separated/divorced/widowed | 579 (42%) | 79% | 1.62 (1.17,2.25) | 1.29 (0.84,1.98) |
| Single | 441 (32%) | 51% | 0.90 (0.64,1.28) | 1.42 (0.88,2.29) |
| BEHAVIOURAL FACTORS | ||||
| CAGE score [4] | P<0.001 | P = 0.005 | ||
| Non-drinker or no problem drinking | 873 (76%) | 65% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Possible problem drinking | 184 (16%) | 76% | 2.05 (1.38,3.05) | 2.06 (1.30,3.27) |
| Probable problem drinking | 95 (8%) | 75% | 1.72 (1.01,2.93) | 0.93 (0.49,1.79) |
| AUDIT score [5] | P = 0.003 | P = 0.91 | ||
| Non-drinker or low-risk | 1184 (86%) | 66% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Harmful or hazardous drinking | 185 (14%) | 77% | 1.77 (1.20,2.62) | 1.04 (0.57,1.87) |
| Age at first sex, years | P<0.001 | P = 0.02 | ||
| <16 | 361 (28%) | 74% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| ≥16 | 915 (72%) | 65% | 0.60 (0.45,0.81) | 0.64 (0.44,0.95) |
| N lifetime sex partners | P<0.001 | P = 0.02 | ||
| 0–4 | 713 (61%) | 59% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| 5–9 | 262 (23%) | 72% | 1.56 (1.11,2.20) | 1.12 (0.75,1.67) |
| ≥10 | 189 (16%) | 83% | 2.70 (1.73,4.23) | 2.13 (1.23,3.67) |
| N sex partners in last 12 months | P = 0.005 | P = 0.33 | ||
| 0–1 | 653 (50%) | 64% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| 2 | 344 (27%) | 70% | 1.52 (1.10,2.09) | 1.18 (0.77,1.80) |
| ≥3 | 301 (23%) | 73% | 1.66 (1.16,2.37) | 0.79 (0.44,1.40) |
| N sex partners in last 3 months | P = 0.007 | P = 0.22 | ||
| 0 | 81 (6%) | 63% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| 1 | 981 (72%) | 66% | 1.80 (1.06,3.05) | 1.91 (0.97,3.77) |
| 2 | 195 (14%) | 74% | 2.59 (1.40,4.78) | 1.91 (0.83,4.39) |
| ≥3 | 104 (8%) | 76% | 2.82 (1.40,5.68) | 1.33 (0.51,3.46) |
| Transactional sex in last year | P = 0.05 | P = 0.28 | ||
| No | 897 (65%) | 65% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Yes | 473 (35%) | 73% | 1.34 (1.00,1.80) | 0.79 (0.51,1.21) |
| Contraception | P = 0.03 | P = 0.12 | ||
| None of the following | 526 (38%) | 71% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Condoms only | 433 (32%) | 59% | 0.75 (0.55,1.01) | 0.66 (0.45,0.99) |
| Pill (+/− condoms) | 137 (10%) | 74% | 1.15 (0.73,1.80) | 0.69 (0.39,1.21) |
| Injectable (DMPA; +/− condoms) | 221 (16%) | 72% | 1.20 (0.82,1.75) | 1.15 (0.71,1.86) |
| Other hormonal contraceptives | 56 (4%) | 66% | 0.97 (0.51,1.84) | 0.70 (0.33,1.49) |
| BIOLOGICAL FACTORS | ||||
| Ever pregnant | P<0.001 | P = 0.001 | ||
| No | 208 (15%) | 40% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Yes | 1167 (85%) | 72% | 2.33 (1.63,3.33) | 2.14 (1.35,3.40) |
| Syphilis [6] | P<0.001 | P<0.001 | ||
| Negative | 792 (82%) | 71% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Previous infection | 85 (9%) | 95% | 5.33 (1.90,15.0) | 4.32 (1.26,14.9) |
| Active infection, low titre | 41 (4%) | 98% | 16.1 (2.17,119) | 12.5 (1.49,105) |
| Active infection, high titre | 46 (5%) | 76% | 1.38 (0.66,2.86) | 0.83 (0.28,2.44) |
| T. vaginalis [6] | P = 0.20 | P = 0.97 | ||
| Negative | 759 (80%) | 74% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Positive | 184 (20%) | 76% | 1.29 (0.87,1.92) | 1.01 (0.59,1.73) |
| C. trachomatis | P = 0.92 | P = 0.67 | ||
| Negative | 1185 (88%) | 68% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Positive | 157 (12%) | 62% | 0.98 (0.67,1.43) | 0.90 (0.56,1.45) |
| N. gonorrhoeae | P = 0.11 | P = 0.83 | ||
| Negative | 1290 (96%) | 67% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Positive | 51 (4%) | 75% | 1.71 (0.87,3.39) | 1.10 (0.48,2.50) |
| Bacterial vaginosis [6] | P = 0.005 | P = 0.26 | ||
| Negative | 357 (37%) | 71% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Indeterminate | 160 (17%) | 77% | 1.69 (1.07,2.67) | 1.37 (0.74,2.53) |
| Positive | 446 (46%) | 76% | 1.69 (1.20,2.37) | 1.47 (0.92,2.34) |
| Genital ulcers on examination | P = 0.003 | P = 0.01 | ||
| Negative | 1249 (94%) | 67% | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) |
| Positive | 84 (6%) | 82% | 2.39 (1.30,4.40) | 2.50 (1.15,5.40) |
OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval. Includes only those women whose HSV-2 status is known at enrolment (all but two). [1] Numbers may not add up to total due to missing data. [2] P-values from likelihood ratio test. The ORs for town are adjusted for age, and the ORs for age are adjusted for town. [3] Estimated ORs adjusted by town, age, job, education, CAGE category, age at first sex, number of partners in lifetime, genital ulcers on examination and ever pregnant (the adjusted results for these variables are shown in bold). While there was strong evidence of an association between HSV-2 prevalence and syphilis, this factor was not included in the fully-adjusted model, since it was only measured in the microbicides- and not the vaccines-preparedness cohort. [4] Based on responses to four CAGE questions. Score based on the number of positive answers: 0–1 = non-drinker or no problem drinking, 2 = possible problem drinking, ≥3 = probable problem drinking. [5] Based on responses to 10 AUDIT questions. Scores based on responses to each question: 0–7 non-drinker or low-risk, ≥8 harmful or hazardous drinking. [6] Results for syphilis, T. vaginalis (diagnosed by 72-hour culture) and bacterial vaginosis (diagnosed by Nugent criteria) not available for vaccines-preparedness cohort.