Table 3.

Outcome of modeling the association between venue type and a positive syphilis test

Models	Prevalence ratio	95 % CI	Prevalence difference	95 % CI
Outcome: Syphilis prevalence ratio/difference of a positive syphilis test at service venues compared with entertainment venues
Crude	5.4	1.4, 20.6	10.7	2.1, 19.3
Adjusted for urban–rural location	2.2	0.6, 8.2	5.4	0.0–11.6
Adjusted for age, education, and rural	2.3	0.6, 9.2	–a
Outcome: Multiple sexual partnerships prevalence ratio/difference of having 2 or more sexual partnerships in the past year at service venues compared with entertainment venues
Crude	2.9	1.5, 5.8	33.2	14.0, 52.4
Adjusted for rural location	2.5	1.2, 5.0	27.6	7.9, 47.3
Adjusted for age, education, rural location	2.6	1.3, 5.2	30.3	10.6, 49.9
Outcome: Syphilis prevalence ratio/difference of a positive syphilis test among workers with 2 or more sexual partners in the past year compared to those with fewer than 2 partners
Crude	6.9	2.1, 23.0	13.8	3.9, 23.7
Adjusted for rural	4.0	1.4, 11.4	3.6	0.0, 7.6
Adjusted for age, education, rural location	4.7	1.6, 14.2	3.7	0.0, 7.7

^aModel did not converge