Table 2.
Environmental factors associated with consistent condom use with establishment guests among entertainers in Quezon City
| Characteristics | Total (N = 143) | Does not always use condoms w/guests (N = 60) | Always uses condoms w/guests (N = 83) | Odds Ratio (for consistent use) (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical risk environment | ||||
| Micro-physical | ||||
| Venue type (25 establishments) | 0.73 (0.51–1.06) | |||
| Night club/bar workers (reference group) | 48 (34%) | 26 (43%) | 22 (27%) | |
| Spa/sauna workers | 77 (54%) | 19 (32%) | 58 (70%) | 3.61 (1.67–7.78)b |
| Karaoke bar workers | 18 (13%) | 15 (25%) | 3 (4%) | 0.24 (0.06–0.92)b |
| Ever physically abused | 41 (29%) | 26 (43%) | 15 (18%) | 0.29 (0.14–.62)b |
| Ever sexually abused | 53 (37%) | 26 (43%) | 27 (33%) | 0.63 (0.32–1.25) |
| Macro-physical | ||||
| Ever forced/deceived into job as an entertainer | 17 (12%) | 12 (20%) | 5 (6%) | 0.26 (0.07–0.71)b |
| Social risk environment | ||||
| Micro-social | ||||
| Peer supports for condom use | ||||
| Member of an organization of workers | 14 (10%) | 6 (10%) | 8 (10%) | 0.96 (0.31–2.93) |
| Co-worker discussed STIs | 79 (55%) | 29 (48%) | 50 (60%) | 1.62 (0.83–3.17) |
| Co-worker tried to convince them to use condoms | 91 (64%) | 33 (55%) | 58 (70%) | 1.90 (0.95–3.79)c |
| Worker followed co-worker’s advice to use condoms | 90 (63%) | 31 (52%) | 59 (71%) | 2.30 (1.15–4.60)b |
| Major knowledge source of HIV/STI prevention: peers | 29 (20%) | 19 (32%) | 10 (12%) | 0.30 (0.13–0.70)b |
| Co-worker encouragement to get STIs treated | 70 (49%) | 20 (33%) | 50 (60%) | 3.03 (1.51–6.06)b |
| Manager supported condom use | 66 (46%) | 23 (38%) | 43 (52%) | 1.73 (0.88–3.40) |
| Frequency of contact with manager/owner (IQR)a | 4 (3–5) | 4 (3–5) | 5 (1–5) | 0.92 (0.77–1.10) |
| Group of workers met together with manager on a regular basis | 42 (29%) | 23 (38%) | 19 (23%) | 0.82 (0.72–0.94)b |
| Major knowledge source of HIV/STI prevention: manager | 10 (7%) | 7 (12%) | 3 (4%) | 0.28 (0.07–1.15) |
| Overall social support (IQR)d | 88 (65–113) | 77 (62–114) | 97 (78–111) | 1.01 (0.99–1.02) |
| Frequency intoxicated while having sex | 2 (1–2) | 2 (1–3) | 1 (1–2) | 0.77 (0.60–0.99)b |
| Frequency drinks with establishment guests | 1 (1–4) | 2 (1–4) | 1 (1–2) | 0.62 (0.49–0.78)b |
| Guest is under influence of drugs while having sex | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 0.96 (0.77–1.19) |
| Economic risk environment | ||||
| Micro-economic | ||||
| Weekly income (Pesos) (IQR)a | 5,000 (3,000–10,000) | 6,000 (3,250–10,000) | 5,000 (3,000–10,000) | 1.00 (0.99–1.00) |
| Price of condom (IQR)a | 20 (20–35) | 20 (20–50) | 20 (20–30) | 1.0 (0.97–1.01) |
| Primary place to get condoms | ||||
| Drugstore | 59 (41%) | 34 (57%) | 25 (30%) | 0.33 (0.16–0.66)b |
| SHC clinic | 49 (34%) | 20 (33%) | 29 (35%) | 1.07 (0.53–2.17) |
| Establishment | 63 (44%) | 24 (40%) | 39 (47%) | 1.44 (0.75–2.77) |
| Establishment guest | 28 (20%) | 15 (25%) | 13 (16%) | 0.56 (0.24–1.28) |
| Friend/relatives | 14 (10%) | 7 (12%) | 7 (8%) | 0.70 (0.23–2.11) |
| Always carries a condom | 56 (40%) | 16 (31%) | 40 (62%) | 3.5 (1.61–7.59)b |
| Policy risk environment | ||||
| Micro-policy | ||||
| Venue has condom rule | 69 (48%) | 23 (38%) | 46 (55%) | 2.00 (1.02–3.94)b |
| Venue provides condoms for purchase (average: 33 pesos per condom) | 80 (56%) | 26 (43%) | 54 (65%) | 2.44 (1.23–4.81)b |
| Frequency of HIV test | 2 (1–2) | 1 (1–2) | 2 (1–2) | 1.14 (0.91–1.43)b |
| Frequency of STI test | 2 (1–5) | 2 (1–3) | 5 (1–5) | 1.41 (1.15–1.73)b |
| Major knowledge sources of HIV/STI prevention: Medical personnel/professionals | 92 (64%) | 29 (48%) | 63 (76%) | 3.37 (1.65–6.87)b |
| Class/seminars | 63 (44%) | 14 (23%) | 49 (59%) | 4.74 (2.26–9.94)b |
Certain percentages may reflect denominators smaller than the N value given in the column head. These discrepancies are due to missing data. Only four were aware that they ever had sex with an injecting drug user; 100 denied having sex with injecting drug users
IQR Inter-quartile range
a
Median
b
Significant at the bivariate level, P <0.05
c
Significant at the bivariate level, P <0.10
d
Entertainers had lower emotional and tangible social support of the Norbeck scale compared to a general sample