. 2014 Jan 7;14:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-2

Table 3.

Application of the Cox-binomial and GEE methods to the data on condom use by FSWs with their occasional clients for 21 districts in India

	Cox-binomial model									GEE method
District	n _Cox	${\hat{h}}_{1}$	${\hat{h}}_{2}$	p _Cox	n _logit	${\hat{π}}_{1}$	${\hat{π}}_{2}$	p _logit	p _Total	%Diff	p <0.05
Belgaum	199	0.069	0.295	<0.001	397	0.366	0.775	<0.001	<0.001	−0.5	NO
Bellary	234	0.090	0.274	<0.001	398	0.183	0.760	<0.001	<0.001	−2.7	NO
Chennai	265	0.073	0.446	<0.001	349	0.143	0.413	<0.001	<0.001	13.6	YES
Chitoor	360	0.012	0.107	<0.001	395	0.026	0.230	<0.001	<0.001	7.7	YES
Coimbatore	306	0.006	0.144	<0.001	325	0.020	0.117	<0.001	<0.001	12.2	YES
Dharmapuri	306	0.020	0.262	<0.001	387	0.049	0.657	<0.001	<0.001	16.5	YES
East Godavari	303	0.067	0.314	<0.001	392	0.149	0.518	<0.001	<0.001	4.5	NO
Guntur	324	0.012	0.345	<0.001	386	0.068	0.532	<0.001	<0.001	21.9	YES
Madurai	269	0.044	0.263	<0.001	319	0.097	0.304	<0.001	<0.001	12.1	YES
Mumbai BB	156	0.069	0.112	0.578	379	0.576	0.629	0.369	0.573	−0.9	NO
Mumbai NBB	144	0.064	0.072	0.983	354	0.557	0.711	0.011	0.041	−0.8	NO
Mysore	328	0.031	0.191	<0.001	420	0.120	0.377	<0.001	<0.001	8.7	YES
Prakasam	374	0.003	0.123	<0.001	402	0.026	0.204	<0.001	<0.001	10.1	YES
Pune BB	74	0.202	0.261	0.884	399	0.769	0.942	<0.001	<0.001	−3.9	YES
Pune NBB	60	0.112	0.130	0.054	251	0.689	0.870	<0.001	<0.001	0.0	NO
Salem	249	0.035	0.313	<0.001	319	0.106	0.364	<0.001	<0.001	13.9	YES
Shimoga	192	0.059	0.225	<0.001	338	0.158	0.641	<0.001	<0.001	2.9	NO
Thane BB	54	0.337	0.500	0.752	397	0.847	0.913	0.082	0.209	−5.6	YES
Thane NBB	64	0.241	0.311	0.662	377	0.735	0.894	<0.001	<0.001	−3.5	NO
Visakhapatnam	350	0.042	0.386	<0.001	405	0.043	0.500	<0.001	<0.001	18.8	YES
Yevatmal	57	0.131	0.435	<0.001	148	0.328	0.800	<0.001	<0.001	0.6	NO

TOTAL 4668 7140.

Columns 2 and 6: Number of FSWs contributing the Cox (n_Cox) and binomial (n_logit) regressions. Columns 3 and 4: mean rate of condom acquisition during career before 1-1-2004 ( ${\hat{h}}_{1}$ ) and after 1-1-2004 ( ${\hat{h}}_{2}$ ). Columns 7 and 8: Mean probability of condom use at beginning of career before 1-1-2004 ( ${\hat{π}}_{1}$ ) and after 1-1-2004 ( ${\hat{π}}_{2}$ ). Columns 5, 9 and 10: p-values of the likelihood-ratio test of no difference pre- and post-intervention in condom acquisition (p_Cox), condom use at beginning of career (p_logit) and combined tests (p_Total). Columns 11 and 12: Estimate of the difference between the average yearly slopes of consistent condom use before and after 1-1-2004 with the GEE approach with a p-value for the test that this difference is significantly different from 0. “BB” stands for “brothel-based” and “NBB” stands for “Non brothel-based”.