Table 2.
Odds Ratios From Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) Models Predicting an HIV Test, Tsogolo La Thanzi (TLT) Waves 4–7
| Variable | Women
|
Men
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI)a | Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI)a | |
| Socioeconomic inequality | ||||
| Age difference | ||||
| 0–5 years difference (ref) | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| 6+ years difference | 0.71 (0.53, 0.95)* | 0.78 (0.59, 1.03)† | 0.70 (0.47, 1.03)† | 1.04 (0.67, 1.61) |
| Education inequality | ||||
| Similar education (ref) | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Man has 4+ years more education | 0.91 (0.65, 1.27) | 0.89 (0.62, 1.30) | 0.86 (0.56, 1.33) | 0.85 (0.57, 1.28) |
| Woman has 4+ years more education | 0.80 (0.44, 1.43) | 0.77 (0.42, 1.41) | 0.68 (0.33, 1.39) | 1.22 (0.58, 2.56) |
| Employment inequality | ||||
| Both members unemployed (ref) | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Woman employed, man unemployed | 0.89 (0.41, 1.93) | 1.12 (0.50, 2.48) | 1.09 (0.35, 3.36) | 2.04 (0.71, 5.90) |
| Man employed, woman unemployed | 0.53 (0.33, 0.87) * | 0.99 (0.58, 1.68) | 0.60 (0.33, 1.09)† | 1.20 (0.69, 2.09) |
| Both members employed | 0.70 (0.42, 1.16) | 1.27 (0.73, 2.21) | 0.62 (0.33, 1.18) | 1.39 (0.77, 2.50) |
| Relationship dominance | ||||
| Female-dominated/egalitarian (ref) | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Male-dominated | 1.28 (0.89, 1.84) | 1.37 (0.96, 1.95)† | 0.93 (0.59, 1.47) | 1.16 (0.72, 1.89) |
| Relationship violence | ||||
| Ever been sexually coerced by partner | 1.37 (1.00, 1.87) * | 1.16 (0.83, 1.64) | 0.49 (0.27, 0.88) * | 0.53 (0.31, 0.90) * |
| Ever been physically abused by partner | 0.85 (0.49, 1.50) | 0.70 (0.43, 1.14) | 0.52 (0.15, 1.88) | 0.78 (0.19, 3.21) |
| Relationship unity | 0.69 (0.52, 0.91) * | 0.68 (0.52, 0.90) ** | 0.62 (0.39, 0.99) * | 0.70 (0.46, 1.06)† |
| Perception that partner is having an affair | ||||
| Strongly disagree/disagree (ref) | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Strongly agree/agree | 0.95 (0.67, 1.36) | 0.95 (0.67, 1.33) | 0.90 (0.47, 1.71) | 1.02 (0.57, 1.85) |
| Perceived risk for HIV (self) | ||||
| No likelihood (ref) | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Low likelihood | 0.73 (0.55, 0.96) * | 0.75 (0.54, 1.05)† | 0.78 (0.56, 1.09) | 0.82 (0.56, 1.18) |
| Medium likelihood | 0.59 (0.41, 0.83) ** | 0.72 (0.48, 1.09) | 0.58 (0.40, 0.86) ** | 0.64 (0.41, 1.00) * |
| High likelihood | 0.85 (0.49, 1.48) | 0.67 (0.35, 1.28) | 0.72 (0.32, 1.60) | 0.90 (0.36, 2.24) |
| Certain likelihood | 0.90 (0.54, 1.50) | 1.00 (0.55, 1.83) | 0.45 (0.20, 1.03)† | 0.52 (0.23, 1.16) |
| Perceived risk for HIV (partner) | ||||
| No or low likelihood (ref) | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Medium, high, or certain likelihood | 0.70 (0.42, 1.17) | 0.57 (0.36, 0.88) * | 0.67 (0.28, 1.59) | 1.15 (0.42, 3.13) |
| N (respondents), N (observations) | 440, 1729 | 413, 1608 | ||
a
Adjusted models control for all predictor variables, marital status, age, education, household goods index, relationship duration, previous testing through the TLT, previous testing outside of TLT, and antenatal care testing (women only). Time-varying predictors include perceived risk, marital status, and the testing control variables. Unity scores ranged from 1 to 4, with higher values indicating more unity.
†
p <0.10.
*
p <0.05.
**
p <0.01.