Table 2.
Estimates of effect on HIV-related outcome indicators among women who had a regular partner in the past year,a comparing prevalence of outcome in intervention versus control communities
| Baselineb | Follow-up | Unadjusted RRa (95% CI) | Adjusted RRc (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||
| Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control | |||
| HIV risk behaviours | ||||||
| Past year experience of sexual IPV | 33/254 (13%) | 20/216 (9%) | 60/433 (14%) | 66/343 (19%) | 0.81 (0.32–2.05) | 0.81 (0.31–2.10) |
| Feels able to refuse sex with partner | 244/254 (96%) | 203/216 (94%) | 403/428 (94%) | 277/341 (81%) | 1.16 (1.00–1.35) | 1.16 (1.00–1.35) |
| Either respondent or partner initiated discussion about condom use | 139/247 (56%) | 110/214 (51%) | 242/429 (56%) | 178/341 (52%) | 1.08 (0.91–1.27) | 1.11 (0.99–1.25) |
| Used condom in past year | 71/244 (29%) | 76/214 (36%) | 164/429 (38%) | 112/341 (33%) | 1.15 (0.79–1.69) | 1.22 (0.90–1.66) |
| Used condom at last intercourse | 40/246 (16%) | 38/214 (18%) | 82/429 (19%) | 49/341 (14%) | 1.37 (0.59–3.20) | 1.58 (0.86–2.89) |
| Respondent had concurrent partner in past year | 18/245 (7%) | 8/215 (4%) | 25/429 (6%) | 20/341 (6%) | 1.16 (0.33–4.09) | 1.25 (0.37–4.22) |
| Discussed HIV testing with partner in past year | 184/248 (74%) | 169/214 (80%) | 338/429 (79%) | 251/341 (74%) | 1.07 (0.98–1.17) | 1.09 (0.94–1.27) |
| Respondent had HIV test in past year | 133/254 (52%) | 118/217 (54%) | 344/432 (80%) | 269/348 (77%) | 1.01 (0.92–1.12) | 1.02 (0.89–1.15) |
| Relationship dynamics | ||||||
| Made important decisions jointly with partner all/most of the time | 182/217 (84%) | 162/189 (86%) | 248/368 (67%) | 133/275 (48%) | 1.41 (1.06–1.86) | 1.37 (1.06–1.78) |
| Male partner helps with housework | 134/241 (56%) | 137/215 (64%) | 245/340 (72%) | 143/242 (59%) | 1.24 (0.89–1.74) | 1.24 (0.90–1.71) |
| Male partner helps look after children | 147/211 (70%) | 125/166 (75%) | 203/286 (71%) | 133/209 (64%) | 1.12 (0.78–1.62) | 1.10 (0.78–1.54) |
| Shown appreciation many times for work partner does in the house | 237/345 (69%) | 135/247 (55%) | 1.28 (1.03–1.58) | 1.22 (0.99–1.50) | ||
| Shown appreciation many times for work partner does outside the house | 301/350 (86%) | 201/252 (80%) | 1.08 (0.97–1.20) | 1.06 (0.97–1.16) | ||
| Discussed number of children you would like to have | 319/427 (75%) | 237/340 (70%) | 1.07 (0.91–1.26) | 1.05 (0.90–1.22) | ||
| Openly asked what partner likes during sex | 295/428 (69%) | 167/341 (49%) | 1.42 (0.90–2.24) | 1.45 (0.93–2.25) | ||
| Openly told partner what you like during sex | 325/428 (76%) | 192/341 (56%) | 1.36 (0.89–2.07) | 1.37 (0.90–2.08) | ||
| Discussed things that happen to both you and partner during the day | 211/254 (83%) | 194/217 (89%) | 358/429 (83%) | 233/341 (68%) | 1.23 (0.98–1.54) | 1.21 (0.96–1.53) |
| Discussed your worries/feelings | 218/254 (86%) | 194/217 (89%) | 386/429 (90%) | 259/341 (76%) | 1.19 (0.99–1.19) | 1.18 (0.99–1.42) |
Risk ratios calculated at the cluster-level, both crude and adjusted ratios adjusting for community-pair, and weighted according to the number of observations per village.
Question wording/item construction changed between baseline and follow-up to improve face validity – those baseline measures closest to the follow-up outcomes are presented here to assess underlying intervention/control community comparability, but baseline/follow-up comparisons are not possible.
Adjusted risk ratios generated on the basis of expected number of events from a logistic regression model on individual data with independent variables including age and marital status.
Bold values is used to indicate results that were statistically significant.