Table 3.
Estimates of effect on HIV-related outcome indicators among men 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 | – | – | ||||
| Feels able to refuse sex with partner | – | – | ||||
| Either respondent or partner initiated discussion about condom use | 163/273 (60%) | 173/285 (61%) | 421/508 (83%) | 230/397 (58%) | 1.43 (1.25–1.63) | 1.46 (1.17–1.82) |
| Used condom in past year | 147/272 (54%) | 164/285 (58%) | 361/507 (71%) | 187/397 (47%) | 1.52 (1.04–2.20) | 1.54 (0.96–2.47) |
| Used condom at last intercourse | 97/273 (36%) | 101/285 (35%) | 210/508 (41%) | 87/397 (22%) | 1.91 (1.13–3.23) | 2.03 (1.22–3.39) |
| Respondent had concurrent partner in past year | 109/270 (40%) | 104/283 (37%) | 139/508 (27%) | 177/397 (45%) | 0.60 (0.35–1.02) | 0.60 (0.37–0.97) |
| Discussed HIV testing with partner in past year | 161/274 (59%) | 157/286 (55%) | 433/508 (85%) | 246/397 (62%) | 1.39 (1.10–1.76) | 1.37 (1.09–1.73) |
| Respondent had HIV test in past year | 109/276 (39%) | 114/289 (39%) | 415/507 (82%) | 217/404 (54%) | 1.54 (1.15–2.05) | 1.50 (1.13–2.00) |
| Relationship dynamics | ||||||
| Made important decisions jointly with partner all/most of the time | 176/197 (89%) | 188/216 (87%) | 351/407 (86%) | 146/318 (46%) | 1.88 (1.25–2.83) | 1.92 (1.27–2.91) |
| Male partner helps with housework | 156/267 (58%) | 178/284 (63%) | 362/376 (96%) | 204/288 (71%) | 1.38 (1.05–1.83) | 1.38 (1.03–1.85) |
| Male partner helps look after children | 116/147 (79%) | 148/189 (78%) | 312/332 (94%) | 162/256 (63%) | 1.49 (1.08–2.07) | 1.48 (1.09–2.01) |
| Shown appreciation many times for work partner does in the house | 352/375 (94%) | 204/288 (71%) | 1.35 (1.06–1.72) | 1.31 (1.04–1.66) | ||
| Shown appreciation many times for work partner does outside the house | 204/258 (79%) | 116/215 (54%) | 1.54 (1.12–2.12) | 1.49 (1.08–2.06) | ||
| Discussed number of children you would like to have | 448/506 (89%) | 276/396 (70%) | 1.28 (1.04–1.57) | 1.25 (1.05–1.50) | ||
| Openly asked what partner likes during sex | 457/508 (90%) | 223/396 (56%) | 1.61 (1.23–2.09) | 1.59 (1.23–2.05) | ||
| Openly told partner what you like during sex | 463/508 (91%) | 247/397 (62%) | 1.48 (1.16–1.88) | 1.46 (1.16–1.85) | ||
| Discussed things that happen to both you and partner during the day | 239/276 (87%) | 252/289 (87%) | 487/509 (96%) | 285/397 (72%) | 1.34 (1.02–1.77) | 1.32 (1.00–1.74) |
| Discussed your worries/feelings | 238/276 (86%) | 257/289 (89%) | 489/509 (96%) | 298/397 (75%) | 1.29 (1.02–1.64) | 1.27 (1.01–1.60) |
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.