Table 4.
Selected univariate associations of HIV-negative gay male couples’ relationship factors with their attitude about using couples-based HIV voluntary counseling and testing
| CVCT
|
||
|---|---|---|
| Between dyads | Within dyads | |
|
| ||
| Factor | β (SE) | β (SE) |
| Relationship duration (months) | −0.01 (0.00)* | −0.00 (0.01) |
| Race of the couple | 0.07 (0.12) | −0.19 (0.12) |
| Age of couple (years)a | −0.03 (0.01) | −0.03 (0.01)* |
| Education level of coupleb | −0.06 (0.13) | −0.17 (0.12) |
| Employment status of coupleb | 0.04 (0.13) | 0.01 (0.13) |
| Cohabitate | −0.05 (0.06) | 0.02 (0.06) |
| Lives in an urban environment (vs. not) | −0.01 (0.02) | 0.01 (0.03) |
| UAI within relationship (vs. not) c | 0.11 (0.08) | 0.01 (0.08) |
| Concurred about having a sexual agreement | 0.43 (0.11)*** | 0.13 (0.16) |
| One or both partners had sex outside of their relationship | 0.31 (0.12)** | −0.20 (0.12)* |
| Last reported HIV test (months) | −0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) |
| Investment model | ||
| Commitment level | 0.13 (0.09) | −0.03 (0.07) |
| Satisfaction level | 0.23 (0.07)** | −0.04 (0.06) |
| Investment size | −0.08 (0.07) | −0.07 (0.08) |
| Quality of alternatives | 0.04 (0.05) | 0.03 (0.06) |
| Trust scale | ||
| Predictability | 0.07 (0.06) | −0.03 (0.06) |
| Dependability | 0.14 (0.07)* | −0.05 (0.06) |
| Faith | 0.22 (0.07)** | −0.07 (0.07) |
| Sexual Agreement Investment scale | ||
| Commitment | 0.47 (0.16)** | 0.12 (0.12) |
| Satisfaction | 0.32 (0.12)** | 0.17 (0.10) |
| Value | 0.51 (0.15)** | 0.24 (0.12)* |
| Communication Patterns scale | ||
| Mutual constructive | 0.18 (0.04)*** | 0.02 (0.04) |
| Mutual avoidance and withholding | −0.13 (0.04)** | −0.01 (0.05) |
Notes.
Selected results of exploratory univariate multilevel maximum likelihood regression models. Each within dyad-level relationship dynamic or factor was regressed with the within dyad-level outcome, whereas each between dyad-level relationship dynamic or factor was regressed with the between dyad-level outcome.
p < .05,
p < .01,
p < .001
Age of couple included couple’s average age for the between dyads univariate models and couple’s difference in age (between partners) for the within dyads univariate models.
Education level between couples included couples with either both or neither men who had achieved a Bachelors degree or higher versus couples with only one partner who had achieved a Bachelors degree. Education level within couples included couples with only one partner who had achieved a Bachelors degree or higher versus couples with either both or neither men who had achieved a Bachelors degree. Employment status of the couple was similarly constructed.
UAI within the relationship represented couples with one or both men self-reporting that they had UAI with their primary male partner within the previous three months compared to couples who had both men reporting not having had UAI within their relationship.