Table 4.

Bivariate analysis of factors associated with LDS syringe use in the last month among surveyed IDUs in the North (n = 680)

Characteristics	Total n (%)	Used LDSS in the last month n (%)	Odds ratio (95 % CI)	r	p value
Age	680	143	1.148 (0.357–3.767)	0.046	0.254
Education level
Never been at school/primary school (ref)	32	3 (2.1 %)	0.204 (0.019–2.216)
Secondary school	311	60 (41.9 %)	0.737 (0.398–1.365)	0.217	0.192
High school or above	337	73 (51.0 %)		0.314	0.332
Income	680	143	0.905 (0.757–1.082)	0.097	0.273
Injection frequency in the past week	680	143	1.731 (1.101–2.665)	0.538	0.017
Ever been stopped by police relating drug use
Yes	251	58 (40.5 %)	1.655 (1.116–2.452)	0.750	0.006
No	429	85 (59.5 %)
Sharing N/S in the last 12 months
Yes	35	8 (5.6 %)	1.869 (.663–5.271)	0.049	0.230
No	645	135 (94.4 %)
Self-reported HIV status
Positive	81	6 (4.2 %)	1.397 (0.542–3.297)	0.031	0.444
Negative or unknown	599	137 (95.8 %)
Believed that LDSS is easily hidden from police and other non-drug users
Yes	186	56 (24.4 %)	1.718 (1.290–2.015)	0.654	0.027
No	422	87 (61.6 %)
Aware that LDSS is easily accessed at late night
Yes	146	39 (27.3 %)	2.733 (1.052–3.219)	0.317	0.016
No	534	104 (72.7 %)
LDSS is encouraged to use by injecting mates
Yes	136	63 (44.0 %)	2.341 (1.374–2.816)	0.421	0.013
No	544	80 (56.0 %)
LDSS is affordable
Yes	98	16 (11.2 %)	1.732 (1.034–2.310)	0.360	0.027
No	582	127 (88.8 %)
Awareness of LDSS non-health benefits
Yes	238	95 (66.4 %)	4.231 (2.734–4.710)	0.713	0.001
No	442	48 (33.6 %)
Aware that LDSS can minimize the risk of HIV and HCV infection
Yes	176	54 (37.7 %)	1.446 (1.263–1.655)	0.523	0.012
No	514	89 (62.3 %)
Exposure to LDSS social marketing activities
Yes	145	111 (77.6 %)	23.08 (13.26–40.16)	0.789	0.001
No	535	32 (22.3 %)

CI confidence interval, r Pearson’s correlation coefficient