Table 3.

Linear Regression Analysis on Sexual Risk Behaviors with Customers in the Past 6 Months

Variables	Beta	t
Frequency of condom use for vaginal sex	R2= .18, F(12, 188)= 3.36, p< .001
Age	−.18	−2.20*
Massage parlora	.08	.69
Bar/Cluba	.01	.05
Brothela	.08	.86
AIDS knowledge	−.04	−.55
Subjective norm toward practicing safe sex	.06	.82
Self-esteem	.23	3.17**
Perceived economic pressure	−.01	−.07
Educationb	.03	.40
Monthly incomec	−.06	−.68
Number of STIs in the past 12 months	−.20	−2.86**
Any drug use in the past 12 months	−.18	−2.59**
Frequency of Having Sex Under the Influence of Alcohol	R2= .33, F(11, 188)= 8.36, p< .001
Age	−.25	−3.36***
Massage parlora	.02	.21
Bar/Cluba	.39	3.94***
Brothela	.03	.35
AIDS knowledge	.08	1.24
Subjective norms toward practicing safe sex	.01	.13
Self-esteem	−.08	−1.25
Perceived economic pressure	.00	.01
Number of STIs in past 12 months	.11	1.78*
Educationb	−.07	−1.00
Monthly incomec	.19	2.57**

^a0 = Street FSWs, 1=Massage parlor, Bar/Club FSWs, or Brothel FSWs.

^b1=Less than high school, 2=Completed high school or vocational school, 3=College degree.

^c1 = Less than 12,000 baht (< $362), 2 = 12,001-24,000baht ($362-$724), 3 = 24,001-40,000 baht ($725-$1,207), 4 = 40,001-60,000 ($1,208-$1,811), 5 = More than 60,001 baht ($1,811<).

^d p =.08.

Frequency scale: 1=Not at all to 5=Always

^*p <.05.

^**p <.01.

^***p <.001.

No significant associations were found on the frequency of having sex under the influence of drugs with customers.