Table 4.

Multivariate analysis of seroadaptation practices compared to no strategy among Black men who have sex with men, Baltimore, Chicago, Milwaukee, and New York City

Characteristic	100 % condom use (N = 375)		P-value	Serosorting (N = 505)		P-value	Condom serosorting (N = 349)		P-value	Seropositioning (N = 415)		P-value
	OR	95 % CI		OR	95 % CI		OR	95 % CI		OR	95 % CI
City
Baltimore	2.28	1.16, 4.47	0.017							2.08	1.14, 3.83	0.018
Chicago	0.42	0.19, 0.93	0.034							0.69	0.37, 1.28	0.241
Milwaukee	0.72	0.32, 1.64	0.439							1.03	0.52, 2.04	0.944
New York City	REF
Age group
18–24				0.43	0.23, 0.81	0.009	0.51	0.20, 1.27	0.148	0.34	0.16, 0.72	0.004
25–34				0.77	0.42, 1.42	0.404	1.56	0.70, 3.47	0.274	0.51	0.24, 1.09	0.083
35–44				0.57	0.34, 0.95	0.031	0.51	0.23, 1.13	0.950	0.73	0.41, 1.29	0.273
45+				REF			REF			REF
Sexual identity
Homosexual/Queer	REF
Bisexual	0.34	0.19, 0.60	0.0002
Heterosexual/straight/not sure/other	0.72	0.26, 2.00	0.523
Most recent HIV test result (self-report)
Negative				REF						REF
Positive				0.43	0.27, 0.67	0.0002				0.31	0.19, 0.50	<0.0001
Crack cocaine
Cocaine
Methamphetamine							1.68	1.12, 2.51	0.012
Psychological distress (higher = higher distress)	0.96	0.92, 0.99	0.023				0.94	0.89, 0.98	0.005
Social support (lower = more support)				0.94	0.90,0.98	0.004
Sexual self-efficacy (higher = higher efficacy)	1.04	1.00, 1.09	0.046	1.05	1.02, 1.09	0.001	1.09	1.03, 1.14	0.001	1.04	1.01, 1.08	0.021
Personal responsibility to avoid HIV transmission (higher = more responsibility)
Outness (higher = more out)
Main partner
No										REF
Yes										0.45	0.28, 0.72	0.001
Alcohol/drugs with sex
No	REF									REF
Yes	0.50	0.28,0.88	0.017							0.56	0.34, 0.92	0.022
Number of male partners	0.93	0.88,0.99	0.023	0.90	0.85, 0.94	<0.001

N’s in the models do not add up to the total strategy category N’s due to missing data

Bold values indicate statistically significant results