Table 3.

Associations Between Network Factors at the Ego and Alter Level and Consistent Condom Use: Multilevel Logistic Regression Models (N = 1300)

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	ORa	95% CIa	OR	95%CI	OR	95%CI
Ego factors
Age	0.98	0.95–1.01	0.97	0.94–1.00	0.98	0.94–1.02
Middle school vs. no school or primary  school	1.47	1.08–2.01b	1.39	0.97–2.00	1.53	1.06–2.23
High school vs. no school or primary  school	2.19	1.31–3.66	1.98	1.10–3.56	2.28	1.25–4.14
Single vs. married	1.29	0.75–2.21	0.67	0.33–1.35	0.71	0.34–1.45
Widowed/divorced vs. married	1.60	1.16–2.20	0.82	0.54–1.25	0.97	0.63–1.50
Migrant (yes vs. no)	0.87	0.63–1.19	0.83	0.58–1.19	0.86	0.60–1.24
Duration of sex work (in years)	1.00	0.95–1.04	1.00	0.95–1.06	1.04	0.98–1.11
Condom use with casual clients in the  past month	1.06	0.99–1.13	1.09	1.01–1.18	1.09	1.01–1.19
Condom use in past 48 h (PSA)	0.89	0.66–1.21	0.93	0.66–1.32	1.02	0.72–1.46
Attitudes towards condom use	1.16	1.09–1.23	1.21	1.13–1.29	1.17	0.96–1.42
Perceived behavioral control for  condom use	1.05	0.97–1.13	1.10	1.02–1.20	1.11	1.01–1.21
Alter factors
Age (≥ 35 vs. <35)			0.79	0.43–1.46	1.21	0.50–2.90
Middle school vs. no or primary school			0.84	0.50–1.43	0.86	0.50–1.48
High school vs. no or primary school			1.06	0.60–1.85	0.96	0.54–1.69
Unknown vs. no or primary school			1.65	0.87–3.14	1.90	0.99–3.67
Single vs. married			0.61	0.33–1.15	0.59	0.31–1.14
Widowed/divorced vs. married			0.54	0.34–0.87	0.52	0.32–0.83
Boyfriend vs. husband			4.40	2.61–7.42	4.28	2.51–7.33
Client vs. husband			8.79	5.15–15.00	8.23	4.78–14.19
Other relations vs. husbandc			3.46	1.52–7.88	3.75	1.60–8.80
Tangible support			0.85	0.76–0.95	1.11	0.74–1.67
Emotional support			1.06	0.97–1.17	0.64	0.42–0.98
Trust			0.78	0.63–0.96	0.82	0.66–1.01
Cross-level difference/interaction
Ego older than alter vs. similar age					1.61	0.84–3.12
Alter older than ego vs. similar age					1.02	0.69–1.51
Attitude towards condom use X tangible  support					0.98	0.95–1.01
Attitude towards condom use X  emotional support					1.04	1.01–1.07
Hefei vs. Nanning					1.13	0.74–1.74
Qingdao vs. Nanning					0.44	0.27–0.71
Model fit
AIC	1496.5		1196.05		1186.03
−2LL	1470.5		1146.05		1124.03
p Value (likelihood ratio test)			Model 2 vs. 1: p < 0.01		Model 2 vs. 3: p < 0.01

^aOdds ratio and 95% confidence interval.

^bBold indicating p < 0.05.

^cRelatives, pimps, venue managers, or acquaintances.