Table 8.
Within risk group exploratory analysis of correlations within each risk group between dignity attack frequency, reactions to dignity attacks, and selected risk behaviors1
| A. People who inject drugs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dignity attack variables | ||||
| Behavioral variable | Frequency of having dignity attacked3 | React to dignity attacks by using more drugs | React to dignity attacks by using more alcohol | React to dignity attacks by having more sex |
| React to dignity attacks by using more drugs | .454* | NA | ||
| React to dignity attacks by using more alcohol | .361* | .613* | NA | |
| React to dignity attacks by having more sex | .217* | .498* | .574* | NA |
| Any unprotected sex with non-main partner | .040 1.06 (.88, 1.28) |
.214* 1.18 (.90, 1.54) |
.263* 1.27 (1.0, 1.63) |
.380* 2.04 (1.17, 3.57) |
| Any sex partner2 | .048 1.04 (.89, 1.23) |
.146* 1.04 (.83, 1.32) |
.133* 1.07 (.86, 1.34) |
.229** 1.41 (.87, 2.30) |
| More than one sex partner2 | .029 1.04 (.86, 1.27) |
.278** 1.35 (1.02, 1.80) |
.197** 1.13 (.87, 1.45) |
.316** 1.42 (.91, 2.22) |
| Any exchange sex | .138* 1.26 (1.04, 1.54) |
.323* 1.75 (1.29, 2.36) |
.398* 1.80 (1.36, 2.38) |
.483* 6.31 (2.65, 15.03) |
| Had sex at a group sex event | −.041 .88 (.68, 1.13) |
.256* 1.68 (1.12, 2.52) |
.205* 1.25 (.90, 1.72) |
.434* 2.11 (1.24, 3.58) |
| Any receptive syringe sharing | .285* 1.67 (1.33, 2.11) |
.177 1.04 (.78, 1.39) |
.325* 1.49 (1.15, 1.93) |
.197* 1.16 (.76, 1.77) |
| Any distributive syringe sharing | .226* 1.42 (1.17, 1.72) |
.142** .97 (.75, 1.26) |
.314* 1.42 (1.12, 1.80) |
.201* 1.17 (.78, 1.76) |
| B. High risk heterosexuals | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dignity attack variables | ||||
| Behavioral variable | Frequency of having dignity attacked2 | React to dignity attacks by using more drugs | React to dignity attacks by using more alcohol | React to dignity attacks by having more sex |
| React to dignity attacks by using more drugs | .364* | NA | ||
| React to dignity attacks by using more alcohol | .482* | .769* | NA | |
| React to dignity attacks by having more sex | .235* | .387* | .420* | NA |
| Any unprotected sex with non-main partner | −.136* .76 (.62, .94) |
.149* 1.54 (1.15, 2.06) |
.141* 1.45 (1.07, 1.95) |
.058 1.23 (.73, 2.08) |
| More than one sex partner2 | −.003 .95 (.80, 1.14) |
.192* 1.45 (1.10, 1.92) |
.258* 1.71 (1.27, 2.31) |
.184* 1.94 (1.12, 3.37) |
| Any exchange sex | .108 1.18 (.97, 1.44) |
.288* 1.66 (1.23, 2.22) |
.315* 1.85 (1.36, 2.52) |
.185* 1.67 (1.00, 2.78) |
| Had sex at a group sex event | −.016 .94 (.74, 1.20) |
.134* 1.45 (1.03, 2.03) |
.159* 1.53 (1.08, 2.17) |
.124 1.65 (.90, 3.00) |
| C. Men who have sex with men | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dignity attack variables | ||||
| Behavioral variable | Frequency of having dignity attacked | React to dignity attacks by using more drugs | React to dignity attacks by using more alcohol | React to dignity attacks by having more sex |
| React to dignity attacks by using more drugs | .183* | NA | ||
| React to dignity attacks by using more alcohol | .235* | .805* | NA | |
| React to dignity attacks by having more sex | .133 | .515* | .550* | NA |
| Any unprotected sex with non-main partner | −.074 .95 (.69, 1.31) |
.287* 1.81 (1.28, 2.56) |
.212* 1.47 (1.05, 2.06) |
.097 1.21 (.83, 1.77) |
| Number of sex partners2 | −.263** −.64 (−1.05, −.24) |
.294** .76 (.36, 1.16) |
.186* .51 (.09, .94) |
.167* .64 (.14, 1.15) |
| Any exchange sex | .222* 1.67 (1.12, 2.47) |
.323* 1.80 (1.26, 2.58) |
.357* 1.95 (1.33, 2.86) |
.371* 2.30 (1.49, 3.56) |
| Had sex at a group sex event | .088 1.43 (.97, 2.13) |
.256* 1.70 (1.18, 2.46) |
.189* 1.52 (1.05, 2.23) |
.234* 1.81 (1.19, 2.77) |
Cell entries are Pearson’s correlations. An * indicates that the parameter has p < .05, and ** indicates p < .01. For selected cells, multivariate logistic regressions were run controlling for Age, Race/Ethnicity (Non-Hispanic White vs. other), and (for PWID and HRH) sex. In these cells, in addition to r, the adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidences intervals are also given. For MSM, the regression coefficients and confidence intervals are from linear regression since the dependent variable is continuous.
For analyses of sex partner numbers, different ways of categorizing these were used for the different risk groups based on the distributions in the sample. For PWID, the reference group is those who reported having no sex partners, and the other categories are one sex partner and more than one sex partner. For high-risk heterosexuals, we dichotomized into more than one sex partner vs. one or zero partners. Correlations are not given for this set of variables this the underlying variable on number of partners is a trichotomy. For MSM, we used the number of sex partners they reported.