Table 3.
Unadjusted and adjusted associations between HIV stigma and recent condom usage, consistent condom usage, and self-reported STDs
| Recent condom usage | Recent condom usage | Consistent condom usage | Consistent condom usage | Self-reported STDs | Self-reported STDs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | Unadjusted OR (95% CI) | AdjustedOR (95% CI) | Unadjusted OR (95% CI) | AdjustedOR (95% CI) | |
| Self-reported stigma/disclosure concerns | ||||||
| Stigmatizing attitudes (individual)¶ | 0.69 (0.64–0.75)*** | 0.88 (0.81–0.96)** | 0.63 (0.56–0.70)*** | 0.83 (0.75–0.91)*** | 1.07 (0.99–1.14)† | 1.04 (0.98–1.12) |
| Stigmatizing attitudes (community) | -- | 1.01 (0.78–1.31) | -- | 0.95 (0.66–1.38) | -- | 2.07 (1.55–2.77)*** |
| Disclosure concerns (individual) | 1.28 (1.07–1.52)** | 0.88 (0.73–1.04) | 1.36 (1.11–1.68)** | 0.89 (0.73–1.09) | 1.13 (0.98–1.29)† | 1.13 (0.97–1.32) |
| Disclosure concerns (community) | -- | 0.91 (0.46–1.77) | -- | 1.00 (0.46–2.20) | -- | 2.95 (1.51–5.58)*** |
| Age | ||||||
| Age >22 yrs | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Age ≤21 yrs | 0.57 (0.49–0.68)*** | 1.05 (0.88–1.27) | 0.59 (0.49–0.72)*** | 1.03 (0.84–1.26) | 0.89 (0.80–1.00)** | 1.23 (1.04–1.45) ** |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Female | 0.29 (0.24–0.35)*** | 0.32 (0.26–0.39)*** | 0.26 (0.20–0.32)*** | 0.30 (0.23–0.38)*** | 1.21 (1.02–1.42)** | 1.18 (0.99–1.41)* |
| Current marital status | ||||||
| Never married | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Married or partnered | 0.23 (0.20–0.28)*** | 0.39 (0.31–0.48)*** | 0.23 (0.19–0.27)*** | 0.40 (0.31–0.50) *** | 0.72 (0.63–0.83)*** | 0.67 (0.55–0.81)*** |
| Widowed, divorced, separated | 0.45 (0.31–0.60)*** | 0.67 (0.47–0.96)** | 0.47 (0.31–0.72)*** | 0.75 (0.48–1.18) | 1.02 (0.83–1.25) | 0.90 (0.70–1.16) |
| Region of country | ||||||
| Eastern | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Northern | 1.03 (0.79–0.34) | 1.10 (0.85–1.41) | 0.94 (0.70–1.28) | 1.00 (0.72–1.36) | 0.97 (0.77–1.22) | 0.90 (0.72–1.13) |
| Southern | 1.49 (1.14–1.95)** | 1.69 (1.30–2.46)*** | 1.11 (0.82–1.50) | 1.20 (0.88–1.65) | 0.69 (0.57–0.85)*** | 0.67 (0.55–0.83)*** |
| Western | 3.48 (2.76–4.38)*** | 1.83 (1.41–2.34)*** | 3.74 (2.77–5.02)*** | 1.87 (1.37–2.54)*** | 0.96 (0.76–1.21) | 0.81 (0.60–1.10) |
| Location | ||||||
| Urban | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Rural | 0.33 (0.27–0.40)*** | 0.93 (0.72–1.19) | 0.29 (0.23–0.37)*** | 0.923 (0.70–1.23) | 0.90 (0.75–1.08) | 1.01 (1.08–1.49) |
| Highest educational level | ||||||
| No education | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Primary | 1.76 (1.39–2.23)*** | 1.30 (1.01–1.68)** | 1.79 (1.33–2.41)*** | 1.30 (0.93–1.80) | 1.29 (1.11–1.52)** | 1.27 (1.08–1.49)** |
| Secondary | 4.78 (3.99–5.72)*** | 2.00 (1.62–2.47)*** | 5.96 (4.75–7.46)*** | 2.39 (1.84–3.11)*** | 1.23 (1.06–1.43)** | 1.15 (0.98–1.33)* |
| Higher | 9.45 (7.41–12.03)*** | 3.25 (2.47–4.29)*** | 12.89 (9.49–17.49)*** | 4.13 (2.92–5.84)*** | 0.94 (0.69–1.29) | 0.91 (0.67–1.24) |
| Interviewed household head | 1.12 (0.96–1.31) | 0.97 (0.81–1.16) | 1.23 (1.04–1.47)** | 1.06 (0.88–1.28) | 0.77 (0.68–0.89)*** | 0.89 (0.77–1.03) |
| Wealth status & | ||||||
| Poorest | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Poorer | 1.48 (1.05–2.10)** | 1.42 (0.99–2.03)* | 1.35 (0.85–2.15) | 1.25 (0.79–2.02) | 1.07 (0.89–1.28) | 1.03 (0.85–1.23) |
| Middle | 1.57 (1.15–2.17)** | 1.42 (1.02–1.98)** | 1.29 (0.85–1.99) | 1.07 (0.70–2.02) | 1.03 (0.85–1.27) | 0.98 (0.81–1.20) |
| Richer | 2.60 (1.90–3.54)*** | 1.74 (1.26–2.40)*** | 2.50 (1.70–3.68)*** | 1.42 (0.94–2.14)* | 1.24 (1.01–1.51)** | 1.13 (0.91–1.41) |
| Richest | 5.35 (4.04–7.09)*** | 1.94 (1.36–2.77)*** | 5.64 (3.88–8.20)*** | 1.44 (0.96–2.24) | 1.19 (0.96–1.47) | 1.11 (0.84–1.48) |
AOR, adjusted odds ratio; OR, odds ratio
The adjusted models include the following covariates: age, gender, current marital status, region, rural/urban, highest educational level, interviewed household head, and wealth status.
The HIV stigmatizing attitudes scale was generated by summing the total number of responses to five questions about persons with HIV, with responses indicating a negative view of persons with HIV coded to equal “1”. The scale ranges from 0–3, with higher values indicating a greater degree of stigma.
The household asset wealth index is calculated by applying principal components analysis to a set of household possessions and housing characteristics. The index is then defined as the first principal component extracted from the principal components analysis and used to categorize participants into quintiles of household asset wealth. Further details on the construction of the asset index can be found in Filmer D, Pritchett LH. Demog 2011;38:115–132.
p<0.10;
p<0.05;
p<0.01;
p<0.001