Table 2. Results of fully-adjusted linear regression models predicting the importance of partner PrEP use and partner persuasion to use PrEP (n = 409).
| Importance of Partner PrEP Useb | Partner Persuasion to Use PrEPb | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Model 1a | Model 2a | Model 1b | Model 2b | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| B (SE) | β | B (SE) | β | B (SE) | β | B (SE) | β | |
| Age | -0.00 (0.00) | -0.02 | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.08 | -0.00 (0.01) | -0.05 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.06 |
| Race/Ethnicity (Ref: White) | ||||||||
| Black | 0.15 (0.18) | 0.04 | 0.01 (0.16) | 0.00 | 0.05 (0.24) | 0.01 | -0.17 (0.19) | -0.03 |
| Latino | 0.26 (0.13)* | 0.10 | 0.18 (0.11) | 0.07 | 0.13 (0.17) | 0.04 | -0.01 (0.14) | -0.00 |
| Other/Multiracial | 0.28 (0.17) | 0.08 | 0.19 (0.16) | 0.05 | 0.16 (0.23) | 0.03 | -0.00 (0.19) | -0.00 |
| Education (Ref: Less than Bachelor's degree) | ||||||||
| Bachelor's degree | -0.10 (0.10) | -0.05 | 0.00 (0.09) | 0.00 | -0.33 (0.13)* | -0.13 | -0.16 (0.11) | -0.06 |
| More than Bachelor's degree | -0.17 (0.11) | -0.09 | -0.10 (0.10) | -0.05 | -0.35 (0.15)* | -0.13 | -0.23 (0.12)* | -0.09 |
| Employment (Ref: Unemployed) | ||||||||
| Part-time employment | -0.26 (0.17) | -0.10 | -0.16 (0.15) | -0.06 | -0.30 (0.23) | -0.08 | -0.13 (0.19) | -0.04 |
| Full-time employment | -0.09 (0.15) | -0.04 | -0.08 (0.13) | -0.04 | -0.04 (0.20) | -0.01 | -0.03 (0.16) | -0.01 |
| Income (Ref: Less than $20k per year) | ||||||||
| $20k to $49k per year | -0.14 (0.15) | -0.07 | -0.02 (0.14) | -0.01 | -0.09 (0.20) | -0.03 | 0.11 (0.16) | 0.04 |
| $50k or more per year | -0.12 (0.16) | -0.07 | -0.03 (0.14) | -0.02 | -0.13 (0.22) | -0.05 | 0.02 (0.17) | 0.01 |
| Geographic Region (Ref: South) | ||||||||
| Northeast | -0.14 (0.12) | -0.06 | -0.01 (0.10) | -0.00 | -0.26 (0.15) | -0.08 | -0.03 (0.13) | -0.01 |
| Midwest | -0.31 (0.12)** | -0.14 | -0.14 (0.11) | -0.06 | -0.41 (0.16)** | -0.13 | -0.13 (0.13) | -0.04 |
| West | -0.13 (0.11) | -0.06 | -0.06 (0.10) | -0.03 | -0.25 (0.14) | -0.09 | -0.13 (0.12) | -0.04 |
| Relationship Arrangement with MPa (Ref: Monogamous) | ||||||||
| Monogamish | 0.43 (0.15)** | 0.15 | 0.19 (0.14) | 0.07 | 0.80 (0.20)*** | 0.20 | 0.40 (0.16)* | 0.10 |
| Open | 0.34 (0.13)** | 0.18 | 0.12 (0.11) | 0.06 | 0.52 (0.17)** | 0.21 | 0.15 (0.14) | 0.06 |
| Relationship Duration with MP in Years | -0.01 (0.01) | -0.08 | -0.00 (0.01) | -0.05 | -0.01 (0.01) | -0.11 | -0.01 (0.01) | -0.08 |
| Any Casual Sex Partners (Ref: No) | ||||||||
| Yes | 0.26 (0.12)* | 0.14 | 0.09 (0.11) | 0.05 | 0.25 (0.16) | 0.10 | -0.05 (0.13) | -0.02 |
| Current Condom Use with MP (Ref: No) | ||||||||
| Yes | 0.05 (0.14) | 0.02 | 0.02 (0.12) | 0.01 | -0.00 (0.19) | -0.00 | -0.06 (0.15) | -0.01 |
| Ever Condom Use with MP (Ref: No) | ||||||||
| Yes | -0.18 (0.09)* | -0.10 | -0.05 (0.08) | -0.03 | -0.25 (0.12)* | -0.10 | -0.03 (0.10) | -0.01 |
| Any Drug Use (Past 12-Months; Ref: No) | ||||||||
| Yes | 0.31 (0.18) | 0.09 | 0.15 (0.16) | 0.04 | 0.50 (0.23)* | 0.10 | 0.23 (0.19) | 0.05 |
| Hazardous Drinking (Past 12-Months; Ref: No) | ||||||||
| Yes | 0.08 (0.08) | 0.05 | 0.01 (0.08) | 0.00 | 0.10 (0.11) | 0.04 | -0.02 (0.09) | -0.01 |
| Marijuana Dependent (Past 12-Months; Ref: No) | ||||||||
| Yes | 0.05 (0.33) | 0.01 | 0.02 (0.29) | 0.00 | 0.47 (0.44) | 0.05 | 0.40 (0.35) | 0.04 |
| Any IPV Experienced (Past 12-Months; Ref: No) | ||||||||
| Yes | 0.22 (0.11)* | 0.10 | 0.13 (0.09) | 0.06 | 0.41 (0.14)** | 0.13 | 0.27 (0.11)* | 0.09 |
| PrEP Willingness | -- | -- | 0.18 (0.04)*** | 0.28 | -- | -- | 0.27 (0.05)*** | 0.30 |
| PrEP Intentions | -- | -- | 0.25 (0.05)*** | 0.28 | -- | -- | 0.46 (0.06)*** | 0.39 |
|
| ||||||||
| Model Statistics | ||||||||
| F-test (df) | 4.2 (23, 385)*** | 9.3 (25, 383)*** | 5.3 (23, 385)*** | 16.3 (25, 383)*** | ||||
| Adj-R2 | 0.15 | 0.34 | 0.19 | 0.48 | ||||
Notes:
*
p ≤ 0.05;
**
p ≤ 0.01;
***
p ≤ 0.001;
a
MP = main partner;
b
Model 1a and Model 2a are the adjusted regression models – excluding PrEP willingness and intentions, whereas Model 1b and Model 2b further adjust for self-willingness and self-intentions around PrEP.