Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: AIDS Behav. 2017 Dec;21(12):3440–3456. doi: 10.1007/s10461-017-1960-x

Table 2.

Retention models Dependent variable: Rt=1 if participant returned to the study visit, Rt=0 otherwise

Model 1 Model 2


Coeff. AME Coeff. AME
Medium Incentive for staying free of STIs (M) 0.319 (0.216) 0.078 (0.052) 0.938** (0.394) 0.132** (0.054)
High Incentive for staying free of STIs (H) 0.380* (0.221) 0.093* (0.053) 0.841* (0.433) 0.120** (0.059)
Medium Incentive for study visits only (Mv) 0.467** (0.219) 0.113** (0.052) 0.719* (0.433) 0.104* (0.061)
Covariates for: distance to clinic (quintiles) N Y
  personal characteristics N Y
  lagged outcomes N Y
Pseudo R-squared 0.006 0.283
Observations 681 397
p-value (test: M = H) 0.79 0.81
p-value (test: M = Mv) 0.51 0.61
p-value (test: H = Mv) 0.71 0.79

Notes:

*

p<0.10;

**

p<0.05;

***

p<0.01.

Table presents coefficients from logit models and average marginal effects (AME). The dependent variable is the vector R which contains R1, R2 and R3. We defined R1 as a retention dummy equal to 1 if the participant returned to the first follow-up (at month 6); and equal to 0 if he did not. R2, and R3 were defined analogously for the second follow-up (at month 12), and third follow-up (at month 18).

Reference category was the control group. Covariates: Quintiles of distance to the clinic (in kilometers); personal characteristics (age, schooling, marital status, age of first sex, previous STI and HIV tests, as well as housing characteristics); and lagged outcomes (of number of sexual partners, condom use and incident sexually transmitted infections).