Table 3.

HIV Care engagement by relationship and partnership serostatus (single, in a relationship) among young Black men who have sex with men living with hiv in Dallas and Houston, Texas, 2009–2014

Outcome	Partnership status	Simple logistic regression			Multiple logistic regression
		OR	95 % CI	p	AOR	95 % CI	p
Have a regular healthcare provider	Single	1.00			1.00
	In a relationship (concordant/discordant)	2.50	1.30–4.81	.005	2.58	1.20–5.54	.02a
Currently receiving HIV care	Single	1.00			1.00
	In a relationship (concordant/discordant)	2.07	1.18–3.64	.01	2.21	1.14–4.29	.02b
Ever received ART	Single	1.00			1.00
	In a relationship (concordant/discordant)	1.81	1.15–2.85	.01	1.70	1.01–2.88	.05c
Currently receiving ART	Single	1.00			1.00
	In a relationship (concordant/discordant)	0.23	0.12–0.44	< 001	0.36	0.17–0.79	.01d
ART adherence (No Missed Doses past 30 days)	Single/concordant	1.00			1.00
	Discordant	2.09	0.94–4.65	.06	2.45	0.94–6.38	.07e

OR odds ratio, AOR adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence interval, ART antiretroviral therapy

^an = 325, Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test p-value = 0.34

^bn = 326, Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test p-value = 0.89

^cn = 326, Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test p-value = 0.74

^dn = 224, Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test p-value = 0.52

^en = 162, Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test p-value = 0.25