Table 6.
Logistic regression predicting likelihood of never having received HIV counselling
| Control variable | Odds ratio | Confidence interval | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| DOT support | |||
| Home-based DOT support | 1.00 | – | |
| No home-based DOT support | 2.87 | (1.36, 6.06) | ** |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 1.00 | – | |
| Male | 1.01 | (0.69, 1.49) | NS |
| Age (continuous) | 1.02 | (1.01, 1.04) | ** |
| Employment | |||
| Employed | 1.00 | – | |
| Unemployed | 0.80 | (0.53, 1.22) | NS |
| Marital status | |||
| Married or cohabiting | 1.00 | – | |
| Unmarried and not cohabiting | 0.87 | (0.59, 1.28) | NS |
| Housing quality | |||
| Not in very poor housing | 1.00 | – | |
| In very poor housing | 0.97 | (0.62, 1.54) | NS |
| Education | |||
| Secondary school or higher | 1.00 | – | |
| No or only primary school | 0.86 | (0.54, 1.39) | NS |
| Undergoing retreatment for TB | |||
| No | 1.00 | – | |
| Yes | 1.06 | (0.67, 1.67) | NS |
Note 1: **P < 0.01; NS = Not significant
Note 2: Includes all patients in the sample, N = 1101
Note 3: Computed using SPSS procedure Binary Logistic