Table 4. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models showing significant independent predictors of likelihood of agreeing with statement “I think I would benefit from PrEP” (confirmed by response above average (≥7)).
| Univariate analysis: | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Total (726) |
Agree (n=463) |
Odds ratio | 95% CI | p-value | |
| Education | Unknown A levels or less Degree |
2 154 570 |
0(0.0) 95(61.7) 368(64.6) |
0.0 0.88 1 |
(-) (0.61 to 1.28) |
0.105 |
| Ethnicity | Other Asian Black Black FRICAN Central/SA South East Asian White |
69 24 22 13 12 22 564 |
51(73.9) 18(75.0) 15(68.2) 11(84.6) 8(66.7) 14(63.6) 346(61.4) |
1.79 1.89 1.35 3.47 1.26 1.10 1 |
(1.02 to 3.14) (0.74 to 4.84) (0.54 to 3.36) (0.76 to 14.78) (0.37 to 4.23) (0.46 to 2.67) |
0.170 |
| Total number insertive partners | increase in odds per unit increase in total top | 1.13 | (1.06 to 1.19) | <0.001 | ||
| Total number insertive partners without a condom | N/A Unknown 1 2 3 0 |
133 42 150 77 96 228 |
69(81.9) 24(57.1) 96(64.0) 57(74.0) 82(85.4) 135(59.2) |
0.74 0.92 1.22 1.96 4.03 1 |
(0.48 to 1.14) (0.47 to 1.79) (0.80 to 1.87) (1.11 to 3.48) (2.16 to 7.54) |
<0.001 |
| Total number receptive partners | increase in odds per unit increase in total bottom | 1.16 | (1.08 to 1.24) | <0.001 | ||
| Total number receptive partners without a condom | increase in odds per unit increase in no condom | 1.68 | (1.39 to 2.04) | <0.001 | ||
| Use of Recreational drugs | Yes No |
373 353 |
270(72.4) 193(54.7) |
2.17 1 |
(1.60 to 2.96) | <0.001 |
| Chem Sex Use | N/A Yes No |
118 203 405 |
68(57.6) 158(77.8) 237(58.5) |
0.96 2.49 1 |
(0.64 to 1.46) (1.69 to 3.66) |
<0.001 |
| STI in 6 months | Yes No |
279 447 |
206(73.8) 257(57.5) |
2.09 1 |
(1.51 to 2.89) | <0.001 |
| C/G rectum | Yes No |
109 617 |
94(86.2) 369(59.8) |
4.21 1 |
(2.39 to 7.43) | <0.001 |
| LGV | Yes No |
6 720 |
6(100.0) 457 (63.5) |
- | - | - |
| Syphilis | Yes No |
46 680 |
36(78.3) 427(62.8) |
2.13 1 |
(1.04 to 4.37) | 0.039 |
| Perceived PrEP effectiveness | increase in odds per unit increase in perceived effectiveness | 1.97 | (1.71 to 2.26) | <0.001 | ||
| Concerns about PrEP | increase in odds per unit increase in concerns | 0.86 | (0.81 to 0.90) | <0.001 | ||
| Willingness to pay for PrEP | increase in odds per unit increase in willingness to pay | 1.11 | (1.05 to 1.17) | <0.001 | ||
| Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Adjusted Odds ratio | 95% CI | p-value |
| UPRAI | (1.01 to 2.13) | 0.043 | |
| Perceived risk of UPRAI | 1.42 | (1.09 to 1.84) | 0.008 |
| PEP before | |||
| Yes No |
4.01 1 |
(1.80 to 8.92) | 0.001 |
| Perceived effectiveness of PrEP | 1.59 | (1.13 to 2.23) | 0.008 |
| Willingness to pay for PrEP | 1.23 | (1.06 to 1.43) | 0.006 |
Adjusted for Sexual orientation, Education, Ethnicity, Heard PrEP, Anal sex in the last month,
IAI, RAI, Rec drugs: GHB/GBL, Mephedrone, Crystal Meth, Injecting drug use, Chem Sex use, STI within 6 months, C/G in throat/penis, C/G rectum, Syphilis, Taken PrEP before and other variables in the model