TABLE 3.
Multivariate Logistic Regression of Characteristics of Stable Partners and Female Sex Workers (FSWs) as Well as Relationship Stressors and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV; N = 743)a
| aOR 95% CI | Overall (n = 743) | Physical (n = 735) | Emotional (n = 740) | Sexual (n = 739) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| HIV-related behavior | ||||||||||||
| Inconsistent condom use with SP | 1.21 (0.70,2.09) | 1.15 (0.65,2.01) | 1.03 (0.57,1.86) | 1.00 (0.47,2.13) | 0.99 (0.50,2.13) | 0.92 (0.42,2.01) | 1.10 (0.64,1.90) | 1.0310 (0.59,1.81) | 0.9310 (0.51,1.68) | 1.0710 (0.48,2.41) | 1.1110 (0.49, 2.55) | 1.1010 (0.47,2.53) |
| inconsistent condom use with SP in the last three sex acts | 1.27 (0.81,1.93) | 1.20 (0.77,1.87) | 1.12 (0.70,1.78) | 1.32 (0.76,2.29) | 1.18 (0.67,2.08) | 1.10 (0.62,1.97) | 1.16 (0.75,1.78) | 1.10 (0.71,1.72) | 1.02 (0.64,1.63) | 1.27 (0.70,2.33) | 1.26 (0.67,2.37) | 1.11 (0.59, 2.10) |
| Intention of inconsistent condom use with SP in future | 1.17 (0.77,1.82) | 1.22 (0.79,1.91) | 1.12 (0.70,1.79) | 2.08 (1.12, 3.88)* | 2.12 (1.13, 3.97)* | 2.01 (1.05, 3.83)* | 1.28 (0.83,1.95) | 1.33 (0.86, 2.07) | 1.22 (0.77,1.95) | 1.08 (0.59,1.99) | 1.07 (0.58,1.99) | 1.01 (0.54,1.89) |
| STD infection history | 3.97 (1.78,8.85)*** | 4.02 (1.77,9.14)*** | 4.04 (1.70,9.61)**** | 1.94 (1.01,3.72)* | 1.70 (0.88,3.30) | 1.46 (0.73,2.92) | 4.57 (2.06,10.15)**** | 4.70 (2.08,10.62)**** | 4.86 (2.05,11.52)**** | 2.09 (1.06,4.11)* | 1.89 (0.95,3.75) | 1.78 (0.87,3.64) |
| HIV testing | 1.34 (0.95,1.90) | 1.31 (0.92,1.86) | 1.25 (0.86,1.81) | 1.02 (0.67,1.56) | 0.99 (0.64,1.52) | 0.95 (0.60,1.50) | 1.38 (0.98,1.94) | 1.36 (0.96,1.94) | 1.32 (0.91,1.92) | 1.74 (1.08,2.79)* | 1.71 (1.05,2.77)* | 1.70 (1.03,2.81)* |
| FSWs’ alcohol use | 1.81 (1.25,2.62)*** | 1.85 (1.26, 2.72)*** | 1.85 (1.23,2.77)*** | 1.54 (0.95,2.51) | 1.50 (0.90,2.49) | 1.47 (0.87, 2.48) | 1.66 (1.15,2.40)** | 1.69 (1.16,2.47)** | 1.68 (1.12,2.51)* | 1.28 (0.76,2.18) | 1.16 (0.68, 2.00) | 1.17 (0.67,2.03) |
| Drug abuse | 0.89 (0.56,1.41) | 0.85 (0.53,1.36) | 0.81 (0.49,1.34) | 0.66 (0.53,1.50) | 0.86 (0.50,1.46) | 0.88 (0.51,1.54) | 0.92 (0.58,1.45) | 0.88 (0.55,1.40) | 0.85 (0.51,1.39) | 1.19 (0.68,2.06) | 1.09 (0.62,1.92) | 1.05 (0.58,1.88) |
| Characteristics of stable partners | ||||||||||||
| Education of SP | — | 0.64 (0.44,0.92)* | 0.64 (0.43,0.94)* | — | 0.52 (0.33,0.80)*** | 0.50 (0.32,0.78)*** | — | 0.72 (0.50,1.02) | 0.72 (0.50,1.06) | — | 0.74 (0.46,1.19) | 0.72 (0.44,1.18) |
| Types of SP–Boyfriend | — | 2.23 (0.78,6.38) | 1.83 (0.59,5.64) | — | 1.90 (0.70,5.19) | 1.47 (0.51, 4.25) | — | 2.22 (0.78,6.30) | 1.80 (0.58,5.56) | — | 3.99 (1.35,11.83* | 3.46 (1.12, 10.68)* |
| Types of SP–Spouse | — | 4.64 (1.54,13.96)** | 4.41 (1.37,14.17)* | — | 3.66 (1.23,10.86)* | 3.43 (1.09,10.84)* | — | 5..00 (1.67,14.91)*** | 4.75 (1.49,15.18)** | — | 1.91 (0.60,6.06) | 1.69 (0.52,5.53) |
| Types of SP–Lovers | — | 3.26 (1.12,9.51)* | 2.46 (0.78,7.79) | — | 2.10 (0.78, 5.68) | 1.57 (0.55,4.48) | — | 3.82 (1.31, 11.09)* | 2.83 (0.89,8.94) | — | 3.64 (1.27,10.40)* | 2.75 (0.93,8.10) |
| Types of SP–Long- term clients | — | 0.84 (0.21,3.35) | 0.83 (0.17,3.96) | — | 2.87 (0.66,12.52) | 2.60 (0.52,13.05) | — | 0.95 (0.24, 3.79) | 0.95 (0.20,4.53) | — | 0.72 (0.08.6.63) | 0.49 (0.04, 5.81) |
| Types of SP–Others | — | 1.28 (0.25,6.54) | 0.68 (0.12,4.08) | — | 2.58 (0.41, 16.40) | 1.54 (0.23, 10.49) | — | 1.41 (0.28,7.15) | 0.72 (0.12,4.28) | — | 3.23 (0.51,20.43) | 2.00 (0.31,12.9) |
| SP’s alcohol use | — | 1.12 (0.99,1.27) | 1.09 (0.96,1.25) | — | 1.21 (1.04, 1.42)* | 1.21 (1.03,1.42)* | — | 1.12 (0.99,1.27) | 1.09 (0.95,1.24) | — | 1.21 (1.02,1.44)* | 1.18 (0.99,1.41) |
| Relationship stressors | ||||||||||||
| Having frictions with SP | — | — | 1.74 (1.46,2.07)**** | — | — | 1.57 (1.30, 1.90)**** | — | — | 1.75 (1.47,2.08)**** | — | — | 1.36 (1.11,1.66)*** |
| Financial dependence on FSWs | — | — | 0.91 (0.58,1.43) | — | — | 1.10 (0.67,1.83) | — | — | 0.82 (0.52,1.27) | — | — | 1.05 (0.60,1.85) |
| Concurrent partnership | 2.17 (1.32,3.56)*** | 1.83 (1.09,3.09)* | 2.49 (1.52,4.07)**** | 2.39 (1.39,4.09)*** | ||||||||
| Model indicators | ||||||||||||
| Pseudo R2 (%) b | 6.50% | 8.99% | 15.47% | 6.78% | 10.12% | 14.93% | 6.14% | 8.54% | 15.57% | 3.87% | 6.81% | 10.66% |
| Δ Pseudo R2 (%) c | — | 2.49% | 6.48% | — | 3.34% | 4.81% | — | 2.39% | 7.04% | — | 2.94% | 3.85% |
Note:
a
All models are controlled for FSWs’ demographics (i.e., age, ethnicity, residency, marriage, incomes, and venue level);
b
Pseudo R2 = Model L2/ DEV0 = Model L2/ (Model chi-square + the −2 Log likelihood for the model);
c
Δ Pseudo R2 = R2model 2- R2model 1 and R2model 3- R2model 2;
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p < .001,
****
p < .0001.