Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jan 27;295:112817. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112817

Table 5.

Mediation analyses: Effects of the intervention on consistent condom use through psychosocial problems and condom use self-efficacy (N=459 MSM)

Type of effect Consistent condom use with male partners Consistent condom use with female partners
Estimate
(95% CI)		 p value Estimate
(95% CI)		 p value
Total effect of the intervention 1.01
(.16, 1.85)		 .01 .99
(-.32, 2.30)		 .10
Direct effect of the intervention 1.18
(.27, 2.09)		 .01 .35
(-1.06,1.78)		 .60
Mediated pathways: Group → Mediators → CCU
Group → Alcohol use (M1) → CCU -.08
(-.27, .09)		 .30 -.16
(-.43, .11)		 .20
Group → Depression (M2) → CCU .001
(-.09, .09)		 .90 .21
(-.14, .57)		 .20
Group → Internalised Homonegativity (M3) → CCU -.19
(-.46, .07)		 .10 .56
(-.12, 1.26)		 .10
Group → Condom use self-efficacy (M4) → CCU .11
(-.02, .25)		 .10 .01
(-.18, .20)		 .90
Mediated pathways: Group → syndemic conditions → Condom use self-efficacy (CUSE) → CCU
Group → Alcohol use (M1) → CUSE (M4) → CCU .04
(.001, .09)		 .04 .03
(-.02, .09)		 .20
Group → Depression (M2) → CUSE (M4) → CCU .01
(-.005, .03)		 .10 -.001
(-.02, .01)		 .80
Group → Internalised Homonegativity (M3) → CUSE (M4) → CCU .10
(.01, .18)		 .01 .14
(-.05, .35)		 .10

Note. All models were adjusted for age, marital status, educational level, sexual identity, sex work involvement, baseline levels of consistent condom use, and relevant baseline scores of all mediators (condom use self-efficacy, alcohol use, depression and internalised homonegativity)