Table 2.
Factors associated with high acceptability of PrEP teleconsultation. Brazil, 2020. n = 534.
| High acceptability of PrEP teleconsultation |
Ordinal logistic model |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (n = 373; 69.9%) | No (n = 161; 30.1%) | aOR (95%CI) | p-value | |
| Age (years) | ||||
| 18–24 | 21 (5.6) | 15 (9.3) | Ref. | |
| 24–35 | 203 (54.4) | 80 (49.7) | 1.27 (0.66–2.45) | 0.47 |
| >35 | 149 (39.9) | 66 (41.0) | 1.09 (0.55–2.14) | 0.81 |
| Gender | ||||
| Cisgender men | 369 (98.9) | 154 (95.7) | Ref. | |
| Transgender/non binary | 4 (1.1) | 7 (4.3) | 2.51 (0.79–7.86) | 0.11 |
| Education | ||||
| Low | 79 (21.2) | 58 (36.0) | Ref. | |
| High | 294 (78.8) | 103 (64.0) | 1.62 (1.07–2.45) | 0.02 |
| Race | ||||
| Black | 58 (15.5) | 24 (14.9) | 0.97 (0.61–1.54) | 0.88 |
| Pardo | 93 (24.9) | 58 (36.0) | 0.78 (0.53–1.14) | 0.19 |
| White | 222 (59.5) | 79 (49.1) | Ref. | |
| Income | ||||
| Low | 112 (30.0) | 65 (40.4) | Ref. | |
| Middle | 145 (38.9) | 64 (39.8) | 1.14 (0.76–1.71) | 0.53 |
| High | 116 (31.1) | 32 (19.9) | 1.37 (0.87–2.15) | 0.17 |
| Living in metropolitan area of State capitals | ||||
| Yes | 319 (86.0) | 134 (83.2) | 1.11 (0.70–1.75) | 0.65 |
| No | 52 (14.0) | 27 (16.8) | Ref. | |
| Having sex during social distancing period | ||||
| Yes, casual partner | 166 (44.5) | 72 (44.7) | 1.34 (0.93–1.92) | 0.11 |
| Yes, steady partner | 81 (21.7) | 30 (18.6) | 1.37 (0.88–2.14) | 0.16 |
| No sex | 126 (33.8) | 59 (36.6) | Ref. | |
Bold indicates statistical significance (p < .05).