Table III.
Social network characteristics of FSWs living with HIV (N=51)1
Drug Users (N=16) | Non-Drug users (N=35) | Test Statistic | df | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Range | Average proportion of total |
Mean | SD | Range | Average proportion of total | |||
Network degreea | 11.06 | 2.74 | 7–15 | 1.00 | 11.49 | 3.33 | 5–15 | 1.00 | 0.44 | 49 |
Network densityb | 0.50 | 0.32 | 0–1 | -- | 0.57 | 0.24 | 0–1 | -- | 0.91 | 49 |
Network E-I statisticc (drug) | 0.08 | 0.32 | −0.5–0.8 | -- | −0.77 | −0.68 | −1–0.07 | -- | −6.13** | 49 |
Drug network | 5.13 | 2.47 | 1–9 | 0.46 | 1.37 | 1.93 | 0–8 | 0.12 | −5.90** | 49 |
Use drugs with network | 2.50 | 1.90 | 0–7 | 0.23 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Alcohol network | 9.00 | 2.97 | 5–15 | 0.81 | 9.66 | 3.69 | 2–15 | 0.84 | 0.53 | 49 |
Social support network | 4.31 | 2.18 | 1–8 | 0.39 | 5.37 | 2.91 | 1–13 | 0.47 | 1.30 | 49 |
Economic network | 1.94 | 1.57 | 0–6 | 0.18 | 3.11 | 1.43 | 0–6 | 0.27 | 2.65* | 49 |
Sex network | 3.94 | 2.08 | 1–9 | 0.36 | 4.00 | 1.83 | 1–8 | 0.35 | 0.11 | 49 |
Sex and drug network | 2.38 | 1.88 | 0–6 | 0.21 | 0.80 | 1.23 | 0–6 | 0.07 | −3.59** | 49 |
No. HIV-positive in network | 1.69 | 2.15 | 0–8 | 0.15 | 2.11 | 2.39 | 0–9 | 0.18 | 0.61 | 49 |
No. family in network | 2.56 | 2.28 | 0–9 | 0.23 | 3.31 | 2.07 | 0–9 | 0.29 | 1.17 | 49 |
No. friends in network | 3.94 | 2.41 | 0–10 | 0.36 | 3.51 | 2.28 | 0–9 | 0.31 | −0.60 | 49 |
No. sex workers in network | 2.81 | 2.17 | 0–8 | 0.25 | 1.97 | 2.08 | 0–7 | 0.17 | −1.32 | 49 |
No. neighbors in network | 0.56 | 0.96 | 0–3 | 0.05 | 1.09 | 2.29 | 0–12 | 0.09 | 1.15 | 49 |
No. male in network | 5.19 | 2.61 | 2–11 | 0.47 | 6.02 | 2.55 | 2–11 | 0.52 | 1.08 | 49 |
Length of time known (years) | 12.52 | 12.53 | 1–46 | -- | 14.30 | 13.53 | 1–56 | -- | 1.30 | 49 |
Relationship strength to altersd | 1.88 | 0.81 | 1–3 | -- | 1.77 | 0.78 | 1–3 | -- | −0.98 | 49 |
Categories of relationships are not mutually exclusive;
Degree, total network size
Density, proportion of ties that exist in a network relative to the total number of possible ties
E-I statistic, ego’s propensity to have ties with alters in the same group or class as self with scores closer to −1 representing greater homophily on the grouping characteristic and scores of 1 representing greater heterogeneity on the grouping characteristic
Score range from 1 to 3 with ‘1=very close’ ‘2=sort of close’ ‘3=not close’.
p<0.01
p<0.001.
Notes. FSW=Female sex workers; df= degrees of freedom; Means based on non-missing data (<10% missing on any variable).