Table 2.
Crude and multivariable analyses for associations between invitation to participate in DREAMS and outcomes (social support; self-efficacy) in 2018/2019
| Outcome | Setting | Age group | All | Never invited | Invited by 2018 | Unadjusted OR (95% CI) | Age and area adjusted OR (95% CI) | Fully adjusted* OR (95% CI) | P value (LRT) | |||
| N | n (%) with outcome | N | n (%) with outcome | N | n (%) with outcome | |||||||
| Social support, 2018 | Nairobi | Overall | 831 | 421 (50.7) | 210 | 90 (42.9) | 621 | 331 (53.3) | 1.5 (1.1 to 2.1) | 1.5 (1.1 to 2.1) | 1.5 (1.1 to 2.1) | 0.01 |
| 15–17 | 466 | 240 (51.5) | 94 | 33 (35.1) | 372 | 207 (55.7) | 2.3 (1.4 to 3.7) | 2.2 (1.4 to 3.5) | 2.4 (1.5 to 3.9) | <0.001 | ||
| 18–22 | 365 | 181 (49.6) | 116 | 57 (49.1) | 249 | 124 (49.8) | 1.0 (0.7 to 1.6) | 1.1 (0.7 to 1.7) | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.7) | 0.9 | ||
| Gem | Overall | 1171 | 424 (36.2) | 514 | 145 (28.2) | 657 | 279 (42.5) | 1.9 (1.5 to 2.4) | 2.0 (1.5 to 2.5) | 2.0 (1.6 to 2.6) | <0.001 | |
| 13–17 | 684 | 231 (33.8) | 285 | 76 (26.7) | 399 | 155 (38.8) | 1.8 (1.3 to 2.4) | 1.8 (1.3 to 2.5) | 2.0 (1.4 to 2.8) | <0.001 | ||
| 18–22 | 487 | 193 (39.6) | 229 | 69 (30.1) | 258 | 124 (48.1) | 2.2 (1.5 to 3.1) | 2.3 (1.6 to 3.4) | 2.4 (1.6 to 3.6) | <0.001 | ||
| uMkhanyakude | Overall | 1852 | 847 (45.7) | 886 | 373 (42.1) | 966 | 474 (49.1) | 1.3 (1.1 to 1.6) | 1.4 (1.1 to 1.6) | 1.4 (1.1 to 1.7) | 0.002 | |
| 13–17 | 1040 | 490 (47.1) | 389 | 170 (43.7) | 651 | 320 (49.2) | 1.2 (1.0 to 1.6) | 1.3 (1.0 to 1.7) | 1.3 (1.0 to 1.7) | 0.03 | ||
| 18–22 | 812 | 357 (44.0) | 497 | 203 (40.9) | 315 | 154 (48.9) | 1.4 (1.0 to 1.8) | 1.4 (1.1 to 1.9) | 1.4 (1.1 to 1.9) | 0.02 | ||
| Social support, 2019 | Nairobi | Overall | 852 | 480 (56.3) | 224 | 111 (49.6) | 628 | 369 (58.8) | 1.4 (1.1 to 2.0) | 1.4 (1.0 to 1.9) | 1.4 (1.0 to 1.9) | 0.04 |
| 15–17 | 464 | 266 (57.3) | 95 | 43 (45.3) | 369 | 223 (60.4) | 1.8 (1.2 to 2.9) | 1.7 (1.1 to 2.8) | 1.7 (1.0 to 2.8) | 0.03 | ||
| 18–22 | 388 | 214 (55.2) | 129 | 68 (52.7) | 259 | 146 (56.4) | 1.2 (0.8 to 1.8) | 1.2 (0.8 to 1.8) | 1.2 (0.8 to 1.9) | 0.4 | ||
| Gem | Overall | 1018 | 411 (40.1) | 436 | 156 (35.8) | 582 | 255 (43.8) | 1.4 (1.1 to 1.8) | 1.4 (1.1 to 1.8) | 1.4 (1.0 to 1.8) | 0.02 | |
| 13–17 | 622 | 229 (37.0) | 261 | 81 (31.0) | 361 | 148 (41.0) | 1.5 (1.1 to 2.2) | 1.5 (1.1 to 2.2) | 1.6 (1.1 to 2.3) | 0.008 | ||
| 18–22 | 396 | 182 (46.0) | 175 | 75 (42.9) | 221 | 107 (48.4) | 1.3 (0.8 to 1.9) | 1.3 (0.8 to 1.9) | 1.1 (0.7 to 1.7) | 0.6 | ||
| uMkhanyakude | Overall | 1712 | 778 (45.4) | 809 | 358 (44.3) | 903 | 420 (46.5) | 1.1 (0.9 to 1.3) | 1.1 (0.9 to 1.3) | 1.1 (0.9 to 1.3) | 0.5 | |
| 13–17 | 972 | 441 (45.4) | 364 | 157 (43.1) | 608 | 284 (46.7) | 1.2 (0.9 to 1.5) | 1.1 (0.9 to 1.5) | 1.2 (0.9 to 1.5) | 0.2 | ||
| 18–22 | 740 | 337 (45.5) | 445 | 201 (45.2) | 295 | 136 (46.1) | 1.0 (0.8 to 1.4) | 1.0 (0.8 to 1.4) | 0.9 (0.7 to 1.3) | 0.7 | ||
| Self efficacy, 2018 | Nairobi | Overall | 836 | 449 (53.7) | 212 | 109 (51.4) | 624 | 340 (54.5) | 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6) | 1.2 (0.8 to 1.6) | 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6) | 0.5 |
| 15–17 | 466 | 243 (52.1) | 94 | 49 (52.1) | 372 | 194 (52.2) | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.6) | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.6) | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.6) | 0.9 | ||
| 18–22 | 370 | 206 (55.7) | 118 | 60 (50.8) | 252 | 146 (57.9) | 1.3 (0.9 to 2.1) | 1.4 (0.9 to 2.1) | 1.2 (0.8 to 2.0) | 0.4 | ||
| Gem | Overall | 1171 | 436 (37.2) | 514 | 193 (37.5) | 657 | 243 (37.0) | 1.0 (0.8 to 1.2) | 1.0 (0.8 to 1.3) | 1.1 (0.9 to 1.5) | 0.4 | |
| 15–17 | 684 | 224 (32.7) | 285 | 93 (32.6) | 399 | 131 (32.8) | 1.0 (0.7 to 1.4) | 1.0 (0.7 to 1.4) | 1.1 (0.8 to 1.5) | 0.6 | ||
| 18–22 | 487 | 212 (43.5) | 229 | 100 (43.7) | 258 | 112 (43.4) | 1.0 (0.7 to 1.4) | 1.0 (0.7 to 1.4) | 1.1 (0.7 to 1.6) | 0.7 | ||
| uMkhanyakude | Overall | 1853 | 771 (41.6) | 886 | 348 (39.3) | 967 | 423 (43.7) | 1.2 (1.0 to 1.4) | 1.4 (1.1 to 1.7) | 1.4 (1.2 to 1.8) | <0.001 | |
| 15–17 | 1041 | 379 (36.4) | 389 | 125 (32.1) | 652 | 254 (39.0) | 1.3 (1.0 to 1.8) | 1.3 (1.0 to 1.7) | 1.4 (1.0 to 1.8) | 0.03 | ||
| 18–22 | 812 | 392 (48.3) | 497 | 223 (44.9) | 315 | 169 (53.7) | 1.4 (1.1 to 1.9) | 1.5 (1.1 to 2.0) | 1.5 (1.1 to 2.1) | 0.004 | ||
| Self efficacy, 2019 | Nairobi | Overall | 852 | 465 (54.6) | 224 | 113 (50.5) | 628 | 352 (56.1) | 1.3 (0.9 to 1.7) | 1.3 (0.9 to 1.8) | 1.3 (0.9 to 1.8) | 0.1 |
| 15–17 | 464 | 247 (53.2) | 95 | 48 (50.5) | 369 | 199 (54.0) | 1.2 (0.7 to 1.8) | 1.1 (0.7 to 1.7) | 1.1 (0.7 to 1.7) | 0.8 | ||
| 18–22 | 388 | 218 (56.2) | 129 | 65 (50.4) | 259 | 153 (59.1) | 1.4 (0.9 to 2.2) | 1.4 (0.9 to 2.2) | 1.6 (1.0 to 2.6) | 0.04 | ||
| Gem | Overall | 1018 | 351 (34.5) | 436 | 145 (33.3) | 582 | 206 (35.4) | 1.1 (0.9 to 1.4) | 1.1 (0.9 to 1.5) | 1.2 (0.9 to 1.5) | 0.2 | |
| 15–17 | 622 | 187 (30.1) | 261 | 71 (27.2) | 361 | 116 (32.1) | 1.3 (0.9 to 1.8) | 1.3 (0.9 to 1.8) | 1.5 (1.0 to 2.2) | 0.04 | ||
| 18–22 | 396 | 164 (41.4) | 175 | 74 (42.3) | 221 | 90 (40.7) | 0.9 (0.6 to 1.4) | 0.9 (0.6 to 1.4) | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.5) | 0.8 | ||
| uMkhanyakude | Overall | 1712 | 829 (48.4) | 809 | 384 (47.5) | 903 | 445 (49.3) | 1.1 (0.9 to 1.3) | 1.2 (1.0 to 1.5) | 1.3 (1.0 to 1.5) | 0.03 | |
| 15–17 | 972 | 414 (42.6) | 364 | 140 (38.5) | 608 | 274 (45.1) | 1.3 (1.0 to 1.7) | 1.3 (1.0 to 1.7) | 1.3 (1.0 to 1.7) | 0.04 | ||
| 18–22 | 740 | 415 (56.1) | 445 | 244 (54.8) | 295 | 171 (58.0) | 1.1 (0.8 to 1.5) | 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6) | 1.2 (0.8 to 1.6) | 0.4 | ||
Row percentages are presented.
Outcome definition for social support: Binary outcome variable constructed where a high level of social support was defined as a ‘yes’ response to at least three out of four questions: ‘Is there a female in your community from whom you can borrow money in an emergency?’; ‘Do you have at least one trusted female friend?’; ‘Do you know a woman in your community, other than a mother or guardian, whom you could turn to if you had a serious problem?’; ‘Do you have a safe and private place to meet with girls and young women who are like you?’ Outcome definition for self-efficacy: Binary outcome variable constructed based on a series of 10 questions comprising a general self-efficacy scale, where a cut-off value of ≥3.5 was used to define higher self-efficacy (yes).
*Adjusted for the following variables:Gem: Social support: age group (categorised as 13–17/18–22), education (none or primary/secondary and above/ unknown), socioeconomic status (wealth index derived using principal component analysis with input variables including, for example, individual or household assets and household structure; categorised as low/medium/high), orphanhood (no/maternal/paternal/double orphan/unknown based on self-reports of mother or father having died), food insecurity (AGYW or household member went to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food in the past 4 weeks; yes/no) and sexual and pregnancy history (never had sex/had sex never pregnant/ever pregnant); Self-efficacy: age group, education, socioeconomic status, orphanhood, food insecurity and sexual and pregnancy history (variable definitions the same as for social support analyses).Nairobi: Social support: age group and education (composite variable combining age 15–17/18–22, in school/not in school, no/primary/secondary/tertiary education attainment), Demographic Surveillance System (DSS) study site (Korogocho/Viwandani settlements), marital status (never married/previously married or living with partner/currently married or living with partner), sexual and pregnancy history (never had sex/had sex never pregnant/ever pregnant), socioeconomic status (wealth index derived using principal component analysis with input variables including for example, individual or household assets and household structure; categorised as low/medium/high), food insecurity (AGYW or household member went to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food in the past 4 weeks; yes/no), poverty perception (self-assessment of household economic situation currently as very poor/moderately poor/not poor), orphanhood (single or double orphan/ not orphan, based on self-reports of mother or father having died); Self-efficacy: DSS study site, food insecurity, orphanhood, sexual and pregnancy history, socioeconomic status, poverty perception (variable definitions the same as for social support analyses), age group (15–17/18–22), in/out of school (yes/no), birth history (ever given birth yes/no), ethnic group (Somali, Kamba, Kikuyu, Kisii, Luhya, Luo, other), religion (Catholic/other Christian/Muslim/no or other religion), gender of the household head (male/female), AGYW was the household head (yes/no).uMkhanyakude: Social support: age group (13–14/15–17/18–19/20–22), age and education (composite and dummy variables comparing age groups 13–17/18–22, in school/not in school, incomplete/complete secondary education), area (rural/ periurban or urban), sexual and pregnancy history (never had sex/had sex never pregnant/ever pregnant), socioeconomic status (wealth index derived using principal component analysis with input variables including for example, individual or household assets and household structure; categorised as low/medium/high), food insecurity (any report of reducing the size of food portions or skipping meals by any member of a household because there was not enough money to buy food in the past 12 months), migration (any movement within or outside the surveillance area since age 13); Self-efficacy: age group, age and education, area, sexual and pregnancy history, socioeconomic status, food insecurity, migration (variable definitions the same as for social support analyses), violence (experience of any act of violence by a man in the 12 months preceding the survey).
AGYW, adolescent girls and young women; DREAMS, Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored and Safe; LRT, likelihood ratio test; OR, odds ratio.