Table 2.

Bivariate correlates of being in each of four different partnership types among MSM and TW at high risk of HIV acquisition, Lima, Peru

	Being with a Main Partner	Being with a Casual Partner	Being with a One-Time Partner	Being with a Client
	OR	OR	OR	OR
Age
<22	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
22 – <26	1.01	1.18	1.22 a	1.24
26 – <33	1.17	1.26 b	1.27 b	1.47 b
≥33	1.22 a	1.53 c	1.15	1.32 a
Education
Less than Secondary	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Completed Secondary	0.98	0.74 b	0.81 a	0.53 c
Any post-secondary	1.17	0.73 c	0.75 b	0.22 c
Income
No Monthly Income	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Monthly income less than min wage	1.15	1.22 a	1.19 a	1.22
Monthly income at or above min wage	1.34 c	1.16	1.09	0.70 b
Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity
Trans	0.99	1.45 c	1.43 c	8.25 c
Homosexual	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Bisexual	0.96	0.94	1.04	1.55 c
Heterosexual	0.74	1.02	1	3.12 c
Female Sex Partner in Past 3 Months d
Yes vs No (reference)	0.86	1.18 a	1.18 a	1.61 c
Sexual Role
Insertive	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Receptive	1.06	1.23 a	1.08	1.50 c
Versatile	1.18 a	1.02	1.03	0.65 c
Transactional Sex d
Yes vs No (reference)	0.93	1.74 c	1.67 c	8.04 c
AUD d
Yes vs No (reference)	1.01	1.30 c	1.33 c	2.04 c
Alcohol Use in Prior 30 days
Yes vs No (reference)	1.09 a	1.72 c	1.53 c	1.40 c
Drug Use in Prior 30 Days
Yes vs No (reference)	1.58 c	1.98 c	2.09 c	1.97 c
Met Sex Partner at a Social Venue in Last 30 Days
Yes vs No (reference)	1.75 c	3.80 c	5.41 c	2.63 c
One Main Partner in Prior 30 Days
Yes vs No (Reference)		0.57 c	0.53 c	0.92

^ap<0.05.

^bp <0.01

^cp <0.001

^dThe following variables were only collected at baseline: female sex partner in prior 3 months, transactional sex, AUD