Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of 3708 participants of Women Interagency HIV Study, stratified by HIV status at baseline
| Total N (%) or median (IQR) |
WLHIV N (%) or median (IQR) |
Women without HIV N (%) or median (IQR) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOTAL | N = 3708 | N = 2704 | N = 1004 | |
| Years of follow-up | Median (IQR) | 9.0 (3.0–16.5) | 8.0 (3.0–16.5) | 13.0 (3.0–17.5) |
| Recruitment wave | First (1994) | 1717 (46.3%) | 1325 (49.0%) | 392 (39.0%) |
| Second (2001–02) | 884 (22.8%) | 547 (20.2%) | 297 (29.6%) | |
| Third (2011–12) | 328 (8.9%) | 240 (8.9%) | 88 (8.8%) | |
| Fourth (2013–15) | 819 (22.1%) | 592 (21.9%) | 227 (22.6%) | |
| Site | Atlanta, GAa | 265 (7.1%) | 180 (6.7%) | 85 (8.5%) |
| Birmingham, ALa | 111 (3.0%) | 84 (3.1%) | 27 (2.7%) | |
| Bronx, NY | 736 (19.8%) | 528 (19.5%) | 208 (20.7%) | |
| Brooklyn, NY | 616 (16.6%) | 458 (15.7%) | 158 (15.7%) | |
| Chapel Hill, NCa | 190 (5.1%) | 141 (5.2%) | 49 (4.9%) | |
| Chicago, IL | 546 (14.7%) | 425 (15.7%) | 121 (12.1%) | |
| Jackson, MSa | 111 (3.0%) | 83 (3.1%) | 28 (2.8%) | |
| Los Angeles, CAb | 9 (0.2%) | 8 (0.3%) | 1 (0.1%) | |
| Miami, FLa | 142 (3.8%) | 104 (3.9%) | 38 (3.8%) | |
| San Francisco, CA | 419 (11.3%) | 285 (10.5%) | 134 (13.3%) | |
| Washington, DC | 563 (15.2%) | 408 (15.1%) | 155 (15.4%) | |
| Age in years | Median (IQR) | 37 (31–44) | 37 (31–44) | 36 (28–43) |
| Race and ethnicity | Non-Hispanic Black | 2562 (69.1%) | 1878 (69.5%) | 684 (68.1%) |
| Hispanic/Latina | 606 (16.3%) | 436 (16.1%) | 170 (16.9%) | |
| Non-Hispanic White | 427 (11.5%) | 319 (11.8%) | 108 (10.8%) | |
| Other | 113 (3.1%) | 71 (2.6%) | 42 (4.2%) | |
| Sexual orientation | Heterosexual | 3221 (86.9%) | 2397 (88.6%) | 824 (82.1%) |
| Bisexual | 292 (7.8%) | 183 (6.8%) | 109 (10.9%) | |
| Lesbian | 151 (4.1%) | 96 (3.4%) | 55 (5.5%) | |
| Missing | 44 (1.2%) | 28 (1.0%) | 16 (1.6%) | |
| Education | < High school | 1274 (34.4%) | 948 (35.1%) | 326 (32.5%) |
| ≥ High school | 2432 (66.6%) | 1755 (64.9%) | 677 (67.4%) | |
| Missing | 2 (0.5%) | 1 (0.3%) | 1 (0.1%) | |
| Marital status | Married or living with partner | 1269 (34.2%) | 1753 (64.8%) | 332 (33.1%) |
| Not married or living with partner | 2423 (65.3%) | 937 (34.7%) | 670 (66.7%) | |
| Missing | 16 (0.4%) | 14 (0.5%) | 2 (0.2%) | |
| Household annual income | < $12,000 | 2063 (55.6%) | 1530 (56.6%) | 553 (53.1%) |
| ≥ $12,000 | 1530 (41.3%) | 1098 (40.6%) | 432 (43.0%) | |
| Missing | 115 (3.1%) | 76 (2.8%) | 39 (3.9%) | |
| Employed | Yes | 1084 (29.2%) | 737 (27.3%) | 347 (34.6%) |
| No | 2.615 (70.5%) | 1961 (72.5%) | 654 (65.1%) | |
| Missing | 9 (0.2%) | 6 (0.2%) | 3 (0.3%) | |
| Physical violence victimization, everc | Yes | 1811 (48.8%) | 1302 (48.2%) | 509 (50.7%) |
| No | 1512 (40.8%) | 1123 (41.5%) | 389 (38.7%) | |
| Missing | 385 (10.4%) | 279 (10.3%) | 106 (10.6%) | |
| Sexual violence victimization, everc | Yes | 1324 (35.7%) | 970 (35.9%) | 354 (35.3%) |
| No | 1984 (53.5%) | 1444 (53.4%) | 540 (53.8%) | |
| Missing | 400 (10.8%) | 290 (10.7%) | 110 (11.0%) | |
|
Injection drug use, ever |
Yes | 881 (23.8%) | 693 (25.6%) | 188 (18.7%) |
| No | 2826 (76.2%) | 2010 (74.3%) | 816 (81.3%) | |
| Missing | 1 (0.0%) | 1 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Number of male sex partners, ever | Median (IQR) | 10 (5–40) | 10 (5–40) | 12 (6–35) |
| Missing | N = 54 | N = 46 | N = 8 | |
| Number of female sex partners, ever | 0 | 2730 (73.6%) | 2034 (75.2%) | 696 (69.3%) |
| ≥ 1 | 962 (25.9%) | 656 (24.3%) | 306 (30.5%) | |
| Missing | 16 (0.4%) | 14 (0.5%) | 2 (0.2%) | |
| Anal intercourse, everd | Yes | 1376 (37.1%) | 990 (36.6%) | 386 (38.4%) |
| No | 1802 (48.6%) | 1270 (47.0%) | 532 (53.0%) | |
| Missing | 530 (14.3%) | 444 (16.4%) | 86 (8.6%) | |
| Exchange sex, ever | Yes | 1337 (36.1%) | 979 (36.2%) | 358 (35.7%) |
| No | 2360 (63.6%) | 1716 (63.2%) | 644 (64.1%) | |
| Missing | 12 (0.2%) | 9 (0.3%) | 2 (0.2%) |
IQR interquartile range. Variables for which there is no “missing” category contain no missing values. aNew sites were added in the fourth recruitment wave. All other sites were added during the first recruitment wave. bMost women from the Los Angeles site were excluded from this analysis as this site did not collect data on violence victimization. The 9 women included here lived in Los Angeles at baseline and subsequently moved to other sites. cViolence victimization variables have many missing values, as ethical approval was not granted at the Los Angeles and San Francisco study sites. dThe number of missing values is high because in the first recruitment wave, women reporting no sex partners in the past 6 months were not asked whether they had ever practiced AI. In subsequent waves, all women were asked whether they had ever practiced AI