Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the three samples (Cameroon, 2000, 2002, & 2003)
From: Perceived social approval and condom use with casual partners among youth in urban Cameroon
| Survey | Â | Â | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | Total | Test for |
Frequency condom use with casual partners |  |  |  |  | χ2(6) = 109.61*** |
Never | 18.0% | 14.0% | 6.0% | 11.9% | Â |
Sometimes | 19.8% | 22.3% | 16.4% | 19.5% | Â |
Often | 19.8% | 12.6% | 6.6% | 12.1% | Â |
Always | 42.3% | 51.1% | 70.9% | 56.5% | Â |
Respondent's attitude towards condoms | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.73 | E2 = 5.9%*** |
| Â | (0.13) | (0.14) | (0.13) | (0.13) | Â |
MVPs |  |  |  |  | χ2(18) = 25.6 |
Father | 26.6% | 32.7% | 31.7% | 30.9% | Â |
Mother | 43.4% | 38.4% | 36.5% | 38.9% | Â |
Parents | 69.9% | 71.1% | 68.3% | 69.8% | Â |
Grandfather | 1.6% | 2.0% | 2.8% | 2.2% | Â |
Grandmother | 1.1% | 0.7% | 0.8% | 0.8% | Â |
Family member | 21.3% | 21.0% | 19.9% | 20.7% | Â |
Other family | 23.9% | 23.6% | 23.6% | 23.7% | Â |
Total kin | 93.9% | 94.7% | 91.9% | 93.4% | Â |
Teacher | 0.5% | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.4% | Â |
Religious leader | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.4% | Â |
Friend | 2.9% | 3.8% | 3.3% | 3.4% | Â |
Star | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.1% | Â |
Other | 2.1% | 0.7% | 3.8% | 2.2% | Â |
Total non-kin | 6.1% | 5.3% | 8.1% | 6.6% | Â |
Perception of MVP's attitude towards condoms |  |  |  |  | χ2(8) = 18.60* |
Disapproves completely | 5.9% | 3.6% | 2.3% | 3.7% | Â |
Disapproves | 10.6% | 10.8% | 9.0% | 10.1% | Â |
Neither pro or against | 17.0% | 12.6% | 17.6% | 15.6% | Â |
Approves | 33.8% | 38.8% | 33.9% | 35.7% | Â |
Approves completely | 32.7% | 34.2% | 37.2% | 35.0% | Â |
Social environment | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Discussed either FP, STI or AIDS, past 12 months |  |  |  |  | χ2(2) = 16.72*** |
No | 22.8% | 26.4% | 16.8% | 21.9% | Â |
Yes | 77.2% | 73.6% | 83.2% | 78.1% | Â |
Range of persons respondent discussed FP, STD, AIDS with | 0.06 | -0.05 | 0.18 | 0.06 | E2 = 1.1%*** |
| Â | (0.95) | (0.90) | (1.03) | (0.97) | Â |
Socio-demographic characteristics | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Sex of respondent |  |  |  |  | χ2(2) = 0.03 |
Man | 78.8% | 79.0% | 78.6% | 78.8% | Â |
Woman | 21.2% | 21.0% | 21.4% | 21.2% | Â |
Age of respondent | 19.97 | 19.93 | 20.31 | 20.08 | E2 = 0.6%* |
| Â | (2.33) | (2.36) | (2.41) | (2.38) | Â |
Number of assets owned by HH | 3.87 | 3.67 | 3.51 | 3.66 | E2 = 0.6%** |
| Â | (1.88) | (1.83) | (1.55) | (1.75) | Â |
Respondent still in school |  |  |  |  | χ2(2) = 20.14*** |
Not in school | 45.5% | 56.0% | 43.9% | 48.9% | Â |
In school | 54.5% | 44.0% | 56.1% | 51.1% | Â |
Self-efficacy | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Can convince casual partner to use condom |  |  |  |  | χ2(2) = 13.48** |
No | 11.9% | 12.3% | 6.5% | 10.0% | Â |
Yes | 88.1% | 87.7% | 93.5% | 90.0% | Â |
Can avoid HIV |  |  |  |  | χ2(2) = 20.73*** |
No | 4.2% | 7.2% | 1.8% | 4.5% | Â |
Yes | 95.8% | 92.8% | 98.2% | 95.5% | Â |
Perceived severity | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Aids societal problem |  |  |  |  | χ2(4) = 4.05 |
A serious problem | 90.5% | 88.3% | 91.7% | 90.1% | Â |
A problem like another | 8.2% | 10.3% | 7.3% | 8.7% | Â |
Not really a problem | 1.3% | 1.3% | 1.0% | 1.2% | Â |
AIDS is curable/not terminal | 1.38 | 1.17 | 1.17 | 1.22 | E2 = 1.2%*** |
| Â | (0.74) | (0.79) | (0.80) | (0.79) | Â |
Perceived risk | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Perceived AIDS risk |  |  |  |  | χ2(6) = 34.84*** |
No risk | 5.8% | 7.1% | 10.3% | 8.0% | Â |
Low risk | 10.3% | 14.1% | 18.4% | 14.9% | Â |
Moderate risk | 9.0% | 10.3% | 13.8% | 11.3% | Â |
High risk | 74.9% | 68.5% | 57.5% | 65.8% | Â |
Sexual risk behavior | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Number of partners, past 12 months | 4.12 | 4.34 | 3.84 | 4.10 | E2 = 0.4% |
| Â | (3.62) | (3.95) | (3.44) | (3.69) | Â |
Frequency of intercourse, past month | 2.85 | 4.08 | 2.89 | 3.34 | E2 = 1.8%*** |
| Â | (4.40) | (4.67) | (4.02) | (4.41) | Â |
Access to condoms | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Time required to obtain condom | 8.63 | 8.57 | 5.92 | 7.58 | E2 = 1.6%*** |
| Â | (10.88) | (12.08) | (7.22) | (10.27) | Â |
N | 378 | 609 | 602 | 1589 | Â |
