Skip to main content

Table 6 Logistic regression analyses of condom use and HIV testing by programme exposure in 2006 and 2009

From: Exposure to HIV prevention programmes associated with improved condom use and uptake of HIV testing by female sex workers in Nagaland, Northeast India

 

2006

2009

p-valuec

 

%a

Unadjusted OR (95% CI)

Adjusted ORb(95% CI)

%a

Unadjusted OR (95% CI)

Adjusted ORb(95% CI)

Condom used at last sex with occasional client

       

Exposed

       

No

26.7%

1

1

66.0%

1

1

 

Yes

52.5%

3.03*** (1.98-4.63)

2.81*** (1.82-4.35)

79.4%

1.99* (1.16-3.39)

2.04* (1.11-3.74)

0.401

Condoms used every time with occasional clients

       

Exposed

       

No

7.8%

1

1

25.7%

1

1

 

Yes

17.0%

2.41** (1.30-4.47)

2.01* (1.06-3.80)

40.7%

2.00** (1.21-3.28)

2.27** (1.28-4.02)

0.781

Condom used at last sex with regular client

       

Exposed

       

No

19.5%

1

1

50.2%

1

1

 

Yes

38.7%

2.62*** (1.67-4.12)

2.30** (1.43-3.70)

69.9%

2.34*** (1.51-3.62)

2.05** (1.25-3.35)

0.742

Condoms used every time with regular clients

       

Exposed

       

No

3.2%

1

1

11.6%

1

1

 

Yes

10.1%

3.33** (1.41-7.87)

2.73* (1.13-6.61)

33.1%

3.79*** (2.24-6.40)

4.11*** (2.28 – 7.38)

0.450

Condom used at last sex with main non-paying partner

       

Exposed

       

No

11.8%

1

1

33.0%

1

1

 

Yes

16.9%

1.49 (0.81-2.73)

1.26 (0.67-2.40)

42.7%

1.52 (0.93-2.50)

1.29 (0.72-2.31)

0.957

Had wanted to use a condom with a client but did not at least once in past month

       

Exposed

       

No

57.3%

1

1

46.3%

1

1

 

Yes

52.9%

0.84 (0.56-1.26)

0.83 (0.54-1.27)

36.2%

0.65* (0.43-0.97)

0.52** (0.33-0.83)

0.145

Ever had HIV test

       

Exposed

       

No

5.7%

1

1

12.9%

1

1

 

Yes

15.4%

3.00** (1.52-5.93)

3.81*** (1.84-7.89)

57.1%

8.92*** (5.52-14.44)

9.08*** (5.34-15.44)

0.059

  1. a Proportion of FSWs using condoms or having ever had an HIV test, split between exposed versus not exposed to programme services, calculated in SPSS using weights generated in RDSAT.
  2. b Adjusted for age, literacy, duration in sex work, client volume, and place of solicitation.
  3. c P-values were calculated based on a test of interaction to compare changes between round 1 and round 2 in the odds ratios.
  4. *p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us