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.