Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Bivariate and age-adjusted distribution of underlying and proximate factors of HIV infection in young women by urban and rural residence

From: Effects of neighbourhood-level educational attainment on HIV prevalence among young women in Zambia

Variable Urban Rural
  All women Sexually active women All women Sexually active women
  No. HIV % AOR No. HIV % AOR No. HIV % AOR No. HIV % AOR
Cluster education             
   Low 397 15.9 1.00 245 22 1.00 159 10.7 1.00 131 13.0 1.00
   Middle 195 12.3 0.77 (0.46–1.29) 96 21.9 1.02 (0.57–1.80) 136 5.9 0.51 (0.21–1.23) 125 6.4 0.47 (0.19–1.14)
   High 248 7.3 0.42 (0.24–0.74) 127 11.8 0.47 (0.25–0.88) 161 3.7 0.32 (0.12–0.85) 108 5.6 0.37 (0.14–0.97)
Cluster wealth Index             
   Low 264 14.4 1.00 171 19.9 1.00 175 10.3 1.00 112 14..3 1.00
   Middle 244 11.5 0.86 (0.43–1.74) 128 18.8 0.94 (0.47–1.88) 120 5.8 0.44 (0.19–1.02) 144 6..3 0.44 (0.19–1.03)
   High 332 11.7 0.85 (0.43–1.68) 169 18.9 0.90 (0.45–1.78) 161 3.7 0.37 (0.11–1.32) 108 5.6 0.47 (0.13–1.66)
Cluster employment             
   Low 268 13.3 1.00 178 18.4 1.00 138 8 1.00 111 9.9 1.00
   Middle 244 12.3 0.93 (0.46–1.92) 130 20.8 1.19 (0.59–2.40) 156 7.7 0.91 (0.38–2.17) 136 8.8 0.86 (0.36–2.04)
   High 328 11.6 0.85 (0.42–1.74) 168 18.9 1.01 (0.51–2.01) 162 4.9 0.56 (0.21–1.44) 117 8.5 0.61 (0.23–1.58)
Education             
   Low 174 20.1 1.00 101 27.7 1.00 151 7.9 1.00 125 9.6 1.00
   Middle 313 14.7 0.69 (0.41–1.14) 158 25.3 0.84 (0.47–1.50) 184 6.5 0.82 (0.34–2.01) 155 7.7 0.80 (0.34–1.86)
   High 352 6.8 0.17 (0.10–0.32) 209 10.5 0.25 (0.13–0.48) 121 5.8 0.75 (0.23–2.35) 84 8.3 0.83 (0.31–2.21)
Wealth index             
   Low 227 12.3 1.00 153 15.7 1.00 203 8.4 1.00 173 9.8 1.00
   Middle 495 12.5 1.13 (0.68–1.88) 255 21.6 1.51 (0.87–2.62) 136 4.4 0.53 (0.20–1.40) 113 5.3 0.52 (0.20–1.38)
   High 117 12.8 1.16 (0.58–2.34) 60 18.3 1.21 (0.54–2.71) 116 6.9 0.95 (0.35–2.56) 78 10.3 1.04 (0.40–2.70)
Current student             
   Not student 505 16.6 1.00 352 21.9 1.00 370 8.4 a 324 9.6 a
   Student 332 6.3 0.47 (0.27–0.79) 115 11.3 0.51 (0.26–0.97) 79 0   37 0.0  
Travel             
   Never/seldom 461 13.2 1.00 259 20.5 1.00 255 6.3 1.00 205 7.8 1.00
   Often 376 11.2 0.78 (0.56–1.09) 208 17.3 0.79 (0.55–1.13) 200 7.5 1.19 (0.57–2.52) 159 9.4 1.10 (0.62–1.97)
Ever married             -
   Single 700 9.6 1.00 331 15.7 1.00 187 3.7 1.00 98 7.1 1.00
   Married 139 27.3 2.39 (1.40–4.05) 137 27.7 1.82 (1.07–3.10) 268 9 1.39 (0.49–3.95) 266 9 0.91 (0.34–2.47)
Ever had sex             
   No 370 4.1 1.00 - - - 90 0 a - -  
   Yes 468 19.2 4.52 (2.42–8.42)     364 8.5     
Ever given birth             
   No 648 9.1 1.00 279 15.8 1.00 186 1.1 1.00 97 2.1 1.00
   Yes 189 24.3 2.25 (1.36–3.69) 189 24.3 1.50 (0.91–2.48) 269 10.8 8.78 (1.86–41.3) 267 10..9 4.90 (1.07–22.4)
Number of lifetime sexual partnersb             
   0 partner5 370 4 1.00 -    90b 0 -    
   1 partner 247 17.8 4.43 (2.31–8.53) 247 17.8 1.00 186 6.5 0.43 (0.17–1.07) 186 6.5 1.00
   2 partners 125 20 4.86 (2.31–10.2) 125 20 1.06 (0.61–1.86) 108 9.3 0.63 (0.24–1.66) 108 9..3 1.37 (0.56–3.31)
   ≥ 3 partners 88 23.9 6.13 (2.82–13.3) 88 23.9 1.34 (0.73–2.43) 65 13.8 1.00 65 13..8 2.01 (0.79–5.12)
  1. (i) Categorization:
  2. i. Cluster educational levels: urban – low (9.0–10.5 years), middle (10.6–11.0 years), high (11.1–11.3 years); rural – low (4.0–5.3 years), middle (5.4–6.5 years), high (6.6–9.5 years)
  3. ii. Cluster employment: urban – high (30–36%), middle (37–40%), low (41–46%); rural – high (36–46%), middle (47.61%), low (62–77%)
  4. iii. Individual level education: urban – low (grade 0 – 7), middle (grade 8 – 11), high (grade 12 and above); rural – low (grade 0 – 4), middle (grade 5 – 7) & high (grade 8 and above)
  5. (2) AOR = age-adjusted odd ratios (3) Significant results are in bold (p < 0.05) (5) '0 partner' is equal to the number young women who have not had sexual intercourse
  6. a AOR could not be computed because the prevalence for one of the elements was zero
  7. b For all women in the rural area, we used "≥ 3 partners" as the reference since the prevalence among those with "0 partners" was zero