Skip to main content

Table 3 Regression analyses of the association between adoption of CDC HIV pre-test counseling guidelines and offer of on-site vs. Off-site HCV testing

From: Spillover effects of HIV testing policies: changes in HIV testing guidelines and HCV testing practices in drug treatment programs in the United States

 

Off-site HCV testinga

On-site HCV testing

P-value

Unadjusted Odds Ratio (95 % CI)b

Adjusted Odds Ratio (95 % CI)b

State-level legislation enables eliminating HIV pretest counseling requirement

 

<0.01

  

  No

42 (31.3)

92 (68.7)

 

1

1

  Yes

106 (59.2)

73 (40.8)

 

0.31 (0.20, 0.50)

1.65 (0.32, 8.46)

Prevalence of injection drug users

 

0.06

  

   < 25 %

57 (57.0)

43 (43.0)

 

1

1

  25-74 %

57 (41.6)

80 (58.4)

 

1.86 (1.10, 3.14)

2.68 (1.11, 6.47)

   ≥ 75 %

33 (46.5)

38 (53.5)

 

1.53 (0.83, 2.82)

0.69 (0.24, 2.01)

African-American patients

 

0.49

  

   < 10 %

73 (49.3)

75 (50.7)

 

1

1

   ≥ 10 %

75 (45.4)

90 (54.6)

 

1.17 (0.75, 1.82)

0.97 (0.41, 2.30)

Hispanic patients

 

0.70

  

   < 10 %

75 (48.4)

80 (51.6)

 

1

1

   ≥ 10 %

73 (46.2)

85 (53.8)

 

1.09 (0.70, 1.70)

1.26 (0.50, 3.16)

Revenue from federal government

 

0.01

  

  None

114 (51.8)

106 (48.2)

 

1

1

   ≥ 1 %

33 (36.6)

59 (63.4)

 

1.87 (1.13, 3.07)

2.47 (1.04, 5.88)

Revenue from private insurance

 

0.11

  

  None

80 (43.5)

104 (56.5)

 

1

1

   ≥ 1 %

48 (52.7)

61 (47.3)

 

0.69 (0.44, 1.08)

1.33 (0.59, 2.98)

Human resources

    

  Log Staff-to-patient ratio, mean (SD)

-3.40 (0.78)

-3.24 (0.66)

0.05

1.36 (0.99, 1.88)

1.80 (1.10, 2.93)

CARF accreditation

 

0.21

  

  No

76 (51.0)

73 (49.0)

 

1

1

  Yes

72 (43.9)

97 (56.1)

 

1.33 (0.85, 2.08)

1.37 (0.60, 3.12)

Ownership

 

<0.01

  

  Private not-for-profit

77 (52.0)

71 (48.0)

 

1

1

  Private for profit

61 (50.4)

60 (49.6)

 

1.07 (0.66, 1.73)

1.52 (0.66, 3.46)

  Public

10 (22.7)

34 (77.3)

 

3.69 (1.70, 8.02)

3.36 (0.95, 11.9)

Hospital affiliation

 

<0.01

  

  No

134 (51.3)

127 (48.6)

 

1

1

  Yes

14 (26.9)

38 (73.1)

 

2.86 (1.48, 5.54)

6.22 (2.04, 18.9)

Methods of treatment

 

<0.01

  

  Methadone only

69 (40.1)

103 (59.9)

 

1

1

  Buprenorphine only

55 (75.3)

18 (24.7)

 

0.22 (0.12, 0.41)

0.17 (0.06, 0.49)

  Methadone + Buprenorphine

24 (35.3)

44 (64.7)

 

1.23 (0.68, 2.20)

2.95 (1.19, 7.31)

Time

  

<0.01

  

  2005

38 (27.7)

99 (72.3)

 

1

1

  2011

110 (62.5)

66 (37.5)

 

0.23 (0.14, 0.37)

0.10 (0.02, 0.45)

    N

148 (47.3)

165 (52.7)

 

313

282c

  1. Notes: apercentages in parentheses are column percentages; badjusted odds ratios are obtained from a logistic regression in which all variables in the table are included as independent variables. Standard errors are adjusted for clustering of observations by state. cOnly states in which laws changed between 2005 & 2011 are included in model with state-level fixed effects. p-value derived from a Wald test showed that at least one of the state dummies included in the model is significant at p < 0.05