Open Access

Erratum to: Trends in HIV counseling and testing uptake among married individuals in Rakai, Uganda

  • Joseph K. B. Matovu1Email author,
  • Julie Denison2,
  • Rhoda K. Wanyenze1,
  • Joseph Ssekasanvu3,
  • Fredrick Makumbi1,
  • Emilio Ovuga4,
  • Nuala McGrath5 and
  • David Serwadda1
BMC Public HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:326

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4228-5

Received: 3 April 2017

Accepted: 4 April 2017

Published: 18 April 2017

The original article was published in BMC Public Health 2013 13:618

Erratum

Following publication of this article [1], it has come to our attention that the total number of observations (21,798) has been mistakenly cited as the number of respondents in some paragraphs within the paper. This number appears within the abstract, in the analysis sub-section, within the opening paragraph of the results section, and in the section on HIV prevalence. The number that should have been cited is 11,268 - the total number of respondents in the dataset. 21,798 refers to the total number of observations over the study period. The percentages estimated out of 21,798 have been recalculated. Of the 11,268 individuals enrolled in this study, 81.2% (9,220) were in monogamous marital unions while 18.2% (2,048) were in polygamous marital unions. Of those in polygamous marital unions (n = 2,048), 52.8% were females while 47.2% were males. Thirty eight per cent of the participants (4,236) reported that they had ever received HCT (i.e. individual or couples’ HCT). Overall HIV prevalence was 11.9% (1,337 of 11,268). However, it is important to note that since serial cross-sectional analyses of each of the 4 study visits were used under consideration, the findings shown in Tables 1 and 2 as well as Fig. 2 (A,B,C) are not affected by this error.

In Table 3, percentages are cited showing the number of individuals who were interviewed for at least 3 times. The percentages are shown against their denominators. In citing the numbers, the total number of observations (10,712) was used for those that were interviewed for at least 3 times, instead of 4338 - which is the total number of individuals interviewed for at least 3 times. The corrected version of the table is provided below.
Table 3

Unadjusted and Adjusted Relative Risk Ratios (RRR) of prior receipt of HCT among 4338 married or cohabiting individuals who participated in the RCCS in at least three study visits between 2003 and 2009 (total observations: 10,712)

Characteristica

Individual HCTb

Couples’ HCTb

N = 4338

%

Unadjusted Relative Risk Ratios (RRR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)]

Adjusted RRR (95% CI)

N = 4338

%

Unadjusted RRR (95% CI)

Adjusted RRR (95% CI)

Sex

 Female

2287

52.7

1.00

1.00

2287

52.7

1.00

1.00

 Male

2051

47.3

0.55 (0.43, 0.69)

0.68 (0.51, 0.90)

2051

47.3

0.62 (0.48, 0.79)

0.79 (0.59, 1.06)

Age Group

 15–24

414

9.5

1.00

1.00

414

9.5

1.00

1.00

 25–34

2227

51.3

1.18, (0.90, 1.55)

1.27 (0.94, 1.72)

2227

51.3

1.79 (1.34, 2.40)

1.81 (1.32, 2.50)

 35+

1697

39.1

0.75 (0.55, 1.01)

0.81 (0.57, 1.16)

1697

39.1

1.40 (1.01, 1.93)

1.36 (0.93, 1.97)

Education

 None

635

5.6

1.00

1.00

635

5.6

1.00

1.00

 Primary

7376

65.5

0.33 (0.16, 0.65)

0.32 (0.16, 0.65)

7376

65.5

0.33 (0.17, 0.67)

0.33 (0.16, 0.68)

 Post-primary

3257

28.9

0.28 (0.14, 0.56)

0.27 (0.13, 0.54)

3257

28.9

0.26 (0.13, 0.53)

0.24 (0.12, 0.50)

Non-marital relations in past year

 No

8558

75.9

1.00

1.00

8558

75.9

1.00

1.00

 Yes

2710

24.1

0.59 (0.47, 0.74)

0.81 (0.63, 1.04)

2710

24.1

0.51 (0.40, 0.65)

0.61 (0.46, 0.79)

Previous HCT

 No

7032

62.4

1.00

1.00

7032

62.4

1.00

1.00

 Yes

4236

37.6

4.92 (3.95, 6.12)

5.12 (4.11, 6.39)

4236

37.6

6.13 (4.91, 7.65)

6.80 (5.44, 8.51)

Couple HIV status

 M-F-

9418

83.6

1.00

1.00

9418

83.6

1.00

1.00

 M + F+

848

7.5

0.86 (0.66, 1.13)

0.65 (0.42, 0.98)

848

7.5

0.88 (0.66, 1.16)

0.32 (0.12, 0.51)

 M-F+

506

4.5

0.76 (0.58, 0.99)

2.46 (1.26, 4.80)

506

4.5

0.84 (0.63, 1.11)

1.69 (0.86, 3.34)

 M + F-

496

4.4

0.61 (0.44, 0.86)

0.83 (0.45, 1.53)

496

4.4

0.64 (0.45, 0.91)

0.91 (0.49, 1.69)

aTable includes all variables that were significantly associated with prior receipt of HCT in the bivariate analysis. bNever tested is used as the base outcome

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Public Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences
(2)
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
(3)
Rakai Health Sciences Program/Uganda Virus Research Institute
(4)
Gulu University
(5)
University of Southampton

Reference

  1. Matovu J, Denison J, Wanyenze R, Ssekasanvu J, Makumbi F, Ovuga E, McGrath N, Serwadda D. Trends in HIV counseling and testing uptake among married individuals in Rakai, Uganda. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:618. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-618.

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement