Application of the Chinese version of Zelaya’s HIV-related stigma scale to undergraduates in mainland China

BMC Public Health

Table 3 Multiple variate Logistic regression analysis of factors associated with different dimensions of HIV-relatefd stigma (N = 10,665)

Variables	Fear		Moral		Personal		Community
Variables	AOR	95%CI	AOR	95%CI	AOR	95%CI	AOR	95%CI
X1: Gender (0 = Female, 1 = Male)	1.10^*	1.01–1.21	1.28^***	1.18–1.39			1.54^***	1.42–1.68
X2: Residential areas (0 = Rural,1 = Urban)							1.11^*	1.02–1.21
X3: Major (ref: Non-medical)	0.69^***	0.63–0.76			0.88^*	0.79–0.97
X4: Grade (ref: Freshmen)	1.20^***	1.09–1.33	1.21^***	1.10–1.32	1.30^***	1.17–1.44	1.18^***	1.08–1.30
X5: Sexual orientation (ref: Heterosexuals)							1.12^&	0.99–1.28
X6: HIV-related knowledge (0 = High, 1 = Low)	2.46^***	2.22–2.72	1.71^***	1.57–1.86	2.62^***	2.34–2.93	2.17^***	2.00–2.36
X7: Unsafe sexual behaviors (0 = No, 1 = Yes)	1.50^***	1.26–1.79	1.56^***	1.34–1.81	1.25^*	1.04–1.50	2.05^***	1.78–2.36
X8: Having ever being tested (0 = No, 1 = Yes)							1.33^***	1.14–1.54
X9: Self-perceived risk of HIV infection (0 = No, 1 = Yes)			0.81^***	0.75–0.88	0.80^***	0.73–0.88	0.76^***	0.70–0.83
X10:Willingness to utilize HTC service (0 = No, 1 = Yes)			0.74^***	0.66–0.83	0.56^***	0.48–0.66	0.70^***	0.63–0.78
X11: Awareness of AIDS policy (0 = No, 1 = Yes)	0.73^***	0.66–0.80	0.77^***	0.70–0.83	0.67^***	0.60–0.74

^*P ≤ 0.05, ^**P ≤ 0.01, and ^***P ≤ 0.001
^& It needs to be pointed that sexual orientation is significant at the 0.10 level, but lost its significance at the 0.05 level (P = 0.075)

ISSN: 1471-2458