Skip to main content

Table 4 Associations between changes in risk perception and increase in condom use between surveys, Manicaland, Zimbabwe, 2003–2013

From: Relationships between changes in HIV risk perception and condom use in East Zimbabwe 2003–2013: population-based longitudinal analyses

 

Males

Females

Outcome: Increase in condom use (vs. no change)

 

Model 1 (N = 2194)

Model 2 (N = 2149)

 

Model 1 (N = 5084)

Model 2 (N = 4832)

Variable

n (%)

aOR

(95% CI)

aOR

(95% CI)

n (%)

aOR

(95% CI)

aOR

(95% CI)

Change in risk perception

 No change in risk perception

1812 (82.6)

1 (Reference)

1 (Reference)

3173 (64.4)

1 (Reference)

1 (Reference)

 No risk perception → Risk perception (increase)a

206 (9.39)

1.79

(1.16–2.75)

1.39

(0.85–2.28)

822 (16.2)

1.42

(1.08–1.85)

1.41

(1.06–1.88)

 Risk perception → No risk perception (decrease)a

176 (8.02)

1.91

(1.22–2.98)

1.76

(1.12–2.78)

989 (19.5)

1.23

(0.95–1.60)

1.23

(0.93–1.62)

Change in risk perception with reasonb

 No change in risk perception

1812 (82.9)

1 (Reference)

1 (Reference)

3273 (64.8)

1 (Reference)

1 (Reference)

No risk perception → Risk perception (reason)

 Has multiple partners

28 (1.29)

3.78

(1.58–9.08)

3.12

(1.12–8.72)

7 (0.14)

NAc

 

NAc

 

 Partner has other partners

29 (1.34)

0.94

(0.23–3.82)

0.37

(0.04–3.29)

229 (4.53)

1.70

(1.10–2.63)

1.57

(0.98–2.51)

 Marry HIV-positive partner

25 (1.15)

9.30

(4.14–20.9)

6.93

(2.5–19.25)

25 (0.49)

7.10

(2.90–17.4)

5.37

(1.93–14.9)

 Other

120 (5.54)

0.62

(0.27–1.44)

0.55

(0.23–1.36)

551 (10.9)

1.12

(0.80–1.58)

1.18

(0.82–1.69)

Risk perception (reason) → No risk perception

 Has multiple partners

23 (1.05)

6.55

(2.74–15.7)

6.73

(2.64–17.2)

14 (0.28)

1.04

(0.14–8.00)

NAc

 

 Partner has other partners

39 (1.78)

1.09

(0.37–3.22)

0.97

(0.34–2.76)

313 (6.19)

1.60

(1.10–2.35)

1.57

(1.03–2.38)

 Marry HIV-positive partner

20 (0.91)

2.99

(1.13–7.94)

2.39

(0.86–6.61)

28 (0.55)

10.1

(4.66–21.7)

7.72

(3.47–17.2)

Other

89 (4.07)

1.32

(0.66–2.65)

1.31

(0.65–2.61)

613 (12.1)

0.84

(0.58–1.20)

0.89

(0.61–1.29)

  1. Values are: Sample sizes (n) and percentages (%) for changes in risk perception; sample sizes for regression models (N); and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Sample: Sexually active, HIV-negative participants (15–54 years) not reporting condom use at the beginning of periods between surveys. Outcome of regressions: Increase in condom use vs. no change (continuing not using condoms). Increased and decreased risk perception was compared to no change (risk perception or no risk perception in both surveys). Estimates for other independent variables are not shown. Sample sizes differ between models due to missing data on included variables.
  2. Model 1: Change variables included for: Age group.
  3. Model 2: Change variables included for: Age group, marital status, educational attainment, school enrolment status, socio-economic status, STD symptoms, sexual risk, partner concurrency, HIV testing (lifetime), HIV testing (past three years).
  4. a A positive association between an increase in risk perception and the outcome (increase in condom use) would support hypothesis 1 (an increase in risk perception leads to an increase in condom use). A positive relationship between a decrease in risk perception and the outcome would support hypothesis 2 (an increase in condom use leads to a decrease in risk perception)
  5. b Reasons for risk perception refer to the reasons given at the end of the period between surveys for increasing risk perception or at the beginning for decreasing risk perception
  6. c No association of change in risk perception in this category with change in condom use could be estimated
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us