Skip to main content

Table 3 Unadjusted (bivariate) and adjusted (multivariate) logistic regression analysis of correlates of childbearing-related decisions and behaviors

From: Reproductive intentions and corresponding use of safer conception methods and contraception among Ugandan HIV clients in serodiscordant relationships

Ā 

Full sample (NĀ =ā€‰389)

Both members of couple want child now (NĀ =ā€‰313)

Tried to conceive in the past 6ā€‰months (NĀ =ā€‰118)

Did not try to conceive in the past 6ā€‰months (NĀ =ā€‰268)

Both members of couple want child now

Tried to conceive in the past 6ā€‰months

Used SCM during attempts to conceive

Current use of modern contraceptives

Use of contraception or behaviors consistent with pregnancy prevention

UOR (CI)

AOR (CI)a

UOR (CI)

AOR (CI)b

UOR (CI)

AOR (CI)

UOR (CI)

AOR (CI)

UOR (CI)

Sociodemographic characteristics

ā€ƒAge

1.02 (.99, 1.05)

ā€“

0.95*** (.92, .98)

1.03 (.98, 1.07)

0.98 (.91, 1.06)

ā€“

0.97 (.94, 1.001)

ā€“

1.02 (.99, 1.05)

ā€ƒFemale gender

1.13 (.69, 1.87)

ā€“

4.16*** (2.54, 6.83)

2.54** (1.28, 5.06)

0.47 (.15, 1.47)

ā€“

1.64 (.94, 2.85)

ā€“

0.96 (.59, 1.57)

ā€ƒSome secondary education

0.43** (.26, .72)

0.61 (.31, 1.23)

0.66 (.39, 1.10)

ā€“

1.76 (.54, 5.73)

ā€“

0.94 (.53, 1.66)

ā€“

1.12 (.68, 1.85)

HIV disease characteristics

vTime since HIV diagnosis

1.01*** (1.00, 1.01)

1.00 (1.00, 1.01)

1.00 (1.00, 1.00)

ā€“

1.00 (1.00, 1.01)

ā€“

1.00 (1.00, 1.01)

ā€“

1.00 (1.00, 1.00)

ā€ƒCurrently on ART

2.07 (.18, 23.09)

ā€“

1.00c

ā€“

0.13 (.01, 2.14)

ā€“

1.00c

ā€“

1.00c

ā€ƒCD4 countd

1.00 (1.00, 1.00)

ā€“

1.002** (1.001,1.003)

āˆ’h

1.00 (1.00, 1.00)

Ā 

1.002* (1.000, 1.003)

āˆ’f

1.00 (1.00, 1.00)

ā€ƒUndetectable HIV viral loade

3.52 (1.81, 6.83)

āˆ’g

1.08 (.50, 2.36)

Ā 

0.56 (.10, 2.98)

Ā 

1.04 (.47, 2.29)

Ā 

1.57 (.79, 3.12)

ā€ƒTime on ART

1.01*** (1.01, 1.01)

ā€“

1.00 (.99, 1.00)

ā€“

1.00 (.99, 1.01)

ā€“

1.00 (1.00, 1.00)

ā€“

1.00 (1.00, 1.00)

Partner and relationship characteristics

ā€ƒMarried to partner

3.55*** (1.97, 6.38)

4.96*** (1.75, 14.04)

1.35 (.65, 2.78)

ā€“

1.00c

ā€“

0.63 (.33, 1.22)

ā€“

1.02 (.55, 1.88)

ā€ƒLength of relationship

1.06** (1.02, 1.09)

1.08* (1.02, 1.15)

0.94*** (.91, .96)

0.99 (.96, 1.03)

1.03 (.97, 1.08)

ā€“

0.96* (.93, .99)

0.96* (.93, .99)

1.00 (.98, 1.02)

ā€ƒCurrently living with partner

2.93** (1.51, 5.70)

1.02 (.36, 2.93)

1.30 (.57, 2.97)

ā€“

1.00c

ā€“

1.05 (.47, 2.35)

ā€“

0.99 (.49, 2.00)

ā€ƒParticipant has biological children

0.31 (.09, 1.02)

ā€“

0.33*** (.16, .68)

0.46 (.19, 1.11)

0.52 (.15, 1.86)

ā€“

2.54 (.56, 11.45)

ā€“

4.00* (1.26, 12.74)

ā€ƒPartner has biological children

1.06 (.64, 1.75)

ā€“

2.77*** (1.72, 4.46)

1.61 (.90, 2.89)

0.65 (.21, 2.01)

ā€“

1.45 (.83, 2.51)

ā€“

1.14 (.70, 1.84)

ā€ƒHas had a child with partner

0.33*** (.19, .58)

0.09*** (.04, .21)

0.19*** (.11, .31)

0.33** (.16, .67)

0.96 (.25, 3.73)

ā€“

1.38 (.77, 2.46)

ā€“

1.49 (.91, 2.46)

ā€ƒSelf-agency in decision making

2.02* (1.13, 3.64)

1.58 (.74, 3.38)

0.19*** (.10, .35)

0.39* (.19, .81)

6.34*** (1.64, 24.50)

5.80* (1.27, 26.50)

0.37** (.18, .73)

0.34** (.16, .74)

0.69 (.38, 1.24)

ā€ƒReproductive coercion

0.95 (.63, 1.41)

ā€“

1.32 (.87, 1.99)

ā€“

1.00c

ā€“

1.41 (.91, 2.19)

ā€“

1.31 (.79, 2.16)

ā€ƒDiscussed childbearing with provider

1.10 (.44, 2.77)

ā€“

2.07 (.92, 4.65)

ā€“

5.86*** (1.62, 21.29)

5.29 (.95, 29.42)

0.65 (.18, 2.35)

ā€“

1.85 (.62, 5.47)

Psychosocial functioning

ā€ƒDepression

0.97 (.92, 1.02)

ā€“

1.11*** (1.05, 1.17)

1.04 (.97, 1.11)

1.02 (.91, 1.15)

ā€“

0.95 (.88, 1.01)

ā€“

0.98 (.93, 1.03)

ā€ƒPossibly clinically depressed

0.73 (.37, 1.44)

ā€“

2.15* (1.11, 4.16)

ā€“

1.91 (.54, 6.78)

ā€“

0.27* (.08, .91)

0.20* (.06, .72)

0.79 (.38, 1.65)

ā€ƒLikely clinically depressed

0.35 (.12, 1.00)

ā€“

3.46 (.85, 14.11)

ā€“

1.00c

ā€“

1.00c

ā€“

0.39 (.10, 1.61)

ā€ƒInternalized HIV stigma

0.57*** (.43, .75)

0.83 (.54, 1.29)

1.21 (.94, 1.56)

ā€“

1.04 (.56, 1.90)

ā€“

1.13 (.83, 1.53)

ā€“

0.98 (.75, 1.28)

eIMB information

ā€ƒSCM knowledge

1.21*** (1.11, 1.32)

1.18* (1.04, 1.33)

0.91* (.84, .99)

0.96 (.87, 1.06)

1.03 (.84, 1.27)

ā€“

1.04 (.95, 1.15)

ā€“

1.01 (.93, 1.09)

eIMB motivation

ā€ƒSCM motivation

ā€“

ā€“

ā€“

ā€“

2.62 (.49, 14.19)

ā€“

ā€“

ā€“

ā€“

ā€ƒPositive attitudes towards contraception

1.20 (.65, 2.22)

ā€“

0.53* (.31, .92)

0.63 (.32, 1.25)

ā€“

ā€“

2.13* (1.09, 4.19)

3.17** (1.47, 6.83)

1.08 (.61, 1.91)

eIMB behavioral skills

ā€ƒSCM self-efficacy

ā€“

ā€“

ā€“

ā€“

7.42* (1.30, 42.24)

5.16 (.91, 29.27)

ā€“

ā€“

ā€“

eIMB social/ecological

ā€ƒCommunity childbearing stigma

1.37*** (1.15, 1.63)

1.40* (1.05, 1.76)

0.98 (.84, 1.13)

ā€“

0.72 (.49, 1.06)

ā€“

0.96 (.80, 1.16)

ā€“

0.97 (.83, 1.14)

ā€ƒProvider childbearing stigma

0.96 (.72, 1.28)

ā€“

1.18 (.92, 1.52)

ā€“

1.30 (.70, 2.42)

ā€“

0.76 (.54, 1.07)

ā€“

0.96 (.73, 1.26)

ā€ƒInternalized childbearing stigma

0.61** (.43, .87)

0.44** (.28, .71)

0.72 (.42, 1.22)

ā€“

1.00c

ā€“

0.93 (.61, 1.41)

ā€“

1.41 (.93, 2.12)

ā€ƒSCM cultural acceptability

0.51** (.32, .80)

0.65 (.34, 1.25)

1.74** (1.17, 2.59)

1.92* (1.19, 3.08)

1.72 (.60, 4.93)

ā€“

1.29 (.81, 2.06)

ā€“

1.41 (.93, 2.13)

FP/SCC services

ā€ƒHad any consults with provider about decision to have another child

1.04 (.44, 2.48)

ā€“

1.90 (.88, 4.10)

ā€“

ā€“

ā€“

0.70 (.23, 2.18)

ā€“

2.59 (.92, 7.35)

ā€ƒHad any consults with provider about safer conception methods

1.57 (.45, 5.46)

ā€“

1.93 (.76, 4.90)

ā€“

6.53*** (1.58, 27.10)

1.05 (.23, 4.85)

ā€“

ā€“

ā€“

ā€ƒHad any consults with provider about contraception

1.10 (.44, 2.77)

ā€“

1.05 (.46, 2.39)

ā€“

ā€“

ā€“

0.28 (.06, 1.25)

ā€“

1.69 (.66, 4.32)

  1. *** pā€‰<ā€‰.001 ** pā€‰<ā€‰0.01, * pā€‰<ā€‰0.05
  2. aThis multiple regression model did not include time on ART because it was highly correlated (rĀ =ā€‰.84) with time since HIV diagnosis
  3. bThis multiple regression model included depressive symptomatology, but not the likely presence of a depressive disorder due to the lack of independence between these two variables
  4. cA standard error and confidence interval could not be computed because one or both groups had all participants with the same response value
  5. dCD4 count data were available for 252 participants at baseline
  6. eHIV viral load data were available for 315 participants at study baseline
  7. fCD4 count was not included in this reported multiple regression model because only 167 of 268 participants had CD4 data
  8. gViral load was not included in the multiple regression model presented in this table because of the high number of cases with missing data; when viral load was added to the multiple regression model, it was not significantly correlated with the dependent variable when adjusting for the other variables that were significant bivariate correlates
  9. hCD4 count was not included in the multiple regression model presented in this table because of the high number of cases with missing data; when CD4 count was added to the multiple regression model, it remained significantly correlated with the dependent variable when adjusting for the other variables that were significant bivariate correlates