Skip to main content

Table 4 Bivariate correlates of current FP use at 18-month Follow-Up (n = 339)

From: Family planning use and correlates among female sex workers in a community empowerment HIV prevention intervention in Iringa, Tanzania: a case for tailored programming

 

Total

n (%)

No current FP use (n = 131)

Current FP use (n = 208)

P-value a

Community (study arm)

0.093

 Intervention

185 (54.57)

64 (48.85)

121 (58.17)

 

 Comparison

154 (45.43)

67 (51.15)

87 (41.83)

 

Demographics

Age

0.519

  ≤ 30

186 (54.87)

69 (52.67)

117 (56.25)

 

  > 30

153 (45.13)

62 (47.33)

91 (43.75)

 

Education

   

0.975

 None/some primary

241 (71.09)

93 (70.99)

148 (71.15)

 

 Some secondary +

98 (28.91)

38 (29.01)

60 (28.85)

 

Relationship status

0.657

 Single/divorced/widowed

194 (57.23)

73 (55.73)

121 (58.17)

 

 Married/partnered

145 (42.77)

58 (44.27)

87 (41.83)

 

Ethnicity b

   

0.916

 Non-local groups

139 (41.00)

53 (40.46)

86 (41.35)

 

 Local groups (Hehe, Bena)

199 (58.70)

77 (58.78)

122 (58.65)

 

HIV serostatus

0.957

 Negative

165 (48.67)

64 (48.85)

101 (48.56)

 

 Positive

174 (51.33)

67 (51.15)

107 (51.44)

 

Work-Related Risk Factors

# Clients per week

0.002

 0–1

184 (54.28)

85 (64.89)

99 (47.60)

 

 2+

155 (45.72)

46 (35.11)

109 (52.40)

 

Consistent condom use (CCU) (30 days)

0.251

 No

166 (48.97)

59 (45.04)

107 (51.44)

 

 Yes

173 (51.03)

72 (54.96)

101 (48.56)

 

Venue type

0.036

 Local bar & other

220 (64.90)

94 (71.76)

126 (60.58)

 

 Modern bar

119 (35.10)

37 (28.24)

82 (39.42)

 

Reproductive History Factors

Lifetime pregnancies

0.585

 0–2

180 (53.10)

72 (54.96)

108 (51.92)

 

 3+

159 (46.90)

59 (45.04)

100 (48.08)

 

Previously used modern FP method (ever at baseline)

< 0.001

 No

56 (16.52)

40 (30.53)

16 (7.69)

 

 Yes

283 (83.48)

91 (69.47)

192 (92.31)

 
  1. a Chi-squared; b Refused to answer n = 1; Bold = significant at p < 0.05 level