Table 6

Association between exposure to intervention and consistent condom use with paid and non-paid female partners, IBBA Round-2 on National Highways

Exposure to HIV prevention program

Consistent condom use with PFP

Consistent condom use with NPFP


N

%

Crude OR

[95% CI]

N

%

Crude OR

[95% CI]


All Routes

No

174

63.9

1.0

217

33.9

1.0

Less intensive

107

71.6

1.4 [0.8 – 2.3]

104

52.6

2.2 [1.3 – 3.5]

Intensive

226

83.0

2.7 [1.7 – 4.6]

147

25.5

0.7 [0.4 – 1.2]

North-East

No

33

59.8

1.0

59

24.2

1.0

Less intensive

32

54.8

0.8 [0.3 – 2.1]

26

58.8

4.5 [1.9 – 10.8]

Intensive

72

73.1

1.8 [1.1 – 4.3]

52

27.4

1.1 [0.5 – 2.9]

North-South

No

55

71.8

1.0

42

58.7

1.0

Less intensive

26

56.4

0.6 [0.2 – 1.4]

25

48.4

0.7 [0.3 – 1.8]

Intensive

67

89.9

3.5 [1.3 – 9.5]

29

37.2

0.5 [0.2 – 1.1]

North West

No

51

79.8

1.0

69

41.6

1.0

Less intensive

29

83.6

1.3 [0.4 – 4.7]

38

51.7

1.5 [0.5 – 4.7]

Intensive

77

71.4

0.7 [0.3 – 1.5]

63

29.7

0.4 [0.1 – 1.6]

South-East

No

35

77.1

1.0

47

22.4

1.0

Less intensive

20

85.0

1.2 [0.3 – 7.1]

15

50.1

3.4 [ 1.1 – 9.2]

Intensive

10

90.1

2.7 [0.3 – 24.3]

3

63.3

NA


PFP: Paid female partners; NPFP: Non-paid female partner

OR: Odds Ratios; 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval.

NA: Odds Ratio has not been computed because of small cell frequency

Pandey et al. BMC Public Health 2011 11(Suppl 6):S15   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-S6-S15

Open Data