Table 3

Association of selected variables with condom use for anal/vaginal sex by MSM with their sexual partners in bivariate & multivariate analysis (prevalence ratios* & 95% confidence intervals**).

Variable

Category

Bivariate PR (95% CI)

Multivariate PR (95% CI)


Female partner

No

1.0

1.0

Yes

0.78 (0.68 – 0.87)

0.9 (0.81 – 0.99)


Unmarried

No

1.0

1.0

Yes

6.91 (6.18 – 7.32)

5.45 (4.26 – 6.37)


Schooling years

Up to 5 years

1.0

1.0

6 to 8 years

1.01 (0.83 – 1.12)

0.97 (0.78 – 1.11)

9 years and over

1.09 (0.66 – 1.65)

0.89 (0.46 – 1.52)


Age (years)

Under 19

1.0

1.0

19 to 22

1.08 (0.94 – 1.17)

1.11 (0.98 – 1.2)

23 to 28

1.11 (0.98 – 1.21)

0.95 (0.76 – 1.09)

29 and over

0.96 (0.74 – 1.14)

0.93 (0.71 – 1.1)


Price of condom

Low

1.0

1.0

Medium

0.08 (0.05 – 0.12)

0.09 (0.05 – 0.13)

High

0.27 (0.18 – 0.4)

0.60 (0.42 – 0.81)


Number of partners in previous week

None

1.0

1.0

1

1.14 (1.02 – 1.23)

1.03 (0.88 – 1.15)

2 a 4

1.3 (1.25 – 1.32)

1.08 (0.94 – 1.18)

5 and over

1.07 (1.06 – 1.07)

1.06 (1.05 – 1.07)


Family is aware of sexual preference

No

1.0

1.0

Yes

1.27 (1.16 – 1.36)

1.15 (1 – 1.27)


Respondent consumed alcohol prior to sexual activity

No

1.0

1.0

Yes

1.03 (0.97 – 1.09)

0.99 (0.91 – 1.05)


Sexual partner was a new one

No

1.0

1.0

Yes

1.29 (1.23 – 1.35)

1.29 (1.22 – 1.35)


Life-skills index

Low

1.0

1.0

Medium

1.38 (1.3 – 1.43)

1.41 (1.33 – 1.45)

High

1.85 (1.83 – 1.86)

1.84 (1.79 – 1.86)


Social capital index

Low

1.0

1.0

High

1 (0.7 – 1.36)

1.28 (0.77 – 1.87)


Interaction life-skills index & social capital index

Low and low

1.0

Medium and high

0.77 (0.45 – 1.03)

High and high

0.62 (0.28 – 1.04)


Socio-economic level index

Low

1.0

1.0

Medium low

0.97 (0.82 – 1.09)

1.02 (0.83 – 1.15)

Medium high

1.04 (0.84 – 1.18)

1.23 (1.12 – 1.3)

High

1.06 (0.85 – 1.22)

1.2 (1.01 – 1.31)


*Calculated by using the formula RR = OR/[(1-P0)+(P0*OR)]. [8] **95% confidence intervals were estimated considering fixed effects by city and random effects by MSM

Gutiérrez et al. BMC Public Health 2006 6:152   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-152

Open Data