Table 6

Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Analysis by Gender: Demographic, Community, and Psycho-social Factors

Independent Variables

Males

Females


Hazard Ratio

95% C.I.

p-value

Hazard Ratio

95% C.I.

p-value


Demographic factors

*Educational level

Primary

2.16

0.81 – 5.77

0.12

1.31

0.44 – 2.91

0.78

Secondary or higher

2.32

0.91 – 5.92

0.08

1.08

0.49 – 2.39

0.85

Age

1.00

0.89 – 1.13

0.97

0.95

0.82 – 1.10

0.48

Stronger opinion on importance of religion

1.07

0.63 – 1.82

0.81

0.59

0.37 – 0.94

0.03

**Economic Status

Middle class

1.01

0.67 – 1.52

0.96

0.83

0.53 – 1.30

0.40

High class

0.89

0.54 – 1.50

0.66

0.67

0.38 – 1.18

0.17

Psycho-social factors

Use of alcohol

1.90

1.38 – 2.62

< 0.001

0.90

0.51 – 1.60

0.71

Supportive attitude to adolescent delay of sexual debut

0.36

0.25 – 0.52

< 0.001

0.38

0.25 – 0.57

< 0.001

Perceived higher FP access

1.03

0.97 – 1.09

0.29

1.02

0.95 – 1.09

0.58

More positive attitudes to family planning

1.19

1.09 – 1.31

< 0.001

1.18

1.07 – 1.30

0.01

More positive about community support for condom use

1.05

0.99 – 1.12

0.13

1.02

0.95 – 1.09

0.675

More positive about condom efficacy

1.28

1.07 – 1.53

0.01

1.24

1.05 – 1.46

0.01

Higher condom access

1.42

1.14 – 1.76

0.01

1.18

0.96 – 1.45

0.11

Gender attitude

0.95

0.89 – 1.02

0.15

1.13

1.04 – 1.23

0.01

HIV prevention knowledge

0.90

0.79 – 1.02

0.09

1.08

0.96 – 1.22

0.19

Sexuality communication

0.97

0.90 – 1.06

0.53

1.00

0.90 – 1.10

0.93

Community factors

Higher radio exposure

0.90

0.65 – 1.23

0.49

0.92

0.64 – 1.31

0.64

Higher television exposure

1.29

0.87 – 1.91

0.21

0.99

0.64 – 1.52

0.96

Urban location

0.70

0.49 – 1.01

0.57

0.90

0.59 – 1.36

0.60

Southern region

1.20

0.87 – 1.65

0.27

1.38

0.93 – 2.05

0.11


*Referent group was those with no formal education.

**Referent group was those in the low economic class

Fatusi and Blum BMC Public Health 2008 8:136   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-136

Open Data