Table 4 |
||||||
|
Bivariate and multivariate association between dichotomous correlates and engaging in sex without a condom at the last sexual encounter with a noncommercial partner |
||||||
|
Correlate |
Bivariate |
Multivariate a |
n = 161 |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
n |
Percent reporting condom nonuse at last sexual encounter |
Prevalence ratio (95% CI) |
P (χ 2)b |
Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) |
P |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Sociodemographic |
||||||
|
Gender |
||||||
|
Female |
40 |
71.2 |
1.41 |
0.079 |
3.09 |
0.056 |
|
Male |
123 |
50.6 |
(0.94–2.11) |
(3.23) |
(0.97–9.85) |
|
|
Age group (years) |
||||||
|
Older (20–24) |
104 |
61.6 |
1.45 |
0.034 |
2.68 |
0.051 |
|
Younger (15–19) |
59 |
42.5 |
(1.00–2.11) |
(4.78*) |
(1.00–7.23) |
|
|
Geographic area |
||||||
|
Urban |
66 |
45.0 |
0.73 |
0.065 |
0.95 |
0.893 |
|
Rural |
97 |
62.0 |
(0.53–0.99) |
(3.56) |
(0.43–2.11) |
|
|
Currently in school |
||||||
|
No |
127 |
58.1 |
1.42 |
0.051 |
0.99 |
0.984 |
|
Yes |
36 |
40.9 |
(0.97–2.09) |
(4.02) |
(0.27–3.56) |
|
|
Work experience |
||||||
|
Ever worked |
132 |
55.8 |
1.16 |
0.520 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Never worked |
31 |
48.2 |
(0.74–1.81) |
(0.42) |
||
|
Condom attitudes |
||||||
|
Perceived difficulty in obtaining a condom |
||||||
|
High |
23 |
80.4 |
1.58 |
0.017 |
4.17 |
0.084 |
|
Low |
138 |
50.9 |
(1.18–2.12) |
(6.17*) |
(0.82–21.14) |
|
|
Self-efficacy of using a condom with a new partner |
||||||
|
Low |
28 |
88.5 |
1.83 |
0.001 |
3.11 |
0.066 |
|
High |
133 |
48.3 |
(1.46–2.30) |
(27.38**) |
(0.93–10.41) |
|
|
Confidence to refuse sex without condom |
||||||
|
Low |
86 |
60.4 |
1.28 |
0.111 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
High |
75 |
47.2 |
(0.95–1.72) |
(2.64) |
||
|
Sexual behaviors |
||||||
|
Used a condom at first sexual encounter |
||||||
|
No |
103 |
78.3 |
3.75 |
0.001 |
12.92 |
0.001 |
|
Yes |
60 |
20.9 |
(2.34–6.01) |
(38.64**) |
(4.96–33.62) |
|
|
Had more than one sexual partner |
||||||
|
Yes |
111 |
54.4 |
0.99 |
0.958 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
No |
52 |
54.9 |
(0.74–1.34) |
(0.00) |
||
|
Knowledge of HIV prevention methods |
||||||
|
Effectiveness of condom in HIV prevention |
||||||
|
Low |
20 |
79.1 |
1.54 |
0.029 |
1.94 |
0.398 |
|
High |
143 |
51.4 |
(1.13–2.10) |
(5.06*) |
(0.41–9.19) |
|
|
Effectiveness of having one faithful partner in HIV prevention |
||||||
|
Low |
60 |
58.7 |
1.13 |
0.454 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
High |
103 |
52.0 |
(0.83–1.54) |
(0.57) |
||
|
Exposure to HIV program |
||||||
|
Ever heard of PILS (NGO) |
||||||
|
No |
66 |
66.0 |
1.42 |
0.018 |
3.27 |
0.010 |
|
Yes |
97 |
46.5 |
(1.08–1.86) |
(5.98*) |
(1.35–7.90) |
|
|
|
||||||
|
N/A, not applicable; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; NGO, nongovernmental organization. a. Three basic sociodemographic variables (gender, age group, and geographic area) and variables that attained P < 0.10 in the bivariate analyses were entered into the logistic regression model. b. * P < 0.05. **P < 0.01. |
||||||
|
Nishimura et al. BMC International Health and Human Rights 2007 7:8 doi:10.1186/1472-698X-7-8 |
||||||
