Ó£»¨ÊÓÆµ

Skip to main content

Table 4 Adjusted odds ratios for current perception of high risk of acquiring HIV among mobile FSWs in Southern India

From: Relationship between reported prior condom use and current self-perceived risk of acquiring HIV among mobile female sex workers in southern India

Characteristics

Model I

Model II

Model III

Model IV

Ìý

Adjusted OR

(95% CI)

Adjusted OR

(95% CI)

Adjusted OR

(95% CI)

Adjusted OR

(95% CI)

Condom use in past one week with occasional clients

ÌýÌýÌýÌý

Consistent

Ìý

1

Ìý

1

Inconsistent

Ìý

2.85 (2.31 -3.51)

Ìý

2.07 (1.65 -2.60)

No client

Ìý

0.84 (0.41 -1.71)

Ìý

0.95 (0.45 -1.97)

Condom use in past one week with regular clients

ÌýÌýÌýÌý

Consistent

Ìý

1

Ìý

1

Inconsistent

Ìý

1.16 (0.95 -1.42)

Ìý

0.99 (0.79 -1.22)

No client

Ìý

0.92 (0.66 - 1.27)

Ìý

0.91 (0.64 -1.29)

Condom use in past one week with non paying partners

ÌýÌýÌýÌý

Consistent

Ìý

1

Ìý

1

Inconsistent

Ìý

0.56 (0.43 -0.72)

Ìý

0.65 (0.49 -0.86)

No partner

Ìý

0.32 (0.26 -0.38)

Ìý

0.52 (0.42 -0.64)

STI symptoms in last six months & use of condom

ÌýÌýÌýÌý

No STI symptom

ÌýÌý

1

1

No sex during STI symptom

ÌýÌý

2.68 (2.31 -3.11)

2.36 (2.02 -2.75)

Continued sex during STI symptom

ÌýÌý

6.76 (5.56 - 8.23)

5.70 (4.66 - 6.98)

Used alcohol prior to sex

ÌýÌýÌýÌý

No

ÌýÌý

1

1

Yes

ÌýÌý

2.36 (2.04 – 2.71)

2.20 (1.90 – 2.54)

Reason for entering in to sex work

ÌýÌýÌýÌý

Choice/tradition

ÌýÌý

1

1

Economic/force

ÌýÌý

1.39 (1.12 -1.72)

1.39 (1.12 -1.72)

Sex work

ÌýÌýÌýÌý

Full time

ÌýÌý

1

1

Part time

ÌýÌý

1.51 (1.31 -1.75)

1.37 (1.18 -1.59)

State

ÌýÌýÌýÌý

Tamil Nadu

1

1

1

1

Andhra Pradesh

2.84 (1.43 - 5.66)

2.97 (1.50 -5.89)

1.91 (0.89 - 4.10)

2.16 (1.02 - 4.60)

Karnataka

1.98 (0.99 - 3.93)

1.30 (0.65 - 2.60)

1.59 (0.73 - 3.44)

1.28 (0.59 - 2.78)

Maharashtra

0.37 (0.19 - 0.71)

0.48 (0.25 - 0.93)

0.38 (0.18 - 0.79)

0.45 (0.22 - 0.93)

Random component

ÌýÌýÌýÌý

District (SD)

0.54 (0.38 - 0.75)

0.54 (0.38 - 0.74)

0.59 (0.42 - 0.83)

0.58 (0.42 - 0.81)

Regression statistics

ÌýÌýÌýÌý

Log likelihood

-3288.778

-3128.85

-2896.539

-2854.597

Districts

22

22

22

22

N

5413

5413

5413

5413

  1. Note:
  2. 1. The estimated standard deviation (SD) of the district variable without the state variable was 0.99.
  3. 2. Experience of sexual violence, living arrangements, currently in debt, degree of mobility, age, education, and marital status were also included as covariates in Models II and IV. Adjusted odds ratios for these covariates (except age) were not significant at 5% level of significance.