Skip to main content

Table 4 Poisson Regression Models for CAI with Non-Transactional Partners of MSM, Stratified by the Location Where Sex Occurred; N = 1341

From: Contextualizing condoms: a cross-sectional study mapping intersections of locations of sexual contact, partner type, and substance use as contexts for sexual risk behavior among MSM in Peru

 Home (n = 722)Hotel (n = 424)Sauna/Internet Cabin (n = 85)Public Space (n = 42)
CharacteristicPRaPR95% CIPRaPR95% CIPRaPR95% CIPRaPR95% CI
Age1.001.000.980.980.96–1.011.01
Education (<Secondary is the reference category)
 Secondary0.971.190.560.490.33–0.72
  > Secondary1.061.240.600.580.42–0.81
Participant sexual orientation (Homosexual is the reference category)
 Hetero/bisexual0.760.780.61–1.010.860.850.510.890.21–3.84
Partner type (Stable is the reference category)
 Casual0.890.900.76–1.071.160.810.54
 Anonymous0.940.950.76–1.201.05
Participant alcohol use before/during sexa
 Yes – Not intoxicated1.191.040.81–1.321.241.250.83–1.890.840.520.25–1.091.52
 Intoxicated1.351.140.81–1.621.511.571.02–2.431.600.450.20–1.021.46
Partner alcohol use before/during sex
 Yes – Not intoxicated1.261.170.91–1.521.240.970.64–1.460.961.701.09–2.672.662.651.41–4.98
 Intoxicated1.291.140.79–1.661.300.840.48–1.471.673.971.83–8.641.450.680.14–3.30
Participant drug use before sex
 Marijuana1.321.361.01–1.821.261.24
 Cocaine0.871.681.340.82–2.170.871.12
Partner drug use before sex
 Marijuana1.041.101.091.641.310.72–2.39
 Cocaine0.831.481.100.65–1.840.921.33
Knowledge of partner serostatus
 Yes1.131.110.651.703.560.62–20.59
Condom conversation before/during sex
 Yes1.151.130.93–1.371.281.321.02–1.711.221.401.080.28–4.24
  1. CAI condomless anal intercourse
  2. Bold text = p-value < 0.05. Adjusted models include all variables with crude p-value < 0.20
  3. aNo is the reference value for all variables except Education, Participant sexual orientation, and Partner type