Skip to main content

Table 2 Adjusted odds ratios for effect of community social cohesion on HIV outcomes

From: Do community measures impact the effectiveness of a community led HIV testing intervention. Secondary analysis of an HIV self-testing intervention in rural communities in Zimbabwe

Cohesion

 

Self-test coverage (n = 11,150)

 

P-value*

Didn’t take self-test

Took up self-test

Crude OR (95% CI)

Adjusteda OR (95% CI)

Low

1975 (74.7)

669 (25.3)

1

  

Medium

3263 (77.8)

929 (22.2)

0.85 (0.53–1.35)

0.82 (0.52–1.20)

0.57

High

3175 (73.6)

1139 (26.4)

1.03 (0.64–1.66)

1.02 (0.63–1.65)

 
 

New HIV Diagnosis (n = 11,150)

  

Not new diagnosis

New Diagnosis

Crude OR (95% CI)

Adjusteda OR (95% CI)

 

Low

2580 (97.6)

64 (2.4)

1

  

Medium

4082 (97.4)

110 (2.6)

1.02 (0.58–1.78)

1.08 (0.63–1.87)

0.85

High

4222 (97.9)

92 (2.1)

0.84 (0.47–1.50)

0.94 (0.53–1.65)

 
 

Linkage (n = 2737)

   

Didn't link

Linked

Crude OR (95% CI)

Adjusteda OR (95% CI)

 

Low

605 (90.4)

64 (9.6)

1

 

0.89

Medium

815 (87.7)

114 (12.3)

1.18 (0.75–1.87)

1.12 (0.64–1.95)

 

High

1039 (91.2)

100 (8.8)

0.92 (0.58–1.46)

1.00 (0.57–1.76)

 
  1. *p-value from likelihood ratio test
  2. aadjusted for age, sex, salary, education, marital status, household hunger and assets