Skip to main content

Table 3 Adjusted odds ratios for effect of community HIV awareness 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

Community HIV Awareness

 

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

2935 (71.1)

1194 (28.9)

1

 

0.10

Medium

2573 (75.6)

831 (24.4)

0.92 (0.60–1.40)

0.92 (0.59–1.41)

 

High

2905 (80.3)

712 (19.7)

0.62 (0.41–0.94)

0.63 (0.41–0.98)

 
 

New HIV Diagnosis (n = 11,150)

  

Not new diagnosis

New Diagnosis

Crude OR (95% CI)

Adjusteda OR (95% CI)

 

Low

4040 (97.8)

89 (2.2)

1

 

0.29

Medium

3304 (97.1)

100 (2.9)

1.45 (0.86–2.47)

1.38 (0.83–2.29)

 

High

3540 (97.9)

77 (2.1)

0.98 (0.57–1.67)

0.94 (0.55–1.59)

 
 

Linkage (n = 2737)

   

Didn't link

Linked

Crude OR (95% CI)

Adjusteda OR (95% CI)

 

Low

1075 (90.0)

119 (10.0)

1

 

0.92

Medium

745 (89.7)

86 (10.30)

1.1 (0.70–1.72)

1.09 (0.65–1.86)

 

High

639 (89.8)

73 (10.20)

1.1 (0.70–1.72)

1.10 (0.63–1.93)

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