Skip to main content

Table 4 Adjusted odds ratios for effect of community problem solving 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 problem solving

 

Self-test coverage (n = 11,150)

 

P-value*

Didn’t take self-test

Took up self-test

Crude OR (95% CI)

Adjusted* OR (95% CI)

Low

2890 (71.4)

1158 (28.6)

1

 

0.17

Medium

2512 (76.6)

767 (23.4)

0.76 (0.49–1.18)

0.73 (0.47–1.13)

 

High

3011 (78.8)

812 (21.2)

0.66 (0.43–1.01)

0.66 (0.43–1.02)

 
 

New HIV Diagnosis (n = 11,150)

  

Not new diagnosis

New Diagnosis

Crude OR (95% CI)

Adjusteda OR (95% CI)

 

Low

3967 (98.0)

81 (2.0)

1

 

0.47

Medium

3195 (97.4)

84 (2.6)

1.27 (0.73–2.21)

1.32 (0.77–2.25)

 

High

3722 (97.4)

101 (2.6)

1.37 (0.80–2.34)

1.35 (0.80–2.30)

 
 

Linkage (n = 2737)

   

Didn't link

Linked

Crude OR (95% CI)

Adjusteda OR (95% CI)

 

Low

1058 (91.4)

100 (8.6)

1

 

0.81

Medium

676 (88.1)

91 (11.9)

1.21 (0.77–1.90)

0.92 (0.53–1.59)

 

High

725 (89.3)

87 (10.7)

1.24 (0.81–1.92)

1.11 (0.64–1.91)

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