Skip to main content

Table 5 Estimates of the association between allocation arm and HIV outcomes stratified by community social cohesion

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

Self-testing

Allocation Arm

Self-test uptake (%)

S–S adjusted OR (95% CI)

P-value for interaction

Low

Paid distribution

214 (24.0)

1

 

Community-led

455 (26.0)

1.23 (0.62–2.4)

 

Medium

PD

418 (23.4)

1

0.12

Community-led

511 (21.2)

0.75 (0.44–1.28)

 

High

PD

876 (31.4)

1

 

Community-led

263 (17.3)

0.47 (0.26–0.84)

 

New HIV diagnosis

Allocation Arm

HIV Diagnosis (%)

S–S adjusted OR (95% CI)

P-value for interaction

Low

Paid distribution

26 (2.9)

1

 

Community-led

38 (2.2)

0.81 (0.36–1.77)

 

Medium

Paid distribution

57 (3.2)

1

0.04

Community-led

53 (2.2)

0.61 (0.32–1.16)

 

High

Paid distribution

45 (1.6)

1

 

Community-led

47 (3.1)

2.08 (1.03–4.19)

 

Linkage

Allocation Arm

Linkage (%)

S–S adjusted OR (95% CI)

P-value for interaction

Low

Paid distribution

15 (7.0)

1

 

Community-led

49 (10.8)

1.64 (0.78–3.45)

 

Medium

Paid distribution

40 (9.6)

1

0.89

Community-led

74 (14.5)

1.32 (0.76–2.30)

 

High

Paid distribution

70 (8.0)

1

 

Community-led

30 (11.4)

1.50 (0.83–2.71)