Skip to main content

Table 6 Estimates of the association between allocation arm and HIV outcomes stratified by community HIV awareness

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

799 (36.8)

1

 

Community-led

395 (20.2)

0.41 (0.24–0.69)

 

Medium

Paid distribution

449 (22.7)

1

0.03

Community-led

382 (26.8)

1.06 (0.62–1.81)

 

High

Paid distribution

260 (19.7)

1

 

Community-led

452 (19.7)

0.98 (0.58–1.66)

 

New HIV diagnosis

Allocation Arm

HIV Diagnosis (%)

S–S adjusted OR (95% CI)

P-value for interaction

Low

Paid distribution

35 (1.6)

1

 

Community-led

54 (2.7)

2.00 (0.96–4.19)

 

Medium

Paid distribution

58 (2.9)

1

0.09

Community-led

42 (3.0)

0.88 (0.43–1.79)

 

High

Paid distribution

35 (2.7)

1

 

Community-led

42 (1.8)

0.67 (0.32–1.39)

 

Linkage

Allocation Arm

Linkage (%)

S–S adjusted OR (95% CI)

P-value for interaction

Low

Paid distribution

54 (6.8)

1

 

Community-led

65 (16.5)

2.60 (1.58–4.28)

 

Medium

Paid distribution

46 (10.2)

1

0.03

Community-led

40 (10.5)

0.98 (0.57–1.68)

 

High

Paid distribution

25 (9.6)

1

 

Community-led

48 (10.6)

1.13 (0.62–2.03)