Skip to main content

Table 7 Estimates of the association between allocation arm and HIV outcomes stratified by community problem solving

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

807 (35.1)

1

 

Community-led

351 (20.1)

0.48 (0.28–0.84)

 

Medium

Paid distribution

360 (24.9)

1

0.06

Community-led

407 (22.2)

0.67 (0.38–1.18)

 

High

Paid distribution

341 (19.8)

1

 

Community-led

471 (22.4)

1.17 (0.68–2.02)

 

New HIV diagnosis

 

HIV Diagnosis (%)

S–S adjusted OR (95% CI)

P-value for interaction

Low

Paid distribution

35 (1.5)

1

 

Community-led

46 (2.6)

1.69 (0.81–3.55)

 

Medium

Paid distribution

39 (2.7)

1

0.22

Community-led

45 (2.5)

0.96 (0.46–2.02)

 

High

Paid distribution

54 (3.1)

1

 

Community-led

47 (2.2)

0.68 (0.34–1.35)

 

Linkage

 

Linkage (%)

S–S adjusted OR (95% CI)

P-value for interaction

Low

Paid distribution

64 (7.9)

1

 

Community-led

36 (10.3)

1.35 (0.79–2.31)

 

Medium

Paid distribution

26 (7.2)

1

0.39

Community-led

65 (16.0)

2.02 (1.10–3.72)

 

High

Paid distribution

35 (10.2)

1

 

Community-led

52 (11.0)

1.12 (0.64–1.94)