16, P=0007) and HIV exposure category [χ2(3)=6873, P=008] [Th

16, P=0.007) and HIV exposure category [χ2(3)=6.873, P=0.08]. [The proportions of people who had TRBs in the men who have sex with men (MSM) – IDU (36%) and MSM-only (29%) categories were higher than those in the IDU-only (15%) and heterosexual/other (15%) categories, as would be expected.] Several of the ACASI Patient Attitudes survey questions

showed significant or suggestive bivariate associations that would be predicted from the prevention literature. Those questions were related to satisfaction with HIV prevention services at Madison Clinic (r=−0.14, P=0.02), satisfaction with HIV prevention selleck compound media campaigns (r=−0.11, P=0.07), discussions with primary care providers about re-infection risk (r=−0.14, P=0.02), easily accessible HIV transmission information (r=−0.12, P=0.06) and the sense that Madison Clinic staff understand what it is GDC-0941 chemical structure like for patients to live with HIV (r=−0.14, P=0.02). Other significant questions from the ACASI Patient Attitudes survey included ‘Expectation of future HIV transmission’

(r=0.26, P<0.0005) and ‘Primary care provider assumes I use condoms’ (r=−0.11, P=0.07). A final question from the ACASI Patient Attitudes survey focused on awareness of risky behaviours (‘I am worried that I could have infected someone else with HIV in the last 6 months’) showed a significant relationship with TRBs (r=0.31, P<0.0005) of greater magnitude than that for any of the other questions. Finally, there were some items that had bivariate relationships that were opposite to our expectations, bivariate relationships for which we had no a priori expectations and bivariate

relationships that were not significant or suggestive. In the first category (opposite to hypothesis) was educational attainment (r=0.15, P=0.01) and in the second category (no expectations) was global health Farnesyltransferase ratings (r=0.12, P=0.05). The final group (nonsignificant relationships) included self-efficacy (r value not significant), engagement with medical care (number of visits for medical care in the past 6 months; r value not significant), relationship status [single, partnered or divorced/widowed; χ2(2) not significant] and homelessness [χ2(1) not significant]. Because of missing data, 28 cases were excluded from the multivariate analyses leaving a final sample of 252 participants. With a sample of that size, we were comfortable using up to 25 predictors in the multivariate model based on a rule of thumb of N≥8k+50, where k represents the number of variables [27]. The initial model included our a priori variables [self-efficacy, treatment optimism, age, substance use (alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine and sildenafil), engagement with medical care, awareness of risky behaviours, and educational attainment] whether or not they demonstrated significant bivariate associations with TRBs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>