| Literature DB >> 21431414 |
Alfonso Ang1, Donald E Morisky.
Abstract
This study uses multilevel analysis to examine individual, organizational and community levels of influence on condom use among female commercial sex workers (FSW) in the Philippines. A randomized controlled study involving 1,382 female commercial sex workers assigned to three intervention groups consisting of peer education, managerial training, combined peer and managerial intervention and a usual care control group was conducted. The results of the multilevel analysis show that FSWs who work in establishments with condom use rules tend to have a higher level of condom use (β = .70, P < 0.01). Among the different intervention groups, the combined peer and managerial intervention had the largest effect on condom use (β = 1.30, P < 0.01) compared with the usual care group. Using a three-level hierarchical model, we found that 62% of the variation lies within individuals, whereas 24% and 14% of the variation lies between establishments, and communities, respectively. Standard errors were underestimated when clustering of the FSWs in the different establishments and communities were not taken into consideration. The results demonstrate the importance of using multilevel analysis for community-based HIV/AIDS intervention programs to examine individual, establishment and community effects.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 21431414 PMCID: PMC3165094 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-011-9925-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIDS Behav ISSN: 1090-7165
Fig. 1Map of the Philippines showing the geographic location of the intervention sites (underlined cities)
Demographic characteristics of GROs at baseline by intervention and control cities
| Legaspi (E1) ( | Cagayan de Oro (E2) ( | Cebu (E3) ( | Ilo-Ilo (C) ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||||
| Mean | 23.23 | 23.62 | 22.63 | 24.70 |
| SD (Min., Max.) | 5.14 (15, 41) | 5.20 (10, 48) | 4.92 (15, 39) | 7.11 (14, 54) |
| Years of schooling (years) | ||||
| Mean | 8.61 | 9.63 | 8.88 | 8.72 |
| SD (Min., Max.) | 2.21 (2, 14) | 2.13 (1, 14) | 2.16 (2, 14) | 2.13 (1, 14) |
| Average weekly income (pesos) | ||||
| Mean | 1045 | 1223 | 1278 | 1480 |
| SD (Min., Max.) | 797 (100, 8000) | 988 (150, 9000) | 1132 (50, 8000) | 1500 (100, 9000) |
| Marital status | ||||
| Single, never married (%) | 62 | 45 | 62 | 48 |
| Single, lives with boyfriend (%) | 30 | 25 | 18 | 24 |
| Separated, living alone (%) | 5 | 11 | 10 | 19 |
| Married (%) | 2 | 17 | 8 | 9 |
| Widowed (%) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
E peer education, E manager/supervisor training & educational policy, E combination E1 and E2, C control group (usual care)
Comparison of knowledge, attitudes and condom use between control and intervention groups
| Survey measures | Baseline | Post test (SD) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge score (ranges from 0 to 10) | |||
| Peer education | 4.16 (1.01) | 6.22 (1.16) | 4.4** |
| Managerial training | 4.25 (1.17) | 6.35 (1.12) | 4.5** |
| Combined (peer + managerial) group | 4.29 (1.08) | 6.48 (1.01) | 4.8** |
| Control group | 4.16 (1.30) | 4.75 (1.31) | 1.1 |
| Attitudes towards condoms score (ranges from 5 to 50) | |||
| Peer education | 42.71 (1.29) | 46.21 (1.34) | 3.1** |
| Managerial training | 44.56 (1.29) | 48.54 (1.33) | 3.8** |
| Combined (peer + managerial) group | 43.79 (1.25) | 48.75 (1.24) | 3.9** |
| Control group | 45.19 (1.30) | 44.92 (1.25) | .94 |
| Self efficacy score (ranges from 6 to 30) | |||
| Peer education | 17.11(1.13) | 18.23 (1.13) | 2.2* |
| Managerial training | 17.36 (1.19) | 18.38 (1.18) | 2.1* |
| Combined (peer + managerial) group | 17.11 (1.11) | 18.47 (1.22) | 2.4* |
| Control group | 17.27 (1.31) | 17.91 (1.13) | .98 |
| Condom use score (ranges from 0 to 12) | |||
| Peer education | 6.56 (1.26) | 7.33 (1.17) | 3.1** |
| Managerial training | 6.52 (1.20) | 7.59 (1.04) | 3.3** |
| Combined (peer + managerial) group | 6.48 (1.22) | 8.15 (1.12) | 3.7** |
| Control group | 6.62 (1.27) | 6.21 (0.94) | .92 |
* P < 0.05
** P < 0.001
Multilevel analysis of condom use—OLS regression vs. hierarchical linear model results
| Fixed effectsa | OLS estimate (cluster effect ignored) | S.E. (OLS) |
| Hierarchical linear model estimate | S.E. (HLM) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual-level | ||||||
| Knowledge | 0.063 | 0.019 | 3.32** | 0.064 | 0.026 | 2.46* |
| Attitude | 0.061 | 0.012 | 5.08** | 0.062 | 0.018 | 3.44** |
| Self-efficacy | 0.051 | 0.017 | 3.00** | 0.05 | 0.030 | 1.67 |
| Establishment-level | ||||||
| Establishment rule | 0.704 | 0.113 | 6.23** | 0.705 | 0.128 | 5.51** |
| City-level | ||||||
| Peer education | 0.251 | 0.098 | 2.56** | 0.250 | 0.110 | 2.27* |
| Managerial training | 0.628 | 0.158 | 3.97** | 0.628 | 0.264 | 2.38** |
| Combined | 1.306 | 0.098 | 13.33** | 1.304 | 0.278 | 4.69** |
| Cross-level interaction | ||||||
| Peer × establishment rule | 0.421 | 0.124 | 3.40** | 0.421 | .147 | 2.86** |
| Managerial × estab. rule | 0.563 | 0.176 | 3.20** | 0.563 | .209 | 2.69** |
| Combined × estab. rule | 0.840 | 0.238 | 3.53** | 0.840 | .325 | 2.58** |
aModel also controlled for age, education and marital status and baseline condom use
* P < 0.05
** P < 0.01
Effects of increased self-efficacy, knowledge, and attitude on condom use in establishments with a mandatory condom use policy vs. establishments with no condom use policy
| Establishments with no condom use policy | Establishments with condom use policy | % difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Effect of a 10% increase in condom use knowledge | |||
| Control | 6.57 | 7.28 | 10.81 |
| Peer | 6.82 | 7.95 | 16.57 |
| Managerial | 7.19 | 8.46 | 17.66 |
| Combined peer + managerial | 7.87 | 9.42 | 19.70 |
| (2) Effect of a 10% increase in condom use attitudes | |||
| Control | 6.82 | 7.52 | 10.26 |
| Peer | 7.07 | 8.19 | 15.84 |
| Managerial | 7.44 | 8.71 | 17.07 |
| Combined peer + managerial | 8.11 | 9.67 | 19.24 |
| (3) Effect of a 10% increase in self-efficacy | |||
| Control | 6.63 | 7.34 | 10.71 |
| Peer | 6.88 | 8.01 | 16.42 |
| Managerial | 7.25 | 8.52 | 17.52 |
| Combined peer + managerial | 7.93 | 9.48 | 19.55 |
Expected values were estimated from the hierarchical linear models, and computed separately for three scenarios. We assume a hypothetical increase of 10% in (1) knowledge, (2) attitudes and (3) self-efficacy