| Literature DB >> 31699061 |
Rosliza Abdul Manaf1,2, Nigel Dickson3, Sarah Lovell4, Faisal Ibrahim5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Men who inject drugs (MWIDs) comprise the highest percentage of diagnosed HIV cases in Malaysia. Their female partners risk being infected through unprotected sexual contact. This paper reports the prevalence of consistent condom use and its predictors among the wives and regular sexual partners of MWIDs in Klang Valley, Malaysia.Entities:
Keywords: Condom use; HIV risk; MWID; Malaysia; Sexual partners
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31699061 PMCID: PMC6839187 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7855-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Participants’ socio-demography, HIV status and HIV-risk related behaviours (N = 221)
| Participants’ characteristics | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Marital status | ||
| Married to their current partner | 153 | 69.2 |
| Not married to their current partner | 68 | 30.8 |
| Religion | ||
| Islam | 170 | 76.9 |
| Christianity | 7 | 3.2 |
| Buddhism | 12 | 5.4 |
| Hinduism | 32 | 14.5 |
| Study Location | ||
| Urban | 114 | 51.6 |
| Sub-urban | 107 | 48.4 |
| Age group* | ||
| Youth (≤ 25 years) | 13 | 6.1 |
| Young adults (26–35 years) | 65 | 30.2 |
| Middle-aged adults (36–50 years) | 109 | 50.7 |
| Older adults (≥51 years) | 28 | 13.0 |
| Highest education attainment | ||
| Never attended school or did not finish primary education | 21 | 9.5 |
| Completed primary education | 65 | 29.4 |
| Completed secondary education | 122 | 55.2 |
| Completed tertiary education | 13 | 5.9 |
| Employment status | ||
| Not working | 66 | 29.9 |
| Working part time | 58 | 26.2 |
| Working full time | 97 | 43.9 |
| History of drug use in the last 12 months | ||
| Used injectable drugs | 20 | 9.1 |
| Used non-injectable drugs | 67 | 30.3 |
| Never used any drugs | 134 | 60.6 |
| Had more than one sex partner | ||
| Yes | 32 | 14.5 |
| No | 189 | 85.5 |
| Involved in sex work | ||
| Yes | 24 | 10.9 |
| No | 197 | 89.1 |
| Participants’ HIV status | ||
| Positive | 14 | 6.3 |
| Negative | 148 | 67.0 |
| Unknown | 59 | 26.7 |
| Partners’ HIV status | ||
| Positive | 17 | 7.7 |
| Negative | 103 | 46.6 |
| Unknown | 101 | 45.7 |
| HIV concordance | ||
| Both HIV positive | 5 | 2.3 |
| Sero-discordant (woman +ve, partner -ve or unknown) | 9 | 4.1 |
| Sero-discordant (woman -ve or unknown, partner +ve) | 12 | 5.4 |
| Both HIV negative or unknown | 195 | 88.2 |
*6 participants did not respond
Condom use among participants (N = 221)
| Condom use | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Have you ever used a condom? | ||
| Yes | 105 | 47.5 |
| No | 116 | 52.5 |
| Used condoms at last sex? | ||
| Yes | 64 | 28.9 |
| No | 41 | 18.6 |
| Not applicable (never used condom) | 116 | 52.5 |
| Frequency of condom use | ||
| Always (a) | 28 | 12.7 |
| Almost always (b) | 15 | 6.8 |
| About half the time (c) | 30 | 13.6 |
| Occasionally (d) | 32 | 14.5 |
| Never used a condom (e) | 116 | 52.5 |
| Consistent condom user | ||
| Yes (a + b) | 43 | 19.5 |
| No (c + d + e) | 178 | 80.5 |
Additional information on condom use among participants who had ever used a condom (N = 105)
| Additional information on condom use | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Reason for using condoms | ||
| To avoid pregnancy | 23 | 21.9 |
| To avoid STIs including HIV | 63 | 60.0 |
| Both of the above reasons | 16 | 15.2 |
| Other reasons | 3 | 2.9 |
| Who decides to use condoms? | ||
| The participant | 58 | 55.2 |
| Her partner | 17 | 16.2 |
| Shared decision by both of them | 30 | 28.6 |
| Who usually provides condoms?* | ||
| Only the participant | 74 | 71.2 |
| Only her partner | 18 | 17.3 |
| Both of them | 12 | 11.5 |
| Where do they normally get their supply of condoms? | ||
| Government clinic | 19 | 18.1 |
| NGOs | 52 | 49.5 |
| Pharmacy | 32 | 30.5 |
| Convenience shop | 2 | 1.9 |
*One participant did not answer the question
Factors associated with consistent condom use (N = 221)
| Socio-demographic characteristics/HIV status/HIV risk behaviour | Consistent condom use | Multiple logistic regression | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes ( | No ( | |||||
| % | % | Adjusted odds ratio a (95% CI) | ||||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Married to the current partner | 17 | 11.1 | 136 | 88.9 | < 0.001* | Ref |
| Not married to the current partner | 26 | 38.2 | 42 | 61.8 | 4.95 (2.45, 9.99) | |
| Religion | ||||||
| Muslim | 29 | 17.1 | 141 | 82.9 | 0.10 | |
| Non-Muslim | 14 | 27.5 | 37 | 72.5 | ||
| Study Location | ||||||
| Urban | 34 | 42.5 | 80 | 57.5 | 0.007* | 2.97 (1.30, 6.78) |
| Sub-urban | 9 | 9.2 | 98 | 90.8 | Ref | |
| Age group | ||||||
| Youth (≤ 25 years) | 0 | 0 | 13 | 100.0 | 0.34 | |
| Young adults (26–35 years) | 12 | 18.5 | 53 | 81.5 | ||
| Middle-aged adults (36–50 years) | 22 | 20.2 | 87 | 79.8 | ||
| Older adults (≥51 years) | 6 | 21.4 | 22 | 78.6 | ||
| Highest education attainment | ||||||
| Primary education or less | 21 | 24.4 | 65 | 75.6 | 0.14 | |
| Completed at least secondary education | 22 | 16.3 | 113 | 83.7 | ||
| Employment status | ||||||
| Working | 32 | 20.6 | 123 | 79.4 | 0.49 | |
| Not working | 11 | 16.7 | 55 | 83.3 | ||
| Participants’ HIV status | ||||||
| Positive | 6 | 42.9 | 8 | 57.1 | 0.04* | 3.45 (1.13, 10.5) |
| Negative or unknown | 37 | 17.9 | 170 | 82.1 | Ref | |
| Partners’ HIV status | ||||||
| Positive | 6 | 35.3 | 11 | 64.7 | 0.11 | |
| Negative or unknown | 37 | 18.1 | 167 | 81.9 | ||
| Used injectable drugs | ||||||
| Yes | 3 | 15.0 | 17 | 85.0 | 0.77 | |
| No | 40 | 19.9 | 161 | 80.1 | ||
| Involved in sex work | ||||||
| Yes | 10 | 41.7 | 14 | 58.3 | 0.004* | 3.55 (1.45, 8.67) |
| No | 33 | 16.8 | 164 | 83.2 | Ref | |
* Significant at P < 0.05 a Adjusted odds ratio from multiple logistic regression adjusting for marital status, study location, participants’ HIV status, and involvement in sex work Ref = reference group in logistic regression