Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Application of the Cox-binomial and GEE methods to the data on condom use by FSWs with their occasional clients for 21 districts in India

From: Assessing outcomes of large-scale public health interventions in the absence of baseline data using a mixture of Cox and binomial regressions

  Cox-binomial model GEE method
District n Cox h ^ 1 h ^ 2 p Cox n logit π ^ 1 π ^ 2 p logit p Total %Diff p<0.05
Belgaum 199 0.069 0.295 <0.001 397 0.366 0.775 <0.001 <0.001 −0.5 NO
Bellary 234 0.090 0.274 <0.001 398 0.183 0.760 <0.001 <0.001 −2.7 NO
Chennai 265 0.073 0.446 <0.001 349 0.143 0.413 <0.001 <0.001 13.6 YES
Chitoor 360 0.012 0.107 <0.001 395 0.026 0.230 <0.001 <0.001 7.7 YES
Coimbatore 306 0.006 0.144 <0.001 325 0.020 0.117 <0.001 <0.001 12.2 YES
Dharmapuri 306 0.020 0.262 <0.001 387 0.049 0.657 <0.001 <0.001 16.5 YES
East Godavari 303 0.067 0.314 <0.001 392 0.149 0.518 <0.001 <0.001 4.5 NO
Guntur 324 0.012 0.345 <0.001 386 0.068 0.532 <0.001 <0.001 21.9 YES
Madurai 269 0.044 0.263 <0.001 319 0.097 0.304 <0.001 <0.001 12.1 YES
Mumbai BB 156 0.069 0.112 0.578 379 0.576 0.629 0.369 0.573 −0.9 NO
Mumbai NBB 144 0.064 0.072 0.983 354 0.557 0.711 0.011 0.041 −0.8 NO
Mysore 328 0.031 0.191 <0.001 420 0.120 0.377 <0.001 <0.001 8.7 YES
Prakasam 374 0.003 0.123 <0.001 402 0.026 0.204 <0.001 <0.001 10.1 YES
Pune BB 74 0.202 0.261 0.884 399 0.769 0.942 <0.001 <0.001 −3.9 YES
Pune NBB 60 0.112 0.130 0.054 251 0.689 0.870 <0.001 <0.001 0.0 NO
Salem 249 0.035 0.313 <0.001 319 0.106 0.364 <0.001 <0.001 13.9 YES
Shimoga 192 0.059 0.225 <0.001 338 0.158 0.641 <0.001 <0.001 2.9 NO
Thane BB 54 0.337 0.500 0.752 397 0.847 0.913 0.082 0.209 −5.6 YES
Thane NBB 64 0.241 0.311 0.662 377 0.735 0.894 <0.001 <0.001 −3.5 NO
Visakhapatnam 350 0.042 0.386 <0.001 405 0.043 0.500 <0.001 <0.001 18.8 YES
Yevatmal 57 0.131 0.435 <0.001 148 0.328 0.800 <0.001 <0.001 0.6 NO
  1. TOTAL 4668 7140.
  2. Columns 2 and 6: Number of FSWs contributing the Cox (n Cox) and binomial (n logit) regressions. Columns 3 and 4: mean rate of condom acquisition during career before 1-1-2004 ( h ^ 1 ) and after 1-1-2004 ( h ^ 2 ). Columns 7 and 8: Mean probability of condom use at beginning of career before 1-1-2004 ( π ^ 1 ) and after 1-1-2004 ( π ^ 2 ). Columns 5, 9 and 10: p-values of the likelihood-ratio test of no difference pre- and post-intervention in condom acquisition (p Cox), condom use at beginning of career (p logit) and combined tests (p Total). Columns 11 and 12: Estimate of the difference between the average yearly slopes of consistent condom use before and after 1-1-2004 with the GEE approach with a p-value for the test that this difference is significantly different from 0. “BB” stands for “brothel-based” and “NBB” stands for “Non brothel-based”.