You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Table 3 Intention-to-treat comparisons of the primary and secondary outcomes between the combined intervention group and usual care control, and between the two intervention groups (SCC1 vs. SCC2), with and without covariate adjustment

From: “Our Choice” improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches

Overall SCC1 SCC2 Sig. test(unadjusted) Intervention effect(covariate adjusted) Intervention(SCC1/SCC2) Usual care control Sig. test(unadjusted) Intervention effect(covariate adjusted)
n (%) n (%) Chi-sq OR (95% CI) n (%) n (%) Chi-sq OR (95% CI)
Among all participants in the sample (n=389)
n 129 130    259 130   
Primary outcome: Used SCM accurately if tryingto conceive or modern contraception if not tryingto conceive 35 (27.1%) 19 (14.6%) 0.013 4.50** (1.44-14.01) 54 (20.8%) 9 (6.9%) <0.001 10.63** (2.79-40.49)
Secondary outcomes: Used SCM accurately iftrying to conceive or any contraception(incl condoms) if not trying to conceive 46 (35.7%) 33 (25.4%) 0.073 3.44* (1.31-9.02) 79 (30.5%) 27 (20.8%) 0.042 3.63** (1.38-9.61)
Partner seroconversion to HIV positive at studyendpoint 0 (0%) 1 (0.8%) 0.320 0.94 (0.01-75.66) 1 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 0.46 2.23 (0.02-257.6)
Among those trying to conceive throughout study (n=212) or during one 6-month period (n=64): total n=276
n 104 87    191 85   
Primary outcome: Used TCI or MSI accurately 36 (34.6%) 10 (11.5%) <0.001 6.43** (1.90-21.73) 46 (24.1%) 0 (0%) <0.001 91.84** (4.94-1709)
Secondary outcomes
 Used any (un-named) strategy to reduce risk inconceiving 81 (77.9%) 61 (70.1%) 0.221 7.05** (2.07-23.99) 142 (74.3%) 26 (30.6%) <0.001 27.17** (7.84-94.15)
 Reported using SCM (TCI/MSI) 75 (72.1%) 50 (57.5%) 0.034 4.75** (1.64-13.71) 125 (65.4%) 4 (4.7%) <0.001 494.4** (26.06-9378)
 Reported using TCI 67 (64.4%) 42 (48.3%) 0.025 5.12** (1.86-14.50) 109 (57.1%) 4 (4.7%) <0.001 424.6** (22.63-7968)
 Reported accurate TCI 30 (28.8%) 9 (10.3%) 0.002 10.33** (2.60-41.08) 39 (20.4%) 0 (0%) <0.001 121.9** (6.30-2360)
 Reported using MSI (among females) 14/69 (20.3%) 8/39 (20.5%) 0.978 1.06 (0.27-4.11) 22/108 (20.4%) 0/34 (0%) 0.002 9.88 (0.48-201.9)
 Reported accurate MSI 8/69 (11.6%) 1/39 (2.6%) 0.152 1.13 (0.13-9.54) 9/108 (8.3%) 0/34 (0%) 0.114 2.77 (0.11-67.26)
 Became pregnant 32 (30.8%) 29 (33.3%) 0.760 0.44 (0.15-1.25) 61 (31.9%) 27 (31.8%) 0.902 0.73 (0.25-2.09)
Among those not trying to conceive throughout study (n=113) or in one 6-month time period (n=64): total n=177
n 48 61    109 68   
Primary outcome: Using modern contraceptive 7 (14.6%) 12 (19.4%) 0.487 3.72 (0.37-37.48) 19 (17.4%) 12 (17.6%) 0.971 1.20 (0.22-6.501)
Secondary outcomes:
 Using modern contraceptive or always usecondoms or not having sex 28 (58.3%) 35 (56.5%) 0.92 1.07 (0.28-4.19) 63 (57.8%) 37 (54.4%) 0.658 0.52 (0.16-1.75)
 Always use condoms 13 (27.1%) 16 (25.8%) 0.92 2.78 (0.50-15.63) 29 (26.6%) 18 (26.5%) 0.984 2.66 (0.57-12.44)
 Did not become pregnant 44 (91.7%) 54 (88.5%) 0.589 1.40 (0.17-11.58) 98 (89.9%) 61 (89.7%) 0.965 0.18 (0.01-4.30)
  1. Adjusted models controlled for site, age, sex, education, time since HIV diagnosis, marital status, length of relationship, and whether had child with partner
  2. SCM safer conception method, TCI timed condomless sex, MSI manual self-insemination, SCC1 safer conception counseling implemented with high intensity approach, SCC2 safer conception counseling implemented with low intensity approach, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
  3. **p<0.01
  4. *p<0.05
Back to article page

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

\