Skip to main content

Table 4 Multivariable analysis of community-level determinants of HIV testing uptake in Burkina Faso women and men

From: Uptake of HIV testing in Burkina Faso: an assessment of individual and community-level determinants

Variable0073

Women (N = 14,373)

Men (N = 5680)

Model 1a

Model 2a

Model 1a

Model 2a

PR (95% CI)

PR (95% CI)

PR (95% CI)

PR (95% CI)

Community with higher HIV prevalence

0.97 (0.93–1.02)

1.00 (0.96–1.05)

1.06 (0.97–1.16)

1.06 (0.97–1.16)

Community with higher knowledge of place to get tested

1.43 (1.36–1.50)

1.41 (1.34–1.48)

1.01 (0.92–1.10)

1.01 (0.93–1.11)

Community with lower HIV/AIDS knowledge

0.96 (0.91–1.00)

1.01 (0.96–1.06)

1.03 (0.94–1.13)

1.04 (0.95–1.14)

Community more willing to share a relative’s infection HIV status

1.02 (0.98–1.06)

1.01 (0.97–1.06)

0.97 (0.89–1.05)

0.97 (0.89–1.06)

Community believing female teacher infected with HIV should teach

1.18 (1.07–1.30)

1.01 (0.92–1.12)

0.84 (0.68–1.04)

0.81 (0.64–1.04)

Community more willing to buy food from an infected vendor

2.17 (1.39–3.36)

2.06 (1.31–3.24)

0.83 (0.55–1.24)

0.91 (0.57–1.43)

Community with more educated respondents

1.17 (1.10–1.25)

1.01 (0.94–1.08)

1.24 (1.09–1.41)

1.23 (1.07–1.41)

Community with higher proportion of respondents not working year-round

0.82 (0.77–0.87)

0.90 (0.84–0.96)

0.90 (0.79–1.03)

0.95 (0.82–1.10)

Community with more respondents in the highest wealth quintile

1.29 (1.21–1.38)

1.18 (1.10–1.27)

1.10 (0.95–1.26)

1.00 (0.85–1.17)

Community with higher media exposure

1.22 (1.15–1.30)

1.11 (1.03–1.19)

1.12 (0.97–1.28)

1.06 (0.91–1.22)

  1. Statistically significant results are bolded
  2. PR Prevalence Ratio, 95% CI 95% Confidence Interval
  3. aModel 1 has each community variable included separately in the model and adjusted for the following individual-level determinants: age, education, number of children ever born (for women only), marital status, religion, wealth index, place of residence, media exposure, HIV knowledge, lifetime number of sexual partners, and personal stigma. Model 2 is fully adjusted for all variables listed in the table and the individual-level determinants adjusted for in Model 1