Skip to main content

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”.