- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Aurélia Lépine, Fern Terris-Prestholt, Peter Vickerman, Determinants of HIV testing among Nigerian couples: a multilevel modelling approach, Health Policy and Planning, Volume 30, Issue 5, June 2015, Pages 579–592, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czu036
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
In this article we analyse the determinants of HIV testing among Nigerian couples using Demographic and Health Survey data set (2008). This study is motivated by the fact that although there is a strong willingness from the Nigerian Government to examine new HIV preventions approaches such as Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP) and Treatment as Prevention (TasP) for HIV serodiscordant couples, the implementation of such policies would require the HIV status of each partner in the couple to be known. This is far to be achieved in the Nigerian context since in Nigeria only 6% of couples know their HIV status. In order to identify potential policies that are needed to increase HIV testing uptake, we use a three-level random intercept logistic model to separately explore the determinants of knowing HIV status among female and male partners. The use of the multilevel modelling allows including the unobserved heterogeneity at the village and state level that may affect HIV testing behaviours. Our results indicate that education, wealth, stigma, HIV knowledge and perceived risk are predictors of HIV testing among both partners while routine provider initiated testing appears to be very effective to increase HIV testing among women. The introduction of financial incentives as well as an increase in routine testing and home-based testing may be needed for large scale increase in HIV testing prior to the implementation of new HIV prevention technologies among discordant couples.
HIV testing behaviours of male and female partners are not predicted by the same factors.
The use of a multilevel modelling is useful to include the unobserved heterogeneity at the village and state level that may affect HIV testing behaviours, since the coefficients obtained with a binary response model are likely to be biased.
Reaching serodiscordant couples for the introduction of PrEP and TasP is likely to continue to be a challenge without dramatically different approaches to testing. Policies aiming to increase HIV testing uptake are required prior to the implementation of PrEP and TasP.
Given the high effect of stigma and wealth on HIV testing, the results suggest that financial incentives and/or community-based household testing could be effective ways to improve the prevalence of HIV testing in Nigeria.
Introduction
With an HIV prevalence of 4.1% in 2010, Nigeria has almost 3.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH/A) and ranks third among the countries with the highest HIV burden in the world (National Agency for the Control of AIDS 2012). Despite political commitment to address HIV/AIDS (HIV hereafter) and the scale up of existing proven interventions such as the prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) and antiretroviral therapy (ART), an estimated 388 864 new infections occurred in 2011 (National Agency for the Control of AIDS 2012). Therefore, it is urgent to implement more effective strategies to stem the number of new infections.
Recent trials have found a strong impact of antiretroviral (ARV)-based prevention on HIV transmission through initiation of HIV treatment, termed ‘treatment as prevention’ (TasP) (Attia et al. 2009; Cohen et al. 2011; Donnell et al. 2010) and on HIV acquisition, via pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) (Anglemyer et al. 2013; Baeten et al. 2012; Karim et al. 2010; Thigpen et al. 2012; Van Damme et al. 2012). Nigeria is currently examining the different options for PrEP and TasP delivery among serodiscordant couples; that is, in couples where one partner is HIV positive and the other is HIV negative. However, with only 15% of married Nigerian adults knowing their HIV status (Demographic and Health Survey 2008), HIV testing remains a critical barrier to effective implementation of ARV-based prevention. Beyond the importance of testing in the context of programme introduction, HIV testing has some strong policy implications through its positive effects on sexual behaviours (Weinhardt et al. 1999). Those who are diagnosed HIV negative can adopt behaviours to protect themselves from a future infection while those diagnosed HIV positive can seek treatment and adopt behaviours to protect others (sexual partners and children). This increase in protection has also been observed among serodiscordant couples since after joint voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) in Zambia, researchers observed a marked increase in condom use (from <3% to >80%) (Allen et al. 2003). Given this context, this study aims to understand factors affecting the uptake of HIV testing among married men and women in Nigeria.
Several studies have analysed barriers to HIV testing at the individual level (Bwambale et al. 2008; Cartoux et al. 1998; Castle 2003; Cremin et al. 2012; Gage and Ali 2005; Remien et al. 2009). Main findings are that patterns of HIV testing in Sub-Saharan Africa are low (less than 30%) and vary widely between countries, from 2% for Guinea in 2005 to 27% in Rwanda in 2005. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, these studies have highlighted the determinants of HIV testing. Factors positively affecting HIV testing are the socio-economic status, education, perceived risk of getting HIV, spousal communication, awareness of treatment, HIV knowledge and the quality of the testing centre (confidentiality and accuracy of the test). In contrast, gender inequalities, stigma and the distance to the testing centre are found to be the main barriers to HIV testing. This article contributes to the literature in three ways. First, we analyse the samples of wives and husbands separately to quantitatively explore gender specific barriers to HIV testing, thus looking beyond individual-level determinants as done in the literature to date.
Secondly, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to analyse the determinants of HIV testing in Nigeria based on a nationally representative sample. Nigeria provides an interesting context to test a set of sociological and economic predictors of the demand for HIV testing among married couples. In fact, Nigeria is the most populous African country and with great ethnic and religious diversity. The high prevalence of polygamy (22%) and the finding that women’s power may be lower in the context of polygamy (Lépine 2013; Lépine and Strobl 2013) given that a polygamous husband’s threat point utility1 is still high in the event of divorce justifies that our model also includes women’s bargaining power indicators.
Thirdly, our article makes an effort to include in the model all the variables that have been found to be correlated with HIV testing in the literature, not only focusing on the effect of socio-economic characteristics of individuals on their demand for knowing HIV status. Instead, we create several proxies to investigate the effect of variables usually explored via qualitative methods such as stigma and risk perception. Stigma, defined as an undesirable or discrediting attribute that an individual possesses, thus reducing that individual’s status in the eyes of society (Goffman 1963), appears to be a very strong barrier to HIV testing (Kalichman and Simbayi 2003; Turan et al. 2011; Turan et al. 2012).
We also include HIV knowledge although the relationship between HIV knowledge and HIV testing is a priori unclear. In the literature, there is some evidence of a positive relationship between HIV testing and HIV knowledge (Haile et al. 2007). However, one could argue that HIV knowledge may be negatively correlated to HIV testing if HIV knowledge affects risk perception and associated behaviours. First, because individuals who have a good understanding of HIV prevention and transmission could be less likely to adopt risky behaviours and thus may perceive less need for HIV testing as they are less at risk. Secondly, people who overestimate the likelihood of getting infected through their poor HIV knowledge could have a higher likelihood of being tested thinking they are more at risk. Moreover, the effect of HIV knowledge on HIV testing may be heterogeneous in the population. For instance, education may determine the access and exposure to HIV information and will also affect the way this information is used to modify attitudes toward testing (Glick and Sahn 2007).
Additionally, we add proxies for health status and routine testing since people with poor health are more likely to attend health facilities and would then have a greater likelihood to receive provider initiated testing and counselling (PITC). Moreover, one may be more willing to be tested when health status deteriorates (Shuter et al. 1997). Note that although the two channels may indicate a negative relationship between health status and HIV testing, health status could be positively correlated with HIV testing if one considers health as a result of investment in human capital, then people with a better health status are also more likely to be high investors in their health and seek out testing.
Fourthly, to take into account the fact that similar HIV testing behaviours are likely to be observed among couples from the same village and to correct for the presence of unobserved heterogeneity, the study uses a multilevel modelling approach. We estimate a three-level random intercept logistic model to include the effect of unobserved characteristics of village and state of the respondent on the likelihood of being tested, which is novel in the estimates of determinants of testing. This approach provides critical evidence on current barriers to testing and suggests policies which could encourage wider participation in HIV testing.
Data and variable specifications
Data
The 2008 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) is used to analyse the determinants of knowing ones HIV status to inform the introduction of ARV-based prevention for serodiscordant couples. The dependent variable is coded 1 if the individual has ever been tested and received their test result that is, if the individual knows his or her HIV status. The analysis is conducted at the individual level for women and men separately and focuses on a sample of 8731 couples.2 The DHS consists of a randomly selected, representative sample of couples at the national level. Data on HIV prevalence were obtained from the National HIV/AIDS and Reproductive Health Survey (NARHS) conducted in 2007 by the Ministry of Health (MoH) of Nigeria.
Determinants of HIV testing in the literature and variable specification
Following Weiser et al. (2006) the determinants of testing were classified into six categories: ‘socio-economic factors, HIV-related stigma, HIV knowledge, routine testing’, and ‘health status’. We further add ‘perceived risk’ as suggested by Maman et al. (2001). Note that some variables span categories.
Socio-economic factors
Socio-economic characteristics of the respondent and of his or her partner were included in the estimates. ‘Ethnicity’ and ‘religion’ may capture behavioural and social factors such as the perception of HIV, perceived risk, the acceptance of testing and sexual practices. ‘Education’ is also expected to be an important determinant of the likelihood of being tested (Fylkesnes and Siziya 2004). In the sample 58.7% of wives and 41.1% of husbands have no education. Educated people are more likely to invest in their health capital (Grossman 1972) and are consequently more likely to see the benefits of knowing their HIV status. ‘Labour status’, on one hand, is found to be a reason for desiring an HIV test since some companies may require it for employment (Ministry of Health of Nigeria 2008). On the other hand, workers also experience a greater opportunity cost of time, which can prevent them from going to the testing centre. The degree of risk behaviour and sexual practices may vary depending on the ‘age’ of the individual. However, since there are many factors associated both with age and HIV testing such as self-perceived risk, health status and perceived benefits of testing, the effect of age is unknown. In the sample, we can note that men are older on average than their partner with an average age of 30 years for wives and 39 years for husbands. ‘Age-squared’ is included to incorporate potential non-linearity as highlighted previously in the literature (Cremin et al. 2012).
The effect of polygamy and women’s bargaining power on HIV testing was included in the analysis. Two bargaining power indexes were created; one capturing the decision-power of the wife in the union (bargaining power) and another measuring her ‘sexual bargaining power’, where the weights used to construct the indicators are derived from the first dimension of a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA)3 (see Appendix 1). For the ‘bargaining power’ index, we included information on the decision-making power of wives in the household regarding several items (health, household purchase) as well as on wives’ freedom of movement. The ‘sexual bargaining power’ index was constructed by capturing information on whether wives can refuse sex and can ask partner to use a condom. The two bargaining power indexes are found to be negatively correlated to ‘polygamy’, as predicted by the theory. Household ‘wealth’ is proxied by a wealth index computed with a MCA based on asset ownership4 and housing quality; In order to account for the higher likelihood of owning assets in larger households, the ‘household size’ is also added as a control. We find that on average there are about six members per household in Nigeria.
Furthermore, ‘partner’s age, partner’s labour status and partner’s education level’ are included.
HIV-related stigma
In the literature, people who stigmatize PLWH/A are found to be less likely to be tested, and people may not be willing to know their HIV status if they are afraid of being discriminated by their partner. We incorporate ‘stigma’ both as an index of the individual’s attitudes and the partner’s attitude (partner’s stigma). HIV related stigma is measured by a seven item-index capturing stigma and discrimination towards PLWH/A, where weights were derived from a MCA and are presented in Appendix 2. Questions added in the computation of the index include (1) attitude towards PLWH/A such as whether or not the respondent would take care of HIV positive relatives or if the respondent would buy food from a HIV positive vendor and (2) opinion on whether persons with AIDS should be allowed to teach, should be ashamed of themselves or blamed by the community for transmitting the disease.
HIV knowledge
‘HIV knowledge’ score is based on eight questions measuring the knowledge of HIV transmission and prevention as shown in Appendix 3. The score was obtained by giving one point to respondents who knew the correct response, 0.5 to those who did not know what the correct response was and 0 to those who answered the incorrect response. We find that HIV knowledge is higher among men, with an average score of 4.7 and 5.6 out of 8 for women and men, respectively. We find that HIV knowledge regarding the ways to reduce risk of getting infected was quite high in both samples especially among men (81%). Most of the sample knows that the risk of being infected is reduced by abstinence (80.5%), when partners are faithful (84.5%) or when they use condom (64%). People also know that a healthy person can have AIDS (78%). However, only half of the sample knows that drugs exist to avoid transmission from mother to child. In addition, most of men and women do not know how AIDS is transmitted. In fact, 63% of men and 61% of women think that AIDS can be transmitted through mosquito bites, 75% of men and 69% of women by sharing food with someone who has AIDS and 70% of men and 58% of women by witchcraft and supernatural means. A variable that indicates if the respondent ‘heard of ART’ to help infected people to live longer is also included and is expected to positively affect HIV testing. In the sample only 51% of women and 68% of men have heard of ART. Additionally, a variable capturing whether or not the individual often listens to ‘radio’ is used as proxy for exposure to behaviour change communication (Farr et al. 2005; Karlyn 2001), 27% of women often listen to the radio against 56.5% of men.
Routine testing
According to UNAIDS/WHO Policy Statement on HIV Testing (2004), health providers should offer routine testing to patients presenting with a sexually transmitted infection (STI), to pregnant women, as well as to all patients consulting in high prevalence areas. Thus, variables capturing the presence of an ‘STI’ during the last year, a ‘birth in the last three years’ as well as ‘state level HIV prevalence’ are added in the model.5 Data on prevalence used indicate that 3.6% of individuals have HIV/AIDS. Some information available in the DHS data set that may also influence the frequency of health-care use was included. For instance, for 27% of women surveyed the ‘absence of a female health worker’ in the facility is a main concern. Assuming that those women are less likely to seek care, it is expected that they are less likely to have been tested (Remien et al. 2009). ‘Health insurance’ status is also likely to have a positive effect on the likelihood of having been tested since insured persons are found to have a greater demand for preventive and curative health care than their uninsured counterparts in low-income settings (Jowett et al. 2003; Jütting 2004; Msuya et al. 2007). However, because health insurance coverage is extremely low in Nigeria (3%), people who are covered may have specific characteristics that are not captured in the model. Finally, the location of the household is included as households located in ‘rural’ areas are less likely to have access to a health facility; in Nigeria 72% of households live in a rural area.
Health status
“Health status” is measured here by the body mass index (BMI) (Bailey and Ferro-Luzzi 1995).6
Perceived risk
Finally, the perceived risk is included in the model (Maman et al. 2001). This is operationalized by knowing ‘partner has been tested, marital duration, the number of lifetime partners’, the fact of ‘knowing someone living with HIV or who has died of HIV’ which is shown to be a cue to action that could activate the willingness to accept to be tested (de Paoli et al. 2004). We can see that only 12.7% of women declare knowing someone who has AIDS against 21.8% for men, which may be attributable to gender difference in HIV status disclosure. The average lifetime partner for women was much lower than for men (1.4 partners for women against 3 for men on average).
Descriptive statistics
In Nigeria in 2008, HIV testing was low. On average 14% and 15% of married men and women had been tested, respectively, while only 6% of couples (i.e. both partners) had been tested. This translates into 37% of tested men and 43% of tested women had tested partners. Prevalence of testing may also be attributable to state characteristics as shown in Figure 1, such as HIV prevalence.
DHS data also show that 44% and 40% of the HIV tests were received during the last 12 months among men and women, respectively. The share of voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) is slightly greater than the share of PITC in the sub-sample of men. Indeed, among the men who were tested, the share of VCT and PITC were respectively 52% and 48%. However, for women VCT only represents 16% of tests and 84% are PITC tests; this is explained by the fact that HIV testing is often offered by the health provider to women demanding antenatal care. Among those who were tested, 10% did not receive their test result in the sub-sample of wives and 7% among husbands. Descriptive statistics of covariates are presented in Table 1.
Model
The intraclass correlations (Appendix 4) indicate that 48% of the total residual variance is due to the between-village residual variance and 20% is due to the between-state residual variance in the wives sub-sample. Slightly lower intraclass correlations are found in the husbands sub-sample, confirming the interdependence in response of the individuals from the same village (Table 2). The higher intraclass correlation found among women may be explained by the fact that ANC services may play an important role in HIV testing behaviours of women and that information on facilities providing ANC services is missing.
. | Wives . | Husbands . | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables . | Obs. . | Mean . | SD . | Min . | Max . | Obs. . | Mean . | SD . | Min . | Max . |
Know HIV status (%) . | 8505 . | 0.129 . | 0.339 . | 0 . | 1 . | 6773 . | 0.142 . | 0.35 . | 0 . | 1 . |
Socio-economic characteristics | ||||||||||
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | 8682 | 0.286 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.271 | 0.444 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 8682 | 0.086 | 0.281 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.096 | 0.294 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 8682 | 0.026 | 0.159 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.030 | 0.171 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 8682 | 0.125 | 0.330 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.141 | 0.348 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: other | 8682 | 0.371 | 0.483 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.368 | 0.482 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | 8680 | 0.314 | 0.464 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.331 | 0.471 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: Islam | 8680 | 0.591 | 0.492 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.561 | 0.496 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: Traditionalist | 8680 | 0.020 | 0.141 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.019 | 0.136 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: other | 8680 | 0.001 | 0.032 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.003 | 0.054 | 0 | 1 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 8731 | 0.239 | 0.426 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.287 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 |
Education: secondary | 8731 | 0.114 | 0.318 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.179 | 0.383 | 0 | 1 |
Education: Tertiary | 8731 | 0.060 | 0.237 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.123 | 0.329 | 0 | 1 |
Labour status | 8709 | 0.635 | 0.481 | 0 | 1 | 7514 | 0.983 | 0.128 | 0 | 1 |
Age | 8731 | 29.984 | 8.360 | 15 | 49 | 7521 | 38.56 | 9.452 | 17 | 59 |
Age squared | 8731 | 968.91 | 531.78 | 225 | 2401 | 7521 | 1576 | 752 | 289 | 348 |
Bargaining power | 8710 | 0.007 | 1.022 | −0.49 | 6.11 | 7502 | 0.020 | 1.019 | −0.49 | 6.1 |
Sexual bargaining power | 8699 | 0.001 | 1.001 | −1.42 | 1.63 | 7492 | 0.048 | 0.998 | −1.2 | 1.63 |
Polygamy | 8672 | 0.328 | 0.469 | 0 | 1 | 7469 | 0.221 | 0.415 | 0 | 1 |
Wealth | 8704 | −0.004 | 1.001 | −1.36 | 2.86 | 7498 | 0.045 | 1.022 | −1.35 | 2.86 |
Household size | 8731 | 6.405 | 3.390 | 2 | 43 | 7521 | 5.830 | 2.941 | 2 | 43 |
Partner’s age | 8731 | 39.157 | 9.431 | 17 | 59 | 7521 | 29.87 | 8.352 | 15 | 49 |
Partner’s labour status | 8722 | 0.985 | 0.123 | 0 | 1 | 7505 | 0.647 | 0.478 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 8731 | 0.278 | 0.448 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.258 | 0.438 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 8731 | 0.164 | 0.371 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.128 | 0.334 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 8731 | 0.116 | 0.321 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.067 | 0.251 | 0 | 1 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||||||||
Stigma | 7223 | 0.031 | 1.007 | −2.03 | 1.48 | 6814 | −0.049 | 1.035 | −2.45 | 1.84 |
Partner’s stigma | 7887 | −0.005 | 1.022 | −2.45 | 1.84 | 6296 | 0.004 | 1.014 | −2.02 | 1.45 |
HIV knowledge | ||||||||||
HIV knowledge | 8539 | 4.732 | 2.572 | 0 | 8 | 7424 | 5.653 | 2.243 | 0 | 8 |
Heard of ART | 7216 | 0.512 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 6790 | 0.676 | 0.468 | 0 | 1 |
Radio | 8693 | 0.269 | 0.443 | 0 | 1 | 7489 | 0.565 | 0.496 | 0 | 1 |
Routine testing | ||||||||||
STI | 8613 | 0.019 | 0.135 | 0 | 1 | 7422 | 0.011 | 0.105 | 0 | 1 |
Birth in the past 3 years | 8731 | 0.624 | 0.484 | 0 | 1 | |||||
State HIV prevalence | 8731 | 3.565 | 1.980 | 0.9 | 8.8 | 7521 | 3.559 | 2.010 | 0.9 | 8.8 |
Absence of female health worker is a concern | 8698 | 0.239 | 0.420 | 0 | 1 | |||||
Health insurance | 8698 | 0.016 | 0.125 | 0 | 1 | 7496 | 0.030 | 0.171 | 0 | 1 |
Rural | 8731 | 0.731 | 0.443 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.713 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 |
Health status | ||||||||||
BMI | 8469 | 22.64 | 4.482 | 12.46 | 59.61 | |||||
Perceived risk | ||||||||||
Partner has been tested | 7870 | 0.133 | 0.339 | 0 | 1 | 7296 | 0.145 | 0.353 | 0 | 1 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 7191 | 0.127 | 0.333 | 0 | 1 | 6762 | 0.218 | 0.413 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: 5–9 (ref: 0–4) | 8731 | 0.223 | 0.417 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.210 | 0.407 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: 10–19 | 8731 | 0.337 | 0.473 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.312 | 0.463 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: >20 | 8731 | 0.214 | 0.410 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.274 | 0.446 | 0 | 1 |
Number of lifetime partners | 8548 | 1.411 | 0.926 | 1 | 15 | 6863 | 3.005 | 2.591 | 1 | 15 |
State HIV prevalence | 8731 | 3.565 | 1.980 | 0.9 | 8.8 | 7521 | 3.559 | 2.010 | 0.9 | 8.8 |
. | Wives . | Husbands . | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables . | Obs. . | Mean . | SD . | Min . | Max . | Obs. . | Mean . | SD . | Min . | Max . |
Know HIV status (%) . | 8505 . | 0.129 . | 0.339 . | 0 . | 1 . | 6773 . | 0.142 . | 0.35 . | 0 . | 1 . |
Socio-economic characteristics | ||||||||||
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | 8682 | 0.286 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.271 | 0.444 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 8682 | 0.086 | 0.281 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.096 | 0.294 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 8682 | 0.026 | 0.159 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.030 | 0.171 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 8682 | 0.125 | 0.330 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.141 | 0.348 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: other | 8682 | 0.371 | 0.483 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.368 | 0.482 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | 8680 | 0.314 | 0.464 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.331 | 0.471 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: Islam | 8680 | 0.591 | 0.492 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.561 | 0.496 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: Traditionalist | 8680 | 0.020 | 0.141 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.019 | 0.136 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: other | 8680 | 0.001 | 0.032 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.003 | 0.054 | 0 | 1 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 8731 | 0.239 | 0.426 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.287 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 |
Education: secondary | 8731 | 0.114 | 0.318 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.179 | 0.383 | 0 | 1 |
Education: Tertiary | 8731 | 0.060 | 0.237 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.123 | 0.329 | 0 | 1 |
Labour status | 8709 | 0.635 | 0.481 | 0 | 1 | 7514 | 0.983 | 0.128 | 0 | 1 |
Age | 8731 | 29.984 | 8.360 | 15 | 49 | 7521 | 38.56 | 9.452 | 17 | 59 |
Age squared | 8731 | 968.91 | 531.78 | 225 | 2401 | 7521 | 1576 | 752 | 289 | 348 |
Bargaining power | 8710 | 0.007 | 1.022 | −0.49 | 6.11 | 7502 | 0.020 | 1.019 | −0.49 | 6.1 |
Sexual bargaining power | 8699 | 0.001 | 1.001 | −1.42 | 1.63 | 7492 | 0.048 | 0.998 | −1.2 | 1.63 |
Polygamy | 8672 | 0.328 | 0.469 | 0 | 1 | 7469 | 0.221 | 0.415 | 0 | 1 |
Wealth | 8704 | −0.004 | 1.001 | −1.36 | 2.86 | 7498 | 0.045 | 1.022 | −1.35 | 2.86 |
Household size | 8731 | 6.405 | 3.390 | 2 | 43 | 7521 | 5.830 | 2.941 | 2 | 43 |
Partner’s age | 8731 | 39.157 | 9.431 | 17 | 59 | 7521 | 29.87 | 8.352 | 15 | 49 |
Partner’s labour status | 8722 | 0.985 | 0.123 | 0 | 1 | 7505 | 0.647 | 0.478 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 8731 | 0.278 | 0.448 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.258 | 0.438 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 8731 | 0.164 | 0.371 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.128 | 0.334 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 8731 | 0.116 | 0.321 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.067 | 0.251 | 0 | 1 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||||||||
Stigma | 7223 | 0.031 | 1.007 | −2.03 | 1.48 | 6814 | −0.049 | 1.035 | −2.45 | 1.84 |
Partner’s stigma | 7887 | −0.005 | 1.022 | −2.45 | 1.84 | 6296 | 0.004 | 1.014 | −2.02 | 1.45 |
HIV knowledge | ||||||||||
HIV knowledge | 8539 | 4.732 | 2.572 | 0 | 8 | 7424 | 5.653 | 2.243 | 0 | 8 |
Heard of ART | 7216 | 0.512 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 6790 | 0.676 | 0.468 | 0 | 1 |
Radio | 8693 | 0.269 | 0.443 | 0 | 1 | 7489 | 0.565 | 0.496 | 0 | 1 |
Routine testing | ||||||||||
STI | 8613 | 0.019 | 0.135 | 0 | 1 | 7422 | 0.011 | 0.105 | 0 | 1 |
Birth in the past 3 years | 8731 | 0.624 | 0.484 | 0 | 1 | |||||
State HIV prevalence | 8731 | 3.565 | 1.980 | 0.9 | 8.8 | 7521 | 3.559 | 2.010 | 0.9 | 8.8 |
Absence of female health worker is a concern | 8698 | 0.239 | 0.420 | 0 | 1 | |||||
Health insurance | 8698 | 0.016 | 0.125 | 0 | 1 | 7496 | 0.030 | 0.171 | 0 | 1 |
Rural | 8731 | 0.731 | 0.443 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.713 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 |
Health status | ||||||||||
BMI | 8469 | 22.64 | 4.482 | 12.46 | 59.61 | |||||
Perceived risk | ||||||||||
Partner has been tested | 7870 | 0.133 | 0.339 | 0 | 1 | 7296 | 0.145 | 0.353 | 0 | 1 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 7191 | 0.127 | 0.333 | 0 | 1 | 6762 | 0.218 | 0.413 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: 5–9 (ref: 0–4) | 8731 | 0.223 | 0.417 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.210 | 0.407 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: 10–19 | 8731 | 0.337 | 0.473 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.312 | 0.463 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: >20 | 8731 | 0.214 | 0.410 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.274 | 0.446 | 0 | 1 |
Number of lifetime partners | 8548 | 1.411 | 0.926 | 1 | 15 | 6863 | 3.005 | 2.591 | 1 | 15 |
State HIV prevalence | 8731 | 3.565 | 1.980 | 0.9 | 8.8 | 7521 | 3.559 | 2.010 | 0.9 | 8.8 |
SD = Standard deviation.
. | Wives . | Husbands . | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables . | Obs. . | Mean . | SD . | Min . | Max . | Obs. . | Mean . | SD . | Min . | Max . |
Know HIV status (%) . | 8505 . | 0.129 . | 0.339 . | 0 . | 1 . | 6773 . | 0.142 . | 0.35 . | 0 . | 1 . |
Socio-economic characteristics | ||||||||||
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | 8682 | 0.286 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.271 | 0.444 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 8682 | 0.086 | 0.281 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.096 | 0.294 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 8682 | 0.026 | 0.159 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.030 | 0.171 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 8682 | 0.125 | 0.330 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.141 | 0.348 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: other | 8682 | 0.371 | 0.483 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.368 | 0.482 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | 8680 | 0.314 | 0.464 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.331 | 0.471 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: Islam | 8680 | 0.591 | 0.492 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.561 | 0.496 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: Traditionalist | 8680 | 0.020 | 0.141 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.019 | 0.136 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: other | 8680 | 0.001 | 0.032 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.003 | 0.054 | 0 | 1 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 8731 | 0.239 | 0.426 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.287 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 |
Education: secondary | 8731 | 0.114 | 0.318 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.179 | 0.383 | 0 | 1 |
Education: Tertiary | 8731 | 0.060 | 0.237 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.123 | 0.329 | 0 | 1 |
Labour status | 8709 | 0.635 | 0.481 | 0 | 1 | 7514 | 0.983 | 0.128 | 0 | 1 |
Age | 8731 | 29.984 | 8.360 | 15 | 49 | 7521 | 38.56 | 9.452 | 17 | 59 |
Age squared | 8731 | 968.91 | 531.78 | 225 | 2401 | 7521 | 1576 | 752 | 289 | 348 |
Bargaining power | 8710 | 0.007 | 1.022 | −0.49 | 6.11 | 7502 | 0.020 | 1.019 | −0.49 | 6.1 |
Sexual bargaining power | 8699 | 0.001 | 1.001 | −1.42 | 1.63 | 7492 | 0.048 | 0.998 | −1.2 | 1.63 |
Polygamy | 8672 | 0.328 | 0.469 | 0 | 1 | 7469 | 0.221 | 0.415 | 0 | 1 |
Wealth | 8704 | −0.004 | 1.001 | −1.36 | 2.86 | 7498 | 0.045 | 1.022 | −1.35 | 2.86 |
Household size | 8731 | 6.405 | 3.390 | 2 | 43 | 7521 | 5.830 | 2.941 | 2 | 43 |
Partner’s age | 8731 | 39.157 | 9.431 | 17 | 59 | 7521 | 29.87 | 8.352 | 15 | 49 |
Partner’s labour status | 8722 | 0.985 | 0.123 | 0 | 1 | 7505 | 0.647 | 0.478 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 8731 | 0.278 | 0.448 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.258 | 0.438 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 8731 | 0.164 | 0.371 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.128 | 0.334 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 8731 | 0.116 | 0.321 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.067 | 0.251 | 0 | 1 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||||||||
Stigma | 7223 | 0.031 | 1.007 | −2.03 | 1.48 | 6814 | −0.049 | 1.035 | −2.45 | 1.84 |
Partner’s stigma | 7887 | −0.005 | 1.022 | −2.45 | 1.84 | 6296 | 0.004 | 1.014 | −2.02 | 1.45 |
HIV knowledge | ||||||||||
HIV knowledge | 8539 | 4.732 | 2.572 | 0 | 8 | 7424 | 5.653 | 2.243 | 0 | 8 |
Heard of ART | 7216 | 0.512 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 6790 | 0.676 | 0.468 | 0 | 1 |
Radio | 8693 | 0.269 | 0.443 | 0 | 1 | 7489 | 0.565 | 0.496 | 0 | 1 |
Routine testing | ||||||||||
STI | 8613 | 0.019 | 0.135 | 0 | 1 | 7422 | 0.011 | 0.105 | 0 | 1 |
Birth in the past 3 years | 8731 | 0.624 | 0.484 | 0 | 1 | |||||
State HIV prevalence | 8731 | 3.565 | 1.980 | 0.9 | 8.8 | 7521 | 3.559 | 2.010 | 0.9 | 8.8 |
Absence of female health worker is a concern | 8698 | 0.239 | 0.420 | 0 | 1 | |||||
Health insurance | 8698 | 0.016 | 0.125 | 0 | 1 | 7496 | 0.030 | 0.171 | 0 | 1 |
Rural | 8731 | 0.731 | 0.443 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.713 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 |
Health status | ||||||||||
BMI | 8469 | 22.64 | 4.482 | 12.46 | 59.61 | |||||
Perceived risk | ||||||||||
Partner has been tested | 7870 | 0.133 | 0.339 | 0 | 1 | 7296 | 0.145 | 0.353 | 0 | 1 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 7191 | 0.127 | 0.333 | 0 | 1 | 6762 | 0.218 | 0.413 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: 5–9 (ref: 0–4) | 8731 | 0.223 | 0.417 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.210 | 0.407 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: 10–19 | 8731 | 0.337 | 0.473 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.312 | 0.463 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: >20 | 8731 | 0.214 | 0.410 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.274 | 0.446 | 0 | 1 |
Number of lifetime partners | 8548 | 1.411 | 0.926 | 1 | 15 | 6863 | 3.005 | 2.591 | 1 | 15 |
State HIV prevalence | 8731 | 3.565 | 1.980 | 0.9 | 8.8 | 7521 | 3.559 | 2.010 | 0.9 | 8.8 |
. | Wives . | Husbands . | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables . | Obs. . | Mean . | SD . | Min . | Max . | Obs. . | Mean . | SD . | Min . | Max . |
Know HIV status (%) . | 8505 . | 0.129 . | 0.339 . | 0 . | 1 . | 6773 . | 0.142 . | 0.35 . | 0 . | 1 . |
Socio-economic characteristics | ||||||||||
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | 8682 | 0.286 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.271 | 0.444 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 8682 | 0.086 | 0.281 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.096 | 0.294 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 8682 | 0.026 | 0.159 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.030 | 0.171 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 8682 | 0.125 | 0.330 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.141 | 0.348 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity: other | 8682 | 0.371 | 0.483 | 0 | 1 | 7510 | 0.368 | 0.482 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | 8680 | 0.314 | 0.464 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.331 | 0.471 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: Islam | 8680 | 0.591 | 0.492 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.561 | 0.496 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: Traditionalist | 8680 | 0.020 | 0.141 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.019 | 0.136 | 0 | 1 |
Religion: other | 8680 | 0.001 | 0.032 | 0 | 1 | 7490 | 0.003 | 0.054 | 0 | 1 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 8731 | 0.239 | 0.426 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.287 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 |
Education: secondary | 8731 | 0.114 | 0.318 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.179 | 0.383 | 0 | 1 |
Education: Tertiary | 8731 | 0.060 | 0.237 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.123 | 0.329 | 0 | 1 |
Labour status | 8709 | 0.635 | 0.481 | 0 | 1 | 7514 | 0.983 | 0.128 | 0 | 1 |
Age | 8731 | 29.984 | 8.360 | 15 | 49 | 7521 | 38.56 | 9.452 | 17 | 59 |
Age squared | 8731 | 968.91 | 531.78 | 225 | 2401 | 7521 | 1576 | 752 | 289 | 348 |
Bargaining power | 8710 | 0.007 | 1.022 | −0.49 | 6.11 | 7502 | 0.020 | 1.019 | −0.49 | 6.1 |
Sexual bargaining power | 8699 | 0.001 | 1.001 | −1.42 | 1.63 | 7492 | 0.048 | 0.998 | −1.2 | 1.63 |
Polygamy | 8672 | 0.328 | 0.469 | 0 | 1 | 7469 | 0.221 | 0.415 | 0 | 1 |
Wealth | 8704 | −0.004 | 1.001 | −1.36 | 2.86 | 7498 | 0.045 | 1.022 | −1.35 | 2.86 |
Household size | 8731 | 6.405 | 3.390 | 2 | 43 | 7521 | 5.830 | 2.941 | 2 | 43 |
Partner’s age | 8731 | 39.157 | 9.431 | 17 | 59 | 7521 | 29.87 | 8.352 | 15 | 49 |
Partner’s labour status | 8722 | 0.985 | 0.123 | 0 | 1 | 7505 | 0.647 | 0.478 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 8731 | 0.278 | 0.448 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.258 | 0.438 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 8731 | 0.164 | 0.371 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.128 | 0.334 | 0 | 1 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 8731 | 0.116 | 0.321 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.067 | 0.251 | 0 | 1 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||||||||
Stigma | 7223 | 0.031 | 1.007 | −2.03 | 1.48 | 6814 | −0.049 | 1.035 | −2.45 | 1.84 |
Partner’s stigma | 7887 | −0.005 | 1.022 | −2.45 | 1.84 | 6296 | 0.004 | 1.014 | −2.02 | 1.45 |
HIV knowledge | ||||||||||
HIV knowledge | 8539 | 4.732 | 2.572 | 0 | 8 | 7424 | 5.653 | 2.243 | 0 | 8 |
Heard of ART | 7216 | 0.512 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 6790 | 0.676 | 0.468 | 0 | 1 |
Radio | 8693 | 0.269 | 0.443 | 0 | 1 | 7489 | 0.565 | 0.496 | 0 | 1 |
Routine testing | ||||||||||
STI | 8613 | 0.019 | 0.135 | 0 | 1 | 7422 | 0.011 | 0.105 | 0 | 1 |
Birth in the past 3 years | 8731 | 0.624 | 0.484 | 0 | 1 | |||||
State HIV prevalence | 8731 | 3.565 | 1.980 | 0.9 | 8.8 | 7521 | 3.559 | 2.010 | 0.9 | 8.8 |
Absence of female health worker is a concern | 8698 | 0.239 | 0.420 | 0 | 1 | |||||
Health insurance | 8698 | 0.016 | 0.125 | 0 | 1 | 7496 | 0.030 | 0.171 | 0 | 1 |
Rural | 8731 | 0.731 | 0.443 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.713 | 0.452 | 0 | 1 |
Health status | ||||||||||
BMI | 8469 | 22.64 | 4.482 | 12.46 | 59.61 | |||||
Perceived risk | ||||||||||
Partner has been tested | 7870 | 0.133 | 0.339 | 0 | 1 | 7296 | 0.145 | 0.353 | 0 | 1 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 7191 | 0.127 | 0.333 | 0 | 1 | 6762 | 0.218 | 0.413 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: 5–9 (ref: 0–4) | 8731 | 0.223 | 0.417 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.210 | 0.407 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: 10–19 | 8731 | 0.337 | 0.473 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.312 | 0.463 | 0 | 1 |
Marital duration: >20 | 8731 | 0.214 | 0.410 | 0 | 1 | 7521 | 0.274 | 0.446 | 0 | 1 |
Number of lifetime partners | 8548 | 1.411 | 0.926 | 1 | 15 | 6863 | 3.005 | 2.591 | 1 | 15 |
State HIV prevalence | 8731 | 3.565 | 1.980 | 0.9 | 8.8 | 7521 | 3.559 | 2.010 | 0.9 | 8.8 |
SD = Standard deviation.
. | Wives (n = 5782) . | Husbands (n = 4892) . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
. | ME . | SE . | ME . | SE . |
Socioeconomic status | ||||
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | −0.027 | 0.027 | −0.020 | 0.034 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 0.035 | 0.032 | 0.078** | 0.037 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 0.006 | 0.044 | −0.045 | 0.049 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 0.020 | 0.031 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
Ethnicity: other | 0.021 | 0.026 | 0.033 | 0.032 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | −0.030** | 0.014 | −0.014 | 0.015 |
Religion: Islam | −0.049*** | 0.019 | −0.034* | 0.020 |
Religion: Traditionalist | −0.152* | 0.088 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
Religion: other | −0.080 | 0.117 | 0.124* | 0.066 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 0.005 | 0.013 | 0.067*** | 0.018 |
Education: secondary | 0.037** | 0.015 | 0.077*** | 0.019 |
Education: tertiary | 0.046** | 0.020 | 0.143*** | 0.021 |
Labour status | 0.006 | 0.010 | −0.041 | 0.029 |
Age | 0.019*** | 0.005 | −0.006 | 0.005 |
Age squared | −0.0003*** | 0.00008 | 0.00008 | 0.00006 |
Bargaining power | 0.010*** | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
Sexual bargaining power | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
Polygamy | −0.023* | 0.013 | 0.021 | 0.014 |
Wealth | 0.054*** | 0.007 | 0.031*** | 0.007 |
Household size | −0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Partner’s age | 0.002** | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Partner’s labour status | −0.037 | 0.027 | −0.004 | 0.011 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 0.010 | 0.014 | 0.030** | 0.014 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 0.019 | 0.016 | 0.027 | 0.017 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 0.019 | 0.017 | 0.061*** | 0.021 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||
Stigma | −0.015*** | 0.005 | −0.015*** | 0.005 |
Partner’s stigma | −0.008* | 0.005 | −0.009* | 0.005 |
HIV knowledge | ||||
Heard of ART | 0.050*** | 0.010 | 0.049*** | 0.013 |
HIV knowledge | 0.012*** | 0.003 | −0.003 | 0.004 |
Radio | −0.005 | 0.009 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
Routine testing | ||||
Absence of female health worker is a concern | −0.046*** | 0.014 | ||
Birth in the last 3 years | 0.086*** | 0.011 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
STI | 0.054** | 0.026 | 0.060 | 0.036 |
Has health insurance | 0.067*** | 0.024 | 0.056*** | 0.019 |
Rural | −0.005 | 0.011 | 0.010** | 0.012 |
Health status | ||||
BMI | 0.000 | 0.001 | ||
Perceived risk | ||||
Partner has been tested | 0.042*** | 0.010 | 0.033*** | 0.011 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 0.037*** | 0.012 | 0.053*** | 0.012 |
Marital duration: 5–9 years (ref: 0–4 years) | −0.011 | 0.012 | −0.002 | 0.014 |
Marital duration: 10–19 years | −0.046*** | 0.015 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
Number of lifetime partners | −0.003 | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
State HIV prevalence | 0.002 | 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
0.53 | 0.09 | 0.40 | 0.12 | |
0.81 | 0.13 | 0.50 | 0.10 |
. | Wives (n = 5782) . | Husbands (n = 4892) . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
. | ME . | SE . | ME . | SE . |
Socioeconomic status | ||||
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | −0.027 | 0.027 | −0.020 | 0.034 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 0.035 | 0.032 | 0.078** | 0.037 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 0.006 | 0.044 | −0.045 | 0.049 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 0.020 | 0.031 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
Ethnicity: other | 0.021 | 0.026 | 0.033 | 0.032 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | −0.030** | 0.014 | −0.014 | 0.015 |
Religion: Islam | −0.049*** | 0.019 | −0.034* | 0.020 |
Religion: Traditionalist | −0.152* | 0.088 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
Religion: other | −0.080 | 0.117 | 0.124* | 0.066 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 0.005 | 0.013 | 0.067*** | 0.018 |
Education: secondary | 0.037** | 0.015 | 0.077*** | 0.019 |
Education: tertiary | 0.046** | 0.020 | 0.143*** | 0.021 |
Labour status | 0.006 | 0.010 | −0.041 | 0.029 |
Age | 0.019*** | 0.005 | −0.006 | 0.005 |
Age squared | −0.0003*** | 0.00008 | 0.00008 | 0.00006 |
Bargaining power | 0.010*** | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
Sexual bargaining power | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
Polygamy | −0.023* | 0.013 | 0.021 | 0.014 |
Wealth | 0.054*** | 0.007 | 0.031*** | 0.007 |
Household size | −0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Partner’s age | 0.002** | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Partner’s labour status | −0.037 | 0.027 | −0.004 | 0.011 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 0.010 | 0.014 | 0.030** | 0.014 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 0.019 | 0.016 | 0.027 | 0.017 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 0.019 | 0.017 | 0.061*** | 0.021 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||
Stigma | −0.015*** | 0.005 | −0.015*** | 0.005 |
Partner’s stigma | −0.008* | 0.005 | −0.009* | 0.005 |
HIV knowledge | ||||
Heard of ART | 0.050*** | 0.010 | 0.049*** | 0.013 |
HIV knowledge | 0.012*** | 0.003 | −0.003 | 0.004 |
Radio | −0.005 | 0.009 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
Routine testing | ||||
Absence of female health worker is a concern | −0.046*** | 0.014 | ||
Birth in the last 3 years | 0.086*** | 0.011 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
STI | 0.054** | 0.026 | 0.060 | 0.036 |
Has health insurance | 0.067*** | 0.024 | 0.056*** | 0.019 |
Rural | −0.005 | 0.011 | 0.010** | 0.012 |
Health status | ||||
BMI | 0.000 | 0.001 | ||
Perceived risk | ||||
Partner has been tested | 0.042*** | 0.010 | 0.033*** | 0.011 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 0.037*** | 0.012 | 0.053*** | 0.012 |
Marital duration: 5–9 years (ref: 0–4 years) | −0.011 | 0.012 | −0.002 | 0.014 |
Marital duration: 10–19 years | −0.046*** | 0.015 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
Number of lifetime partners | −0.003 | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
State HIV prevalence | 0.002 | 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
0.53 | 0.09 | 0.40 | 0.12 | |
0.81 | 0.13 | 0.50 | 0.10 |
***P < 0.01, **P < 0.05, *P < 0.1.
(1) Likelihood ratio (LR) test vs logistic regression: Chi2(2) = 152, P < 0.01 and (2) LR test vs logistic regression: Chi2(2) = 43, P < 0.01.
ME = Marginal effect; SE = Standard error.
. | Wives (n = 5782) . | Husbands (n = 4892) . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
. | ME . | SE . | ME . | SE . |
Socioeconomic status | ||||
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | −0.027 | 0.027 | −0.020 | 0.034 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 0.035 | 0.032 | 0.078** | 0.037 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 0.006 | 0.044 | −0.045 | 0.049 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 0.020 | 0.031 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
Ethnicity: other | 0.021 | 0.026 | 0.033 | 0.032 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | −0.030** | 0.014 | −0.014 | 0.015 |
Religion: Islam | −0.049*** | 0.019 | −0.034* | 0.020 |
Religion: Traditionalist | −0.152* | 0.088 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
Religion: other | −0.080 | 0.117 | 0.124* | 0.066 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 0.005 | 0.013 | 0.067*** | 0.018 |
Education: secondary | 0.037** | 0.015 | 0.077*** | 0.019 |
Education: tertiary | 0.046** | 0.020 | 0.143*** | 0.021 |
Labour status | 0.006 | 0.010 | −0.041 | 0.029 |
Age | 0.019*** | 0.005 | −0.006 | 0.005 |
Age squared | −0.0003*** | 0.00008 | 0.00008 | 0.00006 |
Bargaining power | 0.010*** | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
Sexual bargaining power | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
Polygamy | −0.023* | 0.013 | 0.021 | 0.014 |
Wealth | 0.054*** | 0.007 | 0.031*** | 0.007 |
Household size | −0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Partner’s age | 0.002** | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Partner’s labour status | −0.037 | 0.027 | −0.004 | 0.011 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 0.010 | 0.014 | 0.030** | 0.014 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 0.019 | 0.016 | 0.027 | 0.017 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 0.019 | 0.017 | 0.061*** | 0.021 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||
Stigma | −0.015*** | 0.005 | −0.015*** | 0.005 |
Partner’s stigma | −0.008* | 0.005 | −0.009* | 0.005 |
HIV knowledge | ||||
Heard of ART | 0.050*** | 0.010 | 0.049*** | 0.013 |
HIV knowledge | 0.012*** | 0.003 | −0.003 | 0.004 |
Radio | −0.005 | 0.009 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
Routine testing | ||||
Absence of female health worker is a concern | −0.046*** | 0.014 | ||
Birth in the last 3 years | 0.086*** | 0.011 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
STI | 0.054** | 0.026 | 0.060 | 0.036 |
Has health insurance | 0.067*** | 0.024 | 0.056*** | 0.019 |
Rural | −0.005 | 0.011 | 0.010** | 0.012 |
Health status | ||||
BMI | 0.000 | 0.001 | ||
Perceived risk | ||||
Partner has been tested | 0.042*** | 0.010 | 0.033*** | 0.011 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 0.037*** | 0.012 | 0.053*** | 0.012 |
Marital duration: 5–9 years (ref: 0–4 years) | −0.011 | 0.012 | −0.002 | 0.014 |
Marital duration: 10–19 years | −0.046*** | 0.015 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
Number of lifetime partners | −0.003 | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
State HIV prevalence | 0.002 | 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
0.53 | 0.09 | 0.40 | 0.12 | |
0.81 | 0.13 | 0.50 | 0.10 |
. | Wives (n = 5782) . | Husbands (n = 4892) . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
. | ME . | SE . | ME . | SE . |
Socioeconomic status | ||||
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | −0.027 | 0.027 | −0.020 | 0.034 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 0.035 | 0.032 | 0.078** | 0.037 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 0.006 | 0.044 | −0.045 | 0.049 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 0.020 | 0.031 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
Ethnicity: other | 0.021 | 0.026 | 0.033 | 0.032 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | −0.030** | 0.014 | −0.014 | 0.015 |
Religion: Islam | −0.049*** | 0.019 | −0.034* | 0.020 |
Religion: Traditionalist | −0.152* | 0.088 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
Religion: other | −0.080 | 0.117 | 0.124* | 0.066 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 0.005 | 0.013 | 0.067*** | 0.018 |
Education: secondary | 0.037** | 0.015 | 0.077*** | 0.019 |
Education: tertiary | 0.046** | 0.020 | 0.143*** | 0.021 |
Labour status | 0.006 | 0.010 | −0.041 | 0.029 |
Age | 0.019*** | 0.005 | −0.006 | 0.005 |
Age squared | −0.0003*** | 0.00008 | 0.00008 | 0.00006 |
Bargaining power | 0.010*** | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
Sexual bargaining power | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
Polygamy | −0.023* | 0.013 | 0.021 | 0.014 |
Wealth | 0.054*** | 0.007 | 0.031*** | 0.007 |
Household size | −0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Partner’s age | 0.002** | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Partner’s labour status | −0.037 | 0.027 | −0.004 | 0.011 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 0.010 | 0.014 | 0.030** | 0.014 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 0.019 | 0.016 | 0.027 | 0.017 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 0.019 | 0.017 | 0.061*** | 0.021 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||
Stigma | −0.015*** | 0.005 | −0.015*** | 0.005 |
Partner’s stigma | −0.008* | 0.005 | −0.009* | 0.005 |
HIV knowledge | ||||
Heard of ART | 0.050*** | 0.010 | 0.049*** | 0.013 |
HIV knowledge | 0.012*** | 0.003 | −0.003 | 0.004 |
Radio | −0.005 | 0.009 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
Routine testing | ||||
Absence of female health worker is a concern | −0.046*** | 0.014 | ||
Birth in the last 3 years | 0.086*** | 0.011 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
STI | 0.054** | 0.026 | 0.060 | 0.036 |
Has health insurance | 0.067*** | 0.024 | 0.056*** | 0.019 |
Rural | −0.005 | 0.011 | 0.010** | 0.012 |
Health status | ||||
BMI | 0.000 | 0.001 | ||
Perceived risk | ||||
Partner has been tested | 0.042*** | 0.010 | 0.033*** | 0.011 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 0.037*** | 0.012 | 0.053*** | 0.012 |
Marital duration: 5–9 years (ref: 0–4 years) | −0.011 | 0.012 | −0.002 | 0.014 |
Marital duration: 10–19 years | −0.046*** | 0.015 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
Number of lifetime partners | −0.003 | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
State HIV prevalence | 0.002 | 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
0.53 | 0.09 | 0.40 | 0.12 | |
0.81 | 0.13 | 0.50 | 0.10 |
***P < 0.01, **P < 0.05, *P < 0.1.
(1) Likelihood ratio (LR) test vs logistic regression: Chi2(2) = 152, P < 0.01 and (2) LR test vs logistic regression: Chi2(2) = 43, P < 0.01.
ME = Marginal effect; SE = Standard error.
To test multicollinearity, variance inflation factors (VIF) are used. The VIF shows how much the variance of the coefficient estimate is being inflated by multicollinearity. When the squared term of age was excluded, the largest VIF was around 6 and the mean VIF was around 2 in both sub-samples, which does not suggest high multicollinearity.
Results8
Socio-economic determinants
Education is one of the main determinants of knowing HIV status in both sub-samples; respondents with a tertiary educational level are 4.6 and 14.3 percentage points more likely to have been tested than non educated respondents for women and men respectively. Education is thus the main predictor of HIV testing for men. It is also interesting to note that partner’s education also increases the likelihood of being tested for men, as men married to women with a tertiary educational level are 6.1 percentage points more likely to have been tested than men married to women with no education. Since women have a low bargaining power on average in the sample, we would have expected to find an effect of the partner’s education on their likelihood of being tested but this variable is not found to be statistically significant. One potential explanation could be that, since there is assortative matching in the sample (coefficient correlation of wife’s and husband’s education is 0.65) and men are on average more educated than women, there is a poor variability in partner’s education in the sample of women who have a tertiary educational level. In fact, 72% of the most educated women have a husband with a tertiary education level while this percentage is only 32% in the sample of men.
The wife’s and her partner’s age has a positive effect on women’s HIV testing behaviour as an increase in one year increases the likelihood of being tested by 1.9 percentage points. The squared term suggests that the relationship between age and HIV testing is not linear as after 30.6 years old the likelihood of being tested decreases. Note that a similar functional form was found in many sub-Saharan African countries in Cremin et al. (2012). Age is however not found to be a predictor of HIV testing in the men sample.
Respondents belonging to wealthier households are also more likely to have been tested; wealth has a stronger effect among women than among men as an increase in one standard deviation in the wealth index increases the likelihood of being tested by 5.4 and 3.1 percentage points in the wives and husbands sub-samples, respectively. Wealth may capture the ease of paying for transport to go to the testing centre since HIV testing is free but also unobserved characteristics associated with the poverty level.
Women’s bargaining power is positively associated with HIV testing in the wives’ sample; however, its effect is lower than one would expect. After controlling for religion and women’s bargaining power, it is interesting to note that women in polygamous households are less likely to be tested by 2.3 percentage points. This result could be explained by the fact that resources are scarcer in polygamous households and that the wealth asset is unable to take this into account. Another explanation according to Cartoux et al. (1998) could be that ‘polygamy increases the complexity of disclosing the results and could increase the risks of dismissal’. A final explanation could be that polygamous households have more traditional views and may be less inclined to be tested. Another interesting result is that after controlling for HIV prevalence, stigma, bargaining power and socio-economic factors, Muslim women and men were still found to be less likely to be tested than Catholic respondents by 4.9 and 3.4 percentage points, respectively. A similar result was found in Tanzania by de Paoli et al. (2004) and this finding was assumed to be due to polygamy, which is obviously not the right pathway in our sample since while controlling for polygamy the dummy ‘Muslim’ is still statistically significant. Alternatively, we think that this could be explained by the fact that Muslims have ideas and social norms negatively affecting HIV testing behaviours. For instance, Muslim societies are found to strongly associate HIV/AIDS to homosexuality, extramarital sex and drug use (Remien et al. 2009). Other explanations could be that knowing that they are less likely to be infected, health providers are less likely to offer a test to Muslim patients or finally maybe the Muslim variable captures the fact that Muslims have less risky sexual practices.
Stigma
It is found that persons who stigmatize PLWH/A are less likely to have been tested as an increase in the stigma score of one standard deviation reduces the likelihood of ever having been tested among wives and husbands by 1.5 percentage points. When the partner stigmatizes PLWH/A it also reduces the likelihood of being tested but it has a smaller effect since an increase in one standard deviation reduces the likelihood of ever having been tested by 0.8 and 0.9 percentage points for women and men, respectively. One may want to note that this variable may be endogenous to the HIV status of the respondents as we would expect HIV positive persons to be less likely to stigmatize PLWH/A.
HIV knowledge
An increase in one point in the HIV knowledge score is found to increase the likelihood of being tested by 1.2 percentage points in the sample of women. It is interesting to note that this effect is low and not statistically significant for husbands. In order to take into account that the effect of HIV knowledge is likely to be stronger among educated individuals, this variable was interacted with the educational level variable. The interaction variable was however not found to be statistically significant in either sub-sample. The low effect of HIV knowledge is probably attributable to the fact that the score does not include questions measuring respondent’s knowledge of the availability and benefits of treatment. Indeed, it is found that female and male respondents who know the benefits of ART have a greater likelihood of having been tested by 5 and 4.9 percentage points.
Routine testing
Routine testing is a strong determinant of HIV testing for women. Firstly, as women who had a birth in the last 3 years have a greater likelihood of being tested by 8.6 percentage points. Secondly, women for whom the absence of female health worker in the facility is not a concern are more likely to have been tested by 4.6 percentage points, which suggests that the absence of female health worker is a barrier to HIV testing. Finally, women who had an STI during the last 12 months have a greater likelihood of being tested by 5.4 percentage points. Men who had an STI during the last year are more likely to have been tested by 6 percentage points (but note that the P-value is 0.103). Women and men covered by health insurance are more likely to have been tested by 6.7 and 5.6 percentage points, respectively, which probably results from a greater frequency of contacts with a health provider among insured individuals. However, as stipulated previously, insured individuals may have different characteristics from the rest of the sample and cannot be then considered exogenous.
Health status
The relationship between health status and HIV testing is difficult to interpret due to potential confounding caused by the unobservable variable ‘health investment’ potentially leading to upwardly biased coefficients: women who have a better health are the ones who invest more in their health capital and consequently have a greater willingness to know their HIV status.
Perceived risk
The fact that the partner knows his HIV status positively affects the likelihood of being tested by 4.2 and 3.3 percentage points. This effect is lower than one would expect and is probably due to the fact that some variables affecting the likelihood of partner’s testing are included in the estimate. When control variables are removed the fact that the partner is tested increases the likelihood of being tested by 8 and 11 percentage points for women and men, respectively. Results also indicate that women who have been married for many years are less likely to have been tested after controlling for their own age and their partner’s age. This may be explained by the fact that these women perceive a lower risk of getting infected. For both partners, knowing someone who has AIDS increases HIV testing by 3.7 and 5.3 percentage points for women and men, respectively. This could be explained by the fact that the partner could be the infected person or it could also be explained by the fact that persons who have a HIV positive relative are less likely to stigmatize PLWH/A. Other measures of perceived risks such as the number of lifetime partners and the HIV prevalence are however not statistically significant in both sub-samples.
Discussion and Conclusion
The study has highlighted that the poorest, the less educated, those who stigmatize PLWH/A and Muslim respondents were less likely to have ever been tested and to have received their test results. In the sample of women, it is found that younger and older women, women married for more than 10 years, traditionalist women, women belonging to polygamous households as well as women who did not visit a health facility either because she had no recent pregnancy, no STI or because they fear that there will not be a female worker in the facility, were less likely to be tested.
In Nigeria, most of the individuals who are tested pick up the test results therefore policies probably need to aim more at increasing the uptake of HIV testing than post-test counselling. Effective policies to increase HIV testing would aim to increase the number of female health workers, to invest in education, to inform people about the benefits of ART, to increase testing centre accessibility or home-based testing (Tanya et al. 2013) in order to increase access for the poorest.
Additional efforts have to be made to target the poorest and the least educated individuals. The use of community-based agents may be an option to promote information that will increase the uptake of HIV testing such as information on the benefits of ART. In fact, the use of hairdressers and barbers as a means to provide information about HIV prevention and sell condoms in their shops (Ashraf et al. 2013) could potentially be effective in the Nigerian context. Even more promising is the introduction of self-testing kits. Oraquick in-home HIV test system that uses a mouth swab has appeared to be highly acceptable in Zambia while no serious harm was reported (Choko et al. 2011). The introduction of financial incentives may stimulate individuals to learn their HIV status by providing compensation for transport cost, opportunity cost of time and psychological costs associated with learning HIV status. More interestingly monetary incentives could reduce stigma as it may provide a broader reason for going to the testing centre (Thornton 2008). Given the high potential of self-testing, future researches could also explore strategies to improve the linkage into care and prevention services for self-tested HIV positive and negative individuals. Recent findings show that home-based initiation is effective in increasing ART uptake among those who self-tested positive (MacPherson et al. 2013). Future research around self-testing is needed to provide insights on the impact and cost-effectiveness of financial incentive policies to link into care and prevention.
The analysis of the determinants of HIV testing among men and women within a partnership are not predicted by the same factors. It is only by conducting the analysis at the individual level rather than at the couple level that we can explore these differences. HIV testing prevalence at the couple level was only 6% while it is around 15% at the individual level. Moreover, the fact that the spouse knows his (her) HIV status only increases the likelihood of his (her) partner to be tested by 3.2 (4.2) percentage points suggests that HIV testing seems to be an individual decision rather than a decision made jointly by both partners. This is important in the framework of the introduction of PrEP because it means that identifying discordant couples could be very arduous and costly. Innovative policies to efficiently increase couple testing are thus urgently needed in Nigeria as well as a national discussion about the most relevant entry points to target HIV serodiscordant couples in the context of PrEP introduction. Successful couple VCT schemes have been reported in the literature. In Uganda, a main determinant of the increase in the demand for couple testing has been attributable to ‘open discussion of AIDS-related issues since the 1980s, […] promotions that target couples with a “two-for-one” approach, and pressures from young couples’ families and churches to be tested for HIV before marriage’(Painter 2001). In Zambia, the ‘same-day couple VCT’ providing group and couple pre-test counselling and same day couple post-test counselling has attracted 30% of invited couples (McKenna et al. 1997) while the use of trained influence network agents (INA) to invite couples for joint VCT has drawn 9.6% of invited couples into VCT in Zambia and 26.9% in Rwanda (Allen et al. 2007). Factors that led to higher acceptance were the location of the invitation, the relationship to INA and public endorsement. Chomba et al. (2007) highlighted the crucial role of community outreach in couples’ VCT. In the context of PrEP introduction, some studies describe the recruitment of serodiscordant couples. The PrEP partner study conducted in Kenya and Uganda rapidly recruited 4758 couples through VCT centres, antenatal clinic and PMTCT programmes, referral from HIV care providers and through community promotion activities (Mujugira et al. 2011). Alternative policies to couple’s testing are those aiming to increase HIV status disclosure among couples. In Nigeria, the use of a ‘love letter’ written to a partner by the partner tested positive through PMTCT or VCT has appeared effective in encouraging partner’s HIV testing.
Despite the range of gender related barriers for women to seek HIV testing, routine testing during pregnancy has led to a fairly balanced level of testing between men and women. Although routine testing is found to be largely acceptable and effective in diagnosing new HIV cases (Chandisarewa et al. 2007; Creek et al. 2007; Nakanjako et al. 2007; Wanyenze et al. 2008) it has also been found to have adverse effects in regions with high stigma and discrimination towards PLWH/A. In fact, Weiser et al. (2006) have found that ‘68% (of patients) felt that they could not refuse the HIV test’ and if patients feel forced to be tested, routine testing could reduce the health-care utilization. Indeed, they find that 43% of participants believed that routine testing would lead people to avoid seeking care for fear of testing. A study conducted in Kenya by Turan et al. (2012) has shown that as a result of communication campaigns to increase PMTCT often targeting HIV positive women, many women in Kenya associate delivery in health facility as a service for HIV positive women, and as a result a large percentage of women prefer delivering at home. Thus routine testing scale up policy should be accompanied by policies to reduce stigma.
The study suffers from a few limitations. The first one is that DHS data sets do not include information on health providers’ characteristics, thus the effect of the accessibility and the quality of testing services as well as the access to ART in the closest testing centre is unknown. Future research should try to link information on the demand and supply side in order to have a more comprehensive HIV testing model. Another issue is the absence of information regarding the HIV status of the respondent; as a consequence the causal impact of the variables that could have been affected by the HIV status such as stigma and HIV knowledge cannot be examined. Secondly, data are self-reported and there might be some measurement errors in the dependent variable especially when another person assisted the interview. In order to see if different results were obtained depending on the presence of other persons during the interview, the analysis was restricted to the sub-sample of women whose husband, other males and other females were absent during the interview (98.8% of the full sample). It was found that the prevalence of HIV testing very slightly increases (from 15.32 to 15.40%) and this difference was not statistically significant, justifying the use of the full sample. Moreover, it should be noted that there might be a selection bias in that the presence of an adult during the woman’s interview may not have been random. Under-reporting of HIV testing could also have occurred among HIV positive persons. Another limitation resides in the absence of panel data to highlight the determinants of HIV testing over time. And finally that results are based on HIV testing prevalence in 2008 and testing prevalence as well as its determinants may have changed over the last years. DHS data collected in 2003 were used in order to conduct similar analysis. In 2003, HIV testing prevalence was 6% among women and 17% among men. The analysis of the determinants of HIV testing in 2003 indicate that this increase in HIV testing among women may have been due to an expanded PMTCT programme since the presence of birth in the last three years was not a significant determinant of HIV testing in 2003. The main determinants at this time were the presence of a STI and the education level. In contrast, the main determinants of HIV testing in the men sample were the education level, wealth status and the fact of knowing someone who is infected or died of AIDS, suggesting that the determinants of men testing for HIV may not have varied a lot over time.
Reaching serodiscordant couples for the introduction of PrEP and TasP is likely to continue to be a challenge without dramatically different approaches to testing. Given the high negative effect of stigma and poverty on HIV testing, the results suggest that financial incentives and or community-based household testing could be effective ways to improve the prevalence of HIV testing in Nigeria.
Funding
This research was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation project: ARV-Based Prevention Technologies: Developing the Capacity and Needed Tools to Deliver New Prevention Products.
Conflict of interest statement. None declared.
1 In polygamous unions, husband's threat point utility is still high in the event of divorce. The threat point utility refers to the utility of each spouse in the event of divorce (Manser and Brown 1980; McElroy and Horney 1981) and according to the co-operative Nash bargaining model (Nash 1950) all factors affecting a spouse’s wellbeing outside the union determine his or her bargaining power inside the union.
2 Note that the data set actually contains 8731 wives aged between 15 and 49 years old but only 7521 husbands since 22% of men are polygamous and have on average 1.16 wives.
3 See Asselin (2002) for a description of MCA technique applied to poverty index construction.
4 Note that the wealth index created is poorly correlated to the variable capturing if the persons often listen to the radio (correlation coefficient = 0.35).
5 State-level HIV prevalence are hypothesised to both contribute to the likelihood of being offered testing following guidelines and self-perceived risk of being HIV positive.
6 Note that adult anthropometric measures are only available for women.
7 This model was found to be superior to a model with only one random intercept at the village level as the LR test for nested model was chi2(1) = 108.41, P < 0.01 in the sample of wives and chi2(1) = 38.34, P < 0.01 in the sample of husbands.
8 We present marginal effects (ME); odds ratios (OR) are available in Appendix 5.
References
Appendix 1 Creation of bargaining power indexes
1. Bargaining power index
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
---|---|---|
Final say on own health care | ||
Respondent alone | 3.979 | 0.254 |
Respondent and partner | −0.332 | 0.009 |
Partner alone | −0.239 | 0.009 |
Final say on making large household purchases | ||
Respondent alone | 4.969 | 0.226 |
Respondent and partner | −0.319 | 0.008 |
Partner alone | −0.122 | 0.002 |
Final say on making household purchases for daily | ||
Respondent alone | 2.706 | 0.22 |
Respondent and partner | −0.442 | 0.016 |
Partner alone | −0.324 | 0.014 |
Final say on visits to family or relatives | ||
Respondent alone | 3.287 | 0.221 |
Respondent and partner | −0.26 | 0.007 |
Partner alone | −0.325 | 0.013 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 99.25 | |
Observations | 8632 |
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
---|---|---|
Final say on own health care | ||
Respondent alone | 3.979 | 0.254 |
Respondent and partner | −0.332 | 0.009 |
Partner alone | −0.239 | 0.009 |
Final say on making large household purchases | ||
Respondent alone | 4.969 | 0.226 |
Respondent and partner | −0.319 | 0.008 |
Partner alone | −0.122 | 0.002 |
Final say on making household purchases for daily | ||
Respondent alone | 2.706 | 0.22 |
Respondent and partner | −0.442 | 0.016 |
Partner alone | −0.324 | 0.014 |
Final say on visits to family or relatives | ||
Respondent alone | 3.287 | 0.221 |
Respondent and partner | −0.26 | 0.007 |
Partner alone | −0.325 | 0.013 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 99.25 | |
Observations | 8632 |
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
---|---|---|
Final say on own health care | ||
Respondent alone | 3.979 | 0.254 |
Respondent and partner | −0.332 | 0.009 |
Partner alone | −0.239 | 0.009 |
Final say on making large household purchases | ||
Respondent alone | 4.969 | 0.226 |
Respondent and partner | −0.319 | 0.008 |
Partner alone | −0.122 | 0.002 |
Final say on making household purchases for daily | ||
Respondent alone | 2.706 | 0.22 |
Respondent and partner | −0.442 | 0.016 |
Partner alone | −0.324 | 0.014 |
Final say on visits to family or relatives | ||
Respondent alone | 3.287 | 0.221 |
Respondent and partner | −0.26 | 0.007 |
Partner alone | −0.325 | 0.013 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 99.25 | |
Observations | 8632 |
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
---|---|---|
Final say on own health care | ||
Respondent alone | 3.979 | 0.254 |
Respondent and partner | −0.332 | 0.009 |
Partner alone | −0.239 | 0.009 |
Final say on making large household purchases | ||
Respondent alone | 4.969 | 0.226 |
Respondent and partner | −0.319 | 0.008 |
Partner alone | −0.122 | 0.002 |
Final say on making household purchases for daily | ||
Respondent alone | 2.706 | 0.22 |
Respondent and partner | −0.442 | 0.016 |
Partner alone | −0.324 | 0.014 |
Final say on visits to family or relatives | ||
Respondent alone | 3.287 | 0.221 |
Respondent and partner | −0.26 | 0.007 |
Partner alone | −0.325 | 0.013 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 99.25 | |
Observations | 8632 |
2. Sexual bargaining power
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
---|---|---|
Can respondent refuse sex | ||
No | 1.2 | 0.294 |
Yes | −0.857 | 0.203 |
Not sure | −0.387 | 0.003 |
Can ask partner to use condom | ||
No | 0.821 | 0.193 |
Yes | −1.378 | 0.302 |
Not sure | −0.298 | 0.005 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 65.64 | |
Observations | 8688 |
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
---|---|---|
Can respondent refuse sex | ||
No | 1.2 | 0.294 |
Yes | −0.857 | 0.203 |
Not sure | −0.387 | 0.003 |
Can ask partner to use condom | ||
No | 0.821 | 0.193 |
Yes | −1.378 | 0.302 |
Not sure | −0.298 | 0.005 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 65.64 | |
Observations | 8688 |
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
---|---|---|
Can respondent refuse sex | ||
No | 1.2 | 0.294 |
Yes | −0.857 | 0.203 |
Not sure | −0.387 | 0.003 |
Can ask partner to use condom | ||
No | 0.821 | 0.193 |
Yes | −1.378 | 0.302 |
Not sure | −0.298 | 0.005 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 65.64 | |
Observations | 8688 |
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
---|---|---|
Can respondent refuse sex | ||
No | 1.2 | 0.294 |
Yes | −0.857 | 0.203 |
Not sure | −0.387 | 0.003 |
Can ask partner to use condom | ||
No | 0.821 | 0.193 |
Yes | −1.378 | 0.302 |
Not sure | −0.298 | 0.005 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 65.64 | |
Observations | 8688 |
Appendix 2 Items included in the stigma index
. | Women . | Men . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
Willing to care for relative with AIDS | ||||
No | 1.047 | 0.078 | 0.837 | 0.028 |
Yes | −0.574 | 0.043 | −0.212 | 0.007 |
Person with AIDS allowed to continue teaching | ||||
No | 1.015 | 0.098 | 1.198 | 0.124 |
Yes | −0.919 | 0.089 | −0.909 | 0.094 |
Would buy vegetables from vendor with AIDS | ||||
No | 0.682 | 0.06 | 0.954 | 0.098 |
Yes | −1.233 | 0.108 | −1.105 | 0.113 |
People with AIDS should be ashamed of themselves | ||||
Disagree | −1.375 | 0.154 | −1.596 | 0.181 |
Agree | 0.948 | 0.106 | 0.879 | 0.1 |
People with AIDS should be blamed for bringing disease to the community | ||||
Disagree | −1.389 | 0.157 | −1.597 | 0.17 |
Agree | 0.951 | 0.107 | 0.799 | 0.085 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 83.32 | 77.08 | ||
Observations | 5886 | 5779 |
. | Women . | Men . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
Willing to care for relative with AIDS | ||||
No | 1.047 | 0.078 | 0.837 | 0.028 |
Yes | −0.574 | 0.043 | −0.212 | 0.007 |
Person with AIDS allowed to continue teaching | ||||
No | 1.015 | 0.098 | 1.198 | 0.124 |
Yes | −0.919 | 0.089 | −0.909 | 0.094 |
Would buy vegetables from vendor with AIDS | ||||
No | 0.682 | 0.06 | 0.954 | 0.098 |
Yes | −1.233 | 0.108 | −1.105 | 0.113 |
People with AIDS should be ashamed of themselves | ||||
Disagree | −1.375 | 0.154 | −1.596 | 0.181 |
Agree | 0.948 | 0.106 | 0.879 | 0.1 |
People with AIDS should be blamed for bringing disease to the community | ||||
Disagree | −1.389 | 0.157 | −1.597 | 0.17 |
Agree | 0.951 | 0.107 | 0.799 | 0.085 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 83.32 | 77.08 | ||
Observations | 5886 | 5779 |
. | Women . | Men . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
Willing to care for relative with AIDS | ||||
No | 1.047 | 0.078 | 0.837 | 0.028 |
Yes | −0.574 | 0.043 | −0.212 | 0.007 |
Person with AIDS allowed to continue teaching | ||||
No | 1.015 | 0.098 | 1.198 | 0.124 |
Yes | −0.919 | 0.089 | −0.909 | 0.094 |
Would buy vegetables from vendor with AIDS | ||||
No | 0.682 | 0.06 | 0.954 | 0.098 |
Yes | −1.233 | 0.108 | −1.105 | 0.113 |
People with AIDS should be ashamed of themselves | ||||
Disagree | −1.375 | 0.154 | −1.596 | 0.181 |
Agree | 0.948 | 0.106 | 0.879 | 0.1 |
People with AIDS should be blamed for bringing disease to the community | ||||
Disagree | −1.389 | 0.157 | −1.597 | 0.17 |
Agree | 0.951 | 0.107 | 0.799 | 0.085 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 83.32 | 77.08 | ||
Observations | 5886 | 5779 |
. | Women . | Men . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Categories . | Weight . | Contribution to index . | Weight . | Contribution to index . |
Willing to care for relative with AIDS | ||||
No | 1.047 | 0.078 | 0.837 | 0.028 |
Yes | −0.574 | 0.043 | −0.212 | 0.007 |
Person with AIDS allowed to continue teaching | ||||
No | 1.015 | 0.098 | 1.198 | 0.124 |
Yes | −0.919 | 0.089 | −0.909 | 0.094 |
Would buy vegetables from vendor with AIDS | ||||
No | 0.682 | 0.06 | 0.954 | 0.098 |
Yes | −1.233 | 0.108 | −1.105 | 0.113 |
People with AIDS should be ashamed of themselves | ||||
Disagree | −1.375 | 0.154 | −1.596 | 0.181 |
Agree | 0.948 | 0.106 | 0.879 | 0.1 |
People with AIDS should be blamed for bringing disease to the community | ||||
Disagree | −1.389 | 0.157 | −1.597 | 0.17 |
Agree | 0.951 | 0.107 | 0.799 | 0.085 |
Percentage explained by dimension | 83.32 | 77.08 | ||
Observations | 5886 | 5779 |
Appendix 3 Items included in the HIV knowledge index
. | Men (%) . | Women (%) . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables . | n . | Gave correct answer . | Did not know . | Gave incorrect answer . | n . | Gave correct answer . | Did not know . | Gave incorrect answer . |
Reduce risk of getting AIDS by not having sex at all | 6806 | 84 | 4 | 11 | 7225 | 77 | 8 | 15 |
Reduce chances of AIDS by always using condoms during sex | 6809 | 70 | 15 | 15 | 7229 | 58 | 24 | 17 |
Reduce risk of getting AIDS if have 1 sex partner with no other partner | 6803 | 90 | 5 | 5 | 7220 | 79 | 10 | 11 |
Drugs to avoid AIDS transmission to baby during pregnancy | 5082 | 56 | 19 | 25 | 4560 | 52 | 18 | 30 |
Can a healthy person have AIDS | 6798 | 83 | 6 | 11 | 7204 | 73 | 11 | 16 |
Can get AIDS by witchcraft or supernatural means | 6809 | 15 | 15 | 70 | 7219 | 17 | 24 | 58 |
Get AIDS by sharing food with person who has AIDS | 6812 | 15 | 10 | 75 | 7251 | 16 | 15 | 69 |
Get AIDS from mosquito bites | 6815 | 23 | 14 | 63 | 7241 | 21 | 18 | 61 |
. | Men (%) . | Women (%) . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables . | n . | Gave correct answer . | Did not know . | Gave incorrect answer . | n . | Gave correct answer . | Did not know . | Gave incorrect answer . |
Reduce risk of getting AIDS by not having sex at all | 6806 | 84 | 4 | 11 | 7225 | 77 | 8 | 15 |
Reduce chances of AIDS by always using condoms during sex | 6809 | 70 | 15 | 15 | 7229 | 58 | 24 | 17 |
Reduce risk of getting AIDS if have 1 sex partner with no other partner | 6803 | 90 | 5 | 5 | 7220 | 79 | 10 | 11 |
Drugs to avoid AIDS transmission to baby during pregnancy | 5082 | 56 | 19 | 25 | 4560 | 52 | 18 | 30 |
Can a healthy person have AIDS | 6798 | 83 | 6 | 11 | 7204 | 73 | 11 | 16 |
Can get AIDS by witchcraft or supernatural means | 6809 | 15 | 15 | 70 | 7219 | 17 | 24 | 58 |
Get AIDS by sharing food with person who has AIDS | 6812 | 15 | 10 | 75 | 7251 | 16 | 15 | 69 |
Get AIDS from mosquito bites | 6815 | 23 | 14 | 63 | 7241 | 21 | 18 | 61 |
. | Men (%) . | Women (%) . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables . | n . | Gave correct answer . | Did not know . | Gave incorrect answer . | n . | Gave correct answer . | Did not know . | Gave incorrect answer . |
Reduce risk of getting AIDS by not having sex at all | 6806 | 84 | 4 | 11 | 7225 | 77 | 8 | 15 |
Reduce chances of AIDS by always using condoms during sex | 6809 | 70 | 15 | 15 | 7229 | 58 | 24 | 17 |
Reduce risk of getting AIDS if have 1 sex partner with no other partner | 6803 | 90 | 5 | 5 | 7220 | 79 | 10 | 11 |
Drugs to avoid AIDS transmission to baby during pregnancy | 5082 | 56 | 19 | 25 | 4560 | 52 | 18 | 30 |
Can a healthy person have AIDS | 6798 | 83 | 6 | 11 | 7204 | 73 | 11 | 16 |
Can get AIDS by witchcraft or supernatural means | 6809 | 15 | 15 | 70 | 7219 | 17 | 24 | 58 |
Get AIDS by sharing food with person who has AIDS | 6812 | 15 | 10 | 75 | 7251 | 16 | 15 | 69 |
Get AIDS from mosquito bites | 6815 | 23 | 14 | 63 | 7241 | 21 | 18 | 61 |
. | Men (%) . | Women (%) . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables . | n . | Gave correct answer . | Did not know . | Gave incorrect answer . | n . | Gave correct answer . | Did not know . | Gave incorrect answer . |
Reduce risk of getting AIDS by not having sex at all | 6806 | 84 | 4 | 11 | 7225 | 77 | 8 | 15 |
Reduce chances of AIDS by always using condoms during sex | 6809 | 70 | 15 | 15 | 7229 | 58 | 24 | 17 |
Reduce risk of getting AIDS if have 1 sex partner with no other partner | 6803 | 90 | 5 | 5 | 7220 | 79 | 10 | 11 |
Drugs to avoid AIDS transmission to baby during pregnancy | 5082 | 56 | 19 | 25 | 4560 | 52 | 18 | 30 |
Can a healthy person have AIDS | 6798 | 83 | 6 | 11 | 7204 | 73 | 11 | 16 |
Can get AIDS by witchcraft or supernatural means | 6809 | 15 | 15 | 70 | 7219 | 17 | 24 | 58 |
Get AIDS by sharing food with person who has AIDS | 6812 | 15 | 10 | 75 | 7251 | 16 | 15 | 69 |
Get AIDS from mosquito bites | 6815 | 23 | 14 | 63 | 7241 | 21 | 18 | 61 |
Appendix 4 Intraclass correlation computation
Note that ψ(3) > 0, ψ(2) > 0 and ρ(village, state) > ρ(state) because individuals from the same village are more similar than individuals from the same state.
Appendix 5 Determinants of knowing HIV status among men and women (odds ratios)
. | Wives . | Husbands . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
. | OR . | SE . | OR . | SE . |
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | 0.718 | 0.235 | 0.766 | 0.281 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 1.505 | 0.567 | 2.335** | 0.937 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 1.062 | 0.561 | 0.601 | 0.32 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 1.26 | 0.46 | 1.165 | 0.451 |
Ethnicity: other | 1.273 | 0.4 | 1.415 | 0.496 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | 0.703** | 0.113 | 0.859 | 0.136 |
Religion: Islam | 0.559*** | 0.123 | 0.688* | 0.146 |
Religion: Traditionalist | 0.162* | 0.169 | 1.091 | 0.46 |
Religion: other | 0.387 | 0.54 | 3.779* | 2.718 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 1.056 | 0.162 | 2.113*** | 0.401 |
Education: secondary | 1.551** | 0.276 | 2.363*** | 0.491 |
Education: tertiary | 1.737** | 0.403 | 4.862*** | 1.082 |
Labour status | 1.077 | 0.129 | 0.639 | 0.203 |
Age | 1.254*** | 0.0758 | 0.928 | 0.0459 |
Age squared | 0.996*** | 0.00092 | 1.001 | 0.0006 |
Bargaining power | 1.122*** | 0.0496 | 1.016 | 0.0466 |
Sexual bargaining power | 1.071 | 0.0582 | 1.016 | 0.0561 |
Polygamy | 0.761* | 0.116 | 1.271 | 0.197 |
Wealth | 1.898*** | 0.155 | 1.388*** | 0.113 |
Household size | 0.982 | 0.0207 | 1.02 | 0.0216 |
Partner’s age | 1.021** | 0.00935 | 0.999 | 0.0123 |
Partner’s labour status | 0.643 | 0.207 | 0.965 | 0.116 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 1.126 | 0.189 | 1.385** | 0.214 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 1.253 | 0.232 | 1.355 | 0.251 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 1.248 | 0.258 | 1.962*** | 0.445 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||
Stigma | 0.832*** | 0.0464 | 0.856*** | 0.0487 |
Partner’s stigma | 0.909* | 0.0499 | 0.910* | 0.0502 |
HIV knowledge | ||||
Heard of ART | 1.815*** | 0.212 | 1.697*** | 0.227 |
HIV knowledge | 1.148*** | 0.0434 | 0.963 | 0.0418 |
Radio | 0.946 | 0.102 | 1.16 | 0.134 |
Routine testing | ||||
Absence of female health worker is a concern | 1.714*** | 0.285 | ||
Birth in the past 3 years | 2.785*** | 0.333 | 1.018 | 0.115 |
STI | 1.891** | 0.582 | 1.916 | 0.761 |
Has health insurance | 2.220*** | 0.624 | 1.839*** | 0.381 |
Rural | 0.937 | 0.124 | 1.125 | 0.148 |
Health status | ||||
BMI | 1.005 | 0.0109 | ||
Perceived risk | ||||
Partner has been tested | 1.652*** | 0.19 | 1.423*** | 0.172 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 1.554*** | 0.219 | 1.809*** | 0.233 |
Marital duration: 5–9 years (ref: 0–4 years) | 0.883 | 0.125 | 0.99 | 0.147 |
Marital duration: 10–19 years | 0.582*** | 0.103 | 1.084 | 0.19 |
Number of lifetime partners | 0.967 | 0.0456 | 1.012 | 0.0183 |
State HIV prevalence | 1.028 | 0.07 | 1.031 | 0.0486 |
. | Wives . | Husbands . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
. | OR . | SE . | OR . | SE . |
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | 0.718 | 0.235 | 0.766 | 0.281 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 1.505 | 0.567 | 2.335** | 0.937 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 1.062 | 0.561 | 0.601 | 0.32 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 1.26 | 0.46 | 1.165 | 0.451 |
Ethnicity: other | 1.273 | 0.4 | 1.415 | 0.496 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | 0.703** | 0.113 | 0.859 | 0.136 |
Religion: Islam | 0.559*** | 0.123 | 0.688* | 0.146 |
Religion: Traditionalist | 0.162* | 0.169 | 1.091 | 0.46 |
Religion: other | 0.387 | 0.54 | 3.779* | 2.718 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 1.056 | 0.162 | 2.113*** | 0.401 |
Education: secondary | 1.551** | 0.276 | 2.363*** | 0.491 |
Education: tertiary | 1.737** | 0.403 | 4.862*** | 1.082 |
Labour status | 1.077 | 0.129 | 0.639 | 0.203 |
Age | 1.254*** | 0.0758 | 0.928 | 0.0459 |
Age squared | 0.996*** | 0.00092 | 1.001 | 0.0006 |
Bargaining power | 1.122*** | 0.0496 | 1.016 | 0.0466 |
Sexual bargaining power | 1.071 | 0.0582 | 1.016 | 0.0561 |
Polygamy | 0.761* | 0.116 | 1.271 | 0.197 |
Wealth | 1.898*** | 0.155 | 1.388*** | 0.113 |
Household size | 0.982 | 0.0207 | 1.02 | 0.0216 |
Partner’s age | 1.021** | 0.00935 | 0.999 | 0.0123 |
Partner’s labour status | 0.643 | 0.207 | 0.965 | 0.116 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 1.126 | 0.189 | 1.385** | 0.214 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 1.253 | 0.232 | 1.355 | 0.251 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 1.248 | 0.258 | 1.962*** | 0.445 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||
Stigma | 0.832*** | 0.0464 | 0.856*** | 0.0487 |
Partner’s stigma | 0.909* | 0.0499 | 0.910* | 0.0502 |
HIV knowledge | ||||
Heard of ART | 1.815*** | 0.212 | 1.697*** | 0.227 |
HIV knowledge | 1.148*** | 0.0434 | 0.963 | 0.0418 |
Radio | 0.946 | 0.102 | 1.16 | 0.134 |
Routine testing | ||||
Absence of female health worker is a concern | 1.714*** | 0.285 | ||
Birth in the past 3 years | 2.785*** | 0.333 | 1.018 | 0.115 |
STI | 1.891** | 0.582 | 1.916 | 0.761 |
Has health insurance | 2.220*** | 0.624 | 1.839*** | 0.381 |
Rural | 0.937 | 0.124 | 1.125 | 0.148 |
Health status | ||||
BMI | 1.005 | 0.0109 | ||
Perceived risk | ||||
Partner has been tested | 1.652*** | 0.19 | 1.423*** | 0.172 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 1.554*** | 0.219 | 1.809*** | 0.233 |
Marital duration: 5–9 years (ref: 0–4 years) | 0.883 | 0.125 | 0.99 | 0.147 |
Marital duration: 10–19 years | 0.582*** | 0.103 | 1.084 | 0.19 |
Number of lifetime partners | 0.967 | 0.0456 | 1.012 | 0.0183 |
State HIV prevalence | 1.028 | 0.07 | 1.031 | 0.0486 |
. | Wives . | Husbands . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
. | OR . | SE . | OR . | SE . |
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | 0.718 | 0.235 | 0.766 | 0.281 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 1.505 | 0.567 | 2.335** | 0.937 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 1.062 | 0.561 | 0.601 | 0.32 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 1.26 | 0.46 | 1.165 | 0.451 |
Ethnicity: other | 1.273 | 0.4 | 1.415 | 0.496 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | 0.703** | 0.113 | 0.859 | 0.136 |
Religion: Islam | 0.559*** | 0.123 | 0.688* | 0.146 |
Religion: Traditionalist | 0.162* | 0.169 | 1.091 | 0.46 |
Religion: other | 0.387 | 0.54 | 3.779* | 2.718 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 1.056 | 0.162 | 2.113*** | 0.401 |
Education: secondary | 1.551** | 0.276 | 2.363*** | 0.491 |
Education: tertiary | 1.737** | 0.403 | 4.862*** | 1.082 |
Labour status | 1.077 | 0.129 | 0.639 | 0.203 |
Age | 1.254*** | 0.0758 | 0.928 | 0.0459 |
Age squared | 0.996*** | 0.00092 | 1.001 | 0.0006 |
Bargaining power | 1.122*** | 0.0496 | 1.016 | 0.0466 |
Sexual bargaining power | 1.071 | 0.0582 | 1.016 | 0.0561 |
Polygamy | 0.761* | 0.116 | 1.271 | 0.197 |
Wealth | 1.898*** | 0.155 | 1.388*** | 0.113 |
Household size | 0.982 | 0.0207 | 1.02 | 0.0216 |
Partner’s age | 1.021** | 0.00935 | 0.999 | 0.0123 |
Partner’s labour status | 0.643 | 0.207 | 0.965 | 0.116 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 1.126 | 0.189 | 1.385** | 0.214 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 1.253 | 0.232 | 1.355 | 0.251 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 1.248 | 0.258 | 1.962*** | 0.445 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||
Stigma | 0.832*** | 0.0464 | 0.856*** | 0.0487 |
Partner’s stigma | 0.909* | 0.0499 | 0.910* | 0.0502 |
HIV knowledge | ||||
Heard of ART | 1.815*** | 0.212 | 1.697*** | 0.227 |
HIV knowledge | 1.148*** | 0.0434 | 0.963 | 0.0418 |
Radio | 0.946 | 0.102 | 1.16 | 0.134 |
Routine testing | ||||
Absence of female health worker is a concern | 1.714*** | 0.285 | ||
Birth in the past 3 years | 2.785*** | 0.333 | 1.018 | 0.115 |
STI | 1.891** | 0.582 | 1.916 | 0.761 |
Has health insurance | 2.220*** | 0.624 | 1.839*** | 0.381 |
Rural | 0.937 | 0.124 | 1.125 | 0.148 |
Health status | ||||
BMI | 1.005 | 0.0109 | ||
Perceived risk | ||||
Partner has been tested | 1.652*** | 0.19 | 1.423*** | 0.172 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 1.554*** | 0.219 | 1.809*** | 0.233 |
Marital duration: 5–9 years (ref: 0–4 years) | 0.883 | 0.125 | 0.99 | 0.147 |
Marital duration: 10–19 years | 0.582*** | 0.103 | 1.084 | 0.19 |
Number of lifetime partners | 0.967 | 0.0456 | 1.012 | 0.0183 |
State HIV prevalence | 1.028 | 0.07 | 1.031 | 0.0486 |
. | Wives . | Husbands . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
. | OR . | SE . | OR . | SE . |
Ethnicity: Fula (ref: Hausa) | 0.718 | 0.235 | 0.766 | 0.281 |
Ethnicity: Igbo | 1.505 | 0.567 | 2.335** | 0.937 |
Ethnicity: Ijaw/Izon | 1.062 | 0.561 | 0.601 | 0.32 |
Ethnicity: Yoruba | 1.26 | 0.46 | 1.165 | 0.451 |
Ethnicity: other | 1.273 | 0.4 | 1.415 | 0.496 |
Religion: other Christian (ref: Catholic) | 0.703** | 0.113 | 0.859 | 0.136 |
Religion: Islam | 0.559*** | 0.123 | 0.688* | 0.146 |
Religion: Traditionalist | 0.162* | 0.169 | 1.091 | 0.46 |
Religion: other | 0.387 | 0.54 | 3.779* | 2.718 |
Education: primary (ref: no education) | 1.056 | 0.162 | 2.113*** | 0.401 |
Education: secondary | 1.551** | 0.276 | 2.363*** | 0.491 |
Education: tertiary | 1.737** | 0.403 | 4.862*** | 1.082 |
Labour status | 1.077 | 0.129 | 0.639 | 0.203 |
Age | 1.254*** | 0.0758 | 0.928 | 0.0459 |
Age squared | 0.996*** | 0.00092 | 1.001 | 0.0006 |
Bargaining power | 1.122*** | 0.0496 | 1.016 | 0.0466 |
Sexual bargaining power | 1.071 | 0.0582 | 1.016 | 0.0561 |
Polygamy | 0.761* | 0.116 | 1.271 | 0.197 |
Wealth | 1.898*** | 0.155 | 1.388*** | 0.113 |
Household size | 0.982 | 0.0207 | 1.02 | 0.0216 |
Partner’s age | 1.021** | 0.00935 | 0.999 | 0.0123 |
Partner’s labour status | 0.643 | 0.207 | 0.965 | 0.116 |
Partner’s education: primary (ref: no education) | 1.126 | 0.189 | 1.385** | 0.214 |
Partner’s education: secondary | 1.253 | 0.232 | 1.355 | 0.251 |
Partner’s education: tertiary | 1.248 | 0.258 | 1.962*** | 0.445 |
HIV-related stigma | ||||
Stigma | 0.832*** | 0.0464 | 0.856*** | 0.0487 |
Partner’s stigma | 0.909* | 0.0499 | 0.910* | 0.0502 |
HIV knowledge | ||||
Heard of ART | 1.815*** | 0.212 | 1.697*** | 0.227 |
HIV knowledge | 1.148*** | 0.0434 | 0.963 | 0.0418 |
Radio | 0.946 | 0.102 | 1.16 | 0.134 |
Routine testing | ||||
Absence of female health worker is a concern | 1.714*** | 0.285 | ||
Birth in the past 3 years | 2.785*** | 0.333 | 1.018 | 0.115 |
STI | 1.891** | 0.582 | 1.916 | 0.761 |
Has health insurance | 2.220*** | 0.624 | 1.839*** | 0.381 |
Rural | 0.937 | 0.124 | 1.125 | 0.148 |
Health status | ||||
BMI | 1.005 | 0.0109 | ||
Perceived risk | ||||
Partner has been tested | 1.652*** | 0.19 | 1.423*** | 0.172 |
Knows someone with AIDS | 1.554*** | 0.219 | 1.809*** | 0.233 |
Marital duration: 5–9 years (ref: 0–4 years) | 0.883 | 0.125 | 0.99 | 0.147 |
Marital duration: 10–19 years | 0.582*** | 0.103 | 1.084 | 0.19 |
Number of lifetime partners | 0.967 | 0.0456 | 1.012 | 0.0183 |
State HIV prevalence | 1.028 | 0.07 | 1.031 | 0.0486 |