BMC Public Health 2006, 6:109 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/109 Table 2: Profiles of antenatal attendees, associated with HIV infection, rural Manyara and Singida within northern Tanzania, 2003– 2004. Characteristics N (%) HIV prevalence % (95%CI) Crude OR (95%CI) Age-adjusted OR (95%CI) Adjusted for other OR (95%CI) Total 1296 26 (2.0: 1.34–2.97) Age groups 15–19 years 165 (12.7) 3.03 (1.12–7.30) 20–24 years 417 (32.2) 1.92 (0.89–3.40) 25–29 years 349 (26.9) 1.43 (0.53–3.51) ≥30 years 365 (28.2) 2.19 (1.02–4.44) Residence Remote rural 553 (42.7) 1.3 (0.56–2.71) Rural 743 (57.3) 2.6 (1.59–4.04) Marital status Married 1183 (91.3) 1.9 (1.20–2.85) Single/divorced/ 113 (8.7) 3.5 (1.14–9.35) separated Education (years) None 349 (28.2) 3.24 (1.67–5.73) 1–6 years 174 (13.4) 1.15 (0.20–4.52) 7 years or more 773 (59.7) 1.71 (0.96–2.99) Number of husbands/sexual partners† 1 only 1231 (95.0) 1.7 (1.11–2.69) > 1 65 (5.0) 7.7 (2.87–17.75) Age at first pregnancy β† < 18 years 158 (14.0) 4.4 (1.20–4.40) ≥18 years 974 (86.0) 1.5 (0.71–2.19) Use of contraceptives No 1088 (84.0) 1.6 (0.94–2.54) Yes 208 (16.0) 4.3 (2.13–8.32) HIV related knowledge No 1151(88.8) 1.91 (1.11–2.69) Yes 145 (11.2) 2.76 (0.09–5.43) History of genital sore or foul genital discharge† No 1135 (87.6) 1.7 (1.04–2.65) Yes 161 (12.4) 6.2 (3.19–11.44) Ever used condom No 1233 (95.1) 1.9 (1.15–2.74) Yes 63 (4.9) 6.4 (2.05–16.25) Ever used VCT services No 891 (68.8) 1.3 (0.73–2.41) Yes 405 (31.2) 3.5 (1.98–5.87) 1.0 0.6 (0.20–1.94) 0.5 (0.13–1.63) 0.7 (0.23–2.23) 1.0 2.1 (0.85–4.90) 1.0 1.9 (0.65–5.72) 1.0 0.4 (0.08–1.63) 0.5 (0.23–1.19) 1.0 4.8(1.75–13.17) 1.0 0.3 (0.13–0.72) 1.0 2.8 (1.25–6.48) 1.0 1.5 (0.49–4.29) 1.0 4.6 (2.06–10.39) 1.0 3.7 (1.25–11.18) 1.0 2.6 (1.20–5.72) - 1.0 2.0 (0.84–4.87) 1.0 1.8 (0.55–5.57) 1.0 0.4 (0.08–1.61) 0.5 (0.23–1.19) 1.0 5.4(1.91–15.43) 1.0 0.3(0.12–0.79) 1.0 2.9(1.27–6.61) 1.0 0.9 (0.91–1.04) 1.0 4.8(2.14–10.90) 1.0 3.6 (1.18–11.07) 1.0 2.6 (1.2–5.72) 1.0 0.7 (0.20–2.47) 0.6 (0.14–2.30) 0.7 (0.20–2.78) 1.0 2.4 (0.95–6.18) 1.0 1.3 (0.35–4.72) 1.0 0.3 (0.68–1.64) 0.5 (0.20–1.14) 1.0 4.3 (1.42–12.77) 1.0 0.3 (0.13–0.89) 1.0 2.1 (0.79–5.71) 1.0 1.8 (0.59–5.56) 1.0 6.8 (2.78–16.66) 1.0 3.2 (0.87–12.06) 1.0 (0.72–4.43) β Analysed for those aged 20 ≥ years at the time of survey, † Variables included in the final model. Likelihood-ratio-test (assuming reduced model nested in full model): x2(5) = 4.52, P = 0.48 Logistic model for HIV, goodness-of-fit test; x2(35) = 31.33, P = 0.64 and predictive power of the model = 78% [45] women might also avoid such clinics for fear of confirm- ing their HIV status regardless of the benefits. Neverthe- less, recent studies have shown it is possible to estimate HIV prevalence data from PMTCT sites [27-29] with max- imum coverage of clinics within localised areas, albeit with caution to the inherent biases. years before the present study. In addition, the assump- tion was that "unlinked ANC HIV prevalence data" might represent the general population. Since the HLH is the main health care provider at hospital level in the area, HIV prevalence at hospital level might reflect the general pop- ulation prevalence [30]. Sample size estimates used hospital based HIV prevalence as a proxy, which might not be appropriate for subgroup analysis. However, this provided the best recent proxy estimate because the only previous ANC estimate was five The lower number of the dependent variable, HIV posi- tive, might have compromised the study findings in rela- tion to the risks associated with HIV. In this respect, the associated risk factors were subject to random error, as Page 6 of 9 (page number not for citation purposes)