Goodall et al. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:747 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/747 Table 3 Tests of association between independent variables and self-reported STIs over the previous 12 months Community (% of n) n = 323 Self-reported STIs (% of category) n = 46 15 (14.4) 14 (20.3) 17 (11.3) n = 39 1 (10.0) 9 (24.3) 7 (13.2) 1(9.1) 3 (16.7) 14 (10.8) 4 (13.8) n = 50 32 (12.5) 4 (21.1) 7 (20.6) 7 (31.8) n = 46 35 (15.9) 3(11.5) 4 (11.4) 2 (13.3) 2 (7.1) n = 23 19 (8.1) 4 (22.2) n = 31 12 (7.0) 7 (8.8) 9 (36.0) 1 (14.3) 2 (16.7) Page 5 of 8 p 0.26 0.55 0.06 0.34 0.93 Age <30 30–39 40+ Educational qualifications None GCSEs/O-levels/Standards A-levels/Highers Vocational HNC or HND Undergraduate degree Postgraduate degree Ethnicity White (UK) White (Irish) White (other) All non-white Employment status Employed Self-employed Unemployed Student Retired Self-reported HIV status HIV negative HIV positive Number of UAI partners 0 1 2–4 5–10 >10 Clinic (% of n) n = 445 154 (34.6) 128 (28.8) 163 (36.6) n = 418 8 (1.9) 72 (17.2) 65 (15.6) 8 (1.9) 24 (5.7) 194 (46.4) 47 (11.2) n = 450 357 (79.3) 16 (3.6) 45 (10.0) 32 (7.1) n = 444 283 (63.7) 38 (8.6) 50 (11.3) 61(13.7) 12 (2.7) n = 385 246 (63.9) 139 (36.1) n = 445 219 (49.2) 129 (29.0) 78 (17.5) 10 (2.2) 9 (2.0) Self-reported STIs (% of category) n = 97 33 (21.4) 29 (22.7) 35 (21.5) n = 91 4 (50.0) 14 (19.4) 12 (18.5) 3 (37.5) 9 (37.5) 39 (20.1) 10 (21.3) n = 100 80 (22.4) 3 (18.8) 8 (17.8) 9 (28.1) n = 97 63 (22.3) 10 (26.3) 13 (26.0) 9 (14.8) 2 (16.7) n = 89 56 (22.8) 33 (23.7) n = 97 30 (13.7) 28 (21.7) 27 (34.6) 6 (60.0) 6 (66.7) P 0.95 0.15 0.73 0.08 0.11 104 (32.2) 69 (21.4) 150 (46.4) n = 288 10 (3.5) 37 (12.8) 53 (18.4) 11 (3.8) 18 (6.3) 130 (45.1) 29 (10.1) n = 332 257 (80.6) 19 (6.0) 34 (10.7) 22 (0) n = 324 220 (67.9) 26 (8.0) 35 (10.8) 15 (4.6) 28 (8.6) n = 253 235 (92.9) 18 (7.1) n = 296 172 (58.1) 80 (27.0) 25 (8.4) 7 (2.4) 12 (4.1) <0.001 <0.001 condom proficiency and problem scores and measures of STI acquisition, although only condom problem score remained independently associated after correction for UAI partners. It is entirely conceivable that men who re- port lower condom proficiency and more condom pro- blems are less likely to use condoms and this requires further exploration. Critically, our study found inde- pendent effects of condom problems in relation to self- reported STI acquisition and not laboratory confirmed STIs among the clinic sample. This too is suggestive of a link between condom problems and other risk behaviors rather than a direct link with STI transmission. However, it is important to note that the sample size for men who were found to have a laboratory confirmed STI was small (n = 38); it is therefore possible that sample size may have meant inadequate power to detect any associ- ation between condom problems and laboratory con- firmed STIs that did exist. Number of UAI partners was strongly associated with self-reported STI diagnosis over the previous 12 months as well as with prevalent STI. This is unsurprising and is consistent with other behavioral community based sur- veys of self-reported STIs in MSM [19] and with clinic based surveys of HIV positive MSM [20]. With evidence