BMC Public Health 2007, 7:352 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/352 Effect of campaign exposure on condom use Because the possibility exists that the observed associa- tions between program exposure and condom use are affected by the endogeneity of program exposure, we first tested for the presence of endogeneity [see [35]]. The results of these analyses indicate that no endogeneity problems were identified, and that a one-stage model can be used. For ever condom use the significance levels of the residual terms varied from 0.369 to 0.953 for men, and from 0.405 to 0.945 for women. For condom use at last intercourse the significance levels of the residuals varied from 0.043 to 0.921 for men and from 0.136 to 0.983 for women. Only for a single model did the significance level fall below 0.100. Overall, therefore, one can conclude that endogeneity is not a problem in these equations. In the tables only the one-stage logistic regression results are shown. Tables including the two-stage results are available from the authors upon request. Effect on ever use of condoms Our estimates of the effect of exposure to social marketing and health communication programs on the likelihood that women ever used condoms are shown in Table 3. The results show that exposure to radio and television pro- grams about family planning and HIV/AIDS had a signif- icant but small positive effect on the likelihood that women have tried condoms (OR = 1.06). Among women the ORD-s of total exposure, radio pro- gram exposure and TV program exposure are 1.41, 1.36 and1.27, respectively, indicating that those with the high- est levels of exposure are roughly 30% more likely than those with the lowest levels of exposure to have tried con- doms. Older women are less likely than younger ones and Prot- estant respondents more likely than Catholics or mem- bers of other religions to have ever used condoms. The likelihood of ever having used condoms increases with the level of urbanization and education. The likelihood that a woman has tried condoms is also significantly higher for those who reported a larger number of sexual partners. Women who reported wanting to have a child in the next two years are less likely than other women to have ever used a condom. Table 4 shows the results of similar analyses for men. The results show that exposure to radio and television pro- grams about family planning and HIV/AIDS had a posi- tive effect on the likelihood that males had ever used condoms (OR = 1.16). Exposure to Maximum messages Table 3: Estimates of the impact of program exposure on the odds of ever having used a condom, female sample OR (95% CI) Total exposure Radio programs TV programs Exposure Total Radio programs TV programs Age Religion (ref: Protestant) Catholic Other Residence (ref: rural) Capital Other urban Education (ref: No formal education) Primary Secondary & higher Number of partners past 12 months Perceived AIDS risk (ref: None) Small Moderate High + has AIDS Wants child in next 2 years Last partner was casual Constant ORD Pseudo-R2 Significance: *: p < 0.050; **: p < 0.010; ***: p < 0.001 1.059*** (1.029 – 1.090) 0.964*** (0.957 – 0.971) ** 0.831* (0.716 – 0.965) 0.543* (0.318 – 0.928) *** 1.699*** (1.382 – 2.087) 1.261** (1.079 – 1.475) *** 2.090*** (1.632 – 2.675) 4.798*** (3.669 – 6.274) 2.260*** (1.917 – 2.665) 1.203* (1.002 – 1.444) 1.183* (1.006 – 1.392) 1.008 (0.855 – 1.190) 0.703*** (0.595 – 0.830) 0.646 (0.360 – 1.160) 0.127*** (0.089 – 0.183) 1.41 10.0%*** 1.079*** (1.036 – 1.124) 0.964*** (0.957 – 0.971) ** 0.833* (0.717 – 0.966) 0.544* (0.318 – 0.930) *** 1.829*** (1.505 – 2.223) 1.313*** (1.130 – 1.527) *** 2.079*** (1.623 – 2.663) 4.903*** (3.756 – 6.399) 2.253*** (1.911 – 2.657) 1.206* (1.005 – 1.447) 1.185* (1.007 – 1.394) 1.006 (0.853 – 1.187) 0.702*** (0.594 – 0.829) 0.647 (0.361 – 1.161) 0.127*** (0.089 – 0.182) 1.36 10.0%*** 1.082** (1.021 – 1.147) 0.965*** (0.958 – 0.972) ** 0.832* (0.717 – 0.966) 0.537* (0.314 – 0.917) *** 1.741*** (1.407 – 2.154) 1.298** (1.109 – 1.519) *** 2.150*** (1.680 – 2.751) 5.100*** (3.913 – 6.647) 2.261*** (1.918 – 2.666) 1.200 (1.000 – 1.440) 1.178* (1.001 – 1.385) 1.022 (0.867 – 1.206) 0.706*** (0.598 – 0.834) 0.636 (0.355 – 1.142) 0.127*** (0.089 – 0.182) 1.27 9.9%*** Page 7 of 12 (page number not for citation purposes)