5 3 . I A U t 3 n . a d rco 52 n . o c - n 2 o . n g irtno .51 p ren .1 o i t ro 50 p . o r P 0 0 1 Control 2 Study Visit 3 4 Contingency Management Menza et al. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:774 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/774 Page 9 of 13 Figure 2 Adjusted proportion of participants reporting non-concordant UAI in the prior six weeks, by study arm. Table 3 Effect of a contingency management intervention on reports of any non-concordant unprotected anal intercourse in the prior 6 weeks and the number of non-concordant unprotected anal intercourse partners in the prior 6 weeks 0.80 (0.47, 1.35) 0.51 (0.21, 1.25) 0.58 (0.17, 1.90) 0.49 (0.18, 1.37) Visit Baseline Week 6 Week 12 Week 18 Week 24 Visit Baseline Week 6 Week 12 Week 18 Week 24 Proportion reporting any non-concordant UAI, n (%) Total Contingency Management Control 35/127 (28) 21/70 (30) 14/57 (25) 18/92 (20) 9/48 (19) 9/44 (20) 12/102 (12) 8/56 (14) 4/46 (9) 9/99 (9) 3/53 (6) 6/46 (13) 11/107 (10) 6/60 (10) 5/47 (11) Self-reported non-concordant UAI partners, mean (SD) Total Contingency Management Control 1.35 (4.6) 1.70 (5.5) 0.90 (2.7) 0.47 (1.5) 0.35 (0.9) 0.60 (1.9) 0.19 (1.0) 0.09 (0.3) 0.30 (1.4) 0.12 (0.4) 0.09 (0.4) 0.15 (0.4) 0.11 (0.4) 0.10 (0.3) 0.13 (0.4) CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk; SD, standard deviation; UAI, unprotected anal intercourse. aAdjusted for HIV status, report of non-concordant UAI in the prior 6 weeks at baseline and use of other substances (inhaled nitrites, gamma-hydroxybutyrate, ecstasy, or erectile dysfunction medications) in the prior 6 weeks at baseline. bAdjusted for HIV status, number non-concordant UAI partners in the prior 6 weeks at baseline and use of other substances (inhaled nitrites, gamma- hydroxybutyrate, ecstasy, or erectile dysfunction medications) in the prior 6 weeks at baseline. 1.13 (0.54, 2.37) 0.67 (0.24, 1.85) 0.46 (0.14, 1.52) 0.70 (0.25, 1.95) Unadjusted RR (95% CI) Adjusted RRa (95% CI) Unadjusted Rate Ratio (95% CI) Adjusted Rate Ratiob (95% CI)