Effect of the NAMWEZA intervention on primary and secondary outcomes for Change Agents—men
| Control (n=384) | Intervention (n=155) | Estimate (95% CI) | P value* | |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |||
| HIV knowledge† | 0.80 (0.14) | 0.80 (0.13) | 0.0038 (−0.02 to 0.03) | 0.75 |
| Self-esteem‡ | 3.09 (0.48) | 3.26 (0.56) | 0.19 (0.10 to 0.27) | <0.0001 |
| Self-efficacy§ | 3.29 (0.65) | 3.66 (0.51) | 0.38 (0.29 to 0.46) | <0.0001 |
| Self-efficacy for safer sex¶ | 3.44 (0.58) | 3.67 (0.51) | 0.24 (0.16 to 0.33) | <0.0001 |
| Social support** | 3.14 (0.69) | 3.24 (0.65) | 0.14 (0.04 to 0.24) | 0.0085 |
| Stigma†† | 2.28 (0.81)‡‡ | 1.94 (0.73)§§ | −0.33 (−0.45 to −0.21) | <0.0001 |
| Depressive symptoms¶¶ | 0.88 (0.58) | 0.76 (0.56) | −0.12 (−0.20 to −0.03) | 0.0085 |
| % (events/visits, n) | % (events/visits, n) | RR (95% CI) | P value*** | |
| Physical abuse perpetration | 9.76 (20/205) | 4.04 (4/99) | 0.54 (0.26 to 1.12) | 0.10 |
| Physical abuse victimisation | 11.22 (23/205) | 6.06 (6/99) | 0.77 (0.40 to 1.47) | 0.42 |
| Sexual abuse perpetration | 4.39 (9/205) | 5.05 (5/99) | 1.86 (0.91 to 3.80) | 0.09 |
| Sexual abuse victimisation | 8.78 (18/205) | 6.06 (6/99) | 0.72 (0.29 to 1.75) | 0.46 |
| Multiple sex partners | 16.23 (43/265) | 25.20 (31/123) | 1.65 (1.15 to 2.37) | 0.01 |
| Unprotected sex | 30.04 (73/243) | 33.33 (36/108) | 1.12 (0.84 to 1.49) | 0.43 |
*P value was obtained from generalised estimating equations with the normal distribution, identity link and exchangeable correlation structure.
†The level of HIV knowledge was the mean per cent of correct responses on the scale.
‡Self-esteem was based on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1=disagree completely to 4=agree completely, with higher scores reflecting higher self-esteem.
§Self-efficacy was based on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1=not at all true to 4=exactly true, with higher scores reflecting higher self-efficacy.
¶Self-efficacy for safer sex was based on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1=not at all confident to 4=very confident with higher scores reflecting greater self-efficacy for safer sex.
**Social support was based on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1=never to 4=as much as I would like, with higher scores reflecting higher social support.
††HIV-related stigma was assessed using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1=disagree strongly to 5=agree strongly with higher scores reflecting greater stigma.
‡‡The total number of visits used for this calculation was 347 due to missing data.
§§The total number of visits used for this calculation was 145 due to missing data.
¶¶Depressive symptom assessment was based on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0=not at all to 3=nearly every day with higher scores reflecting a higher level of depressive symptoms.
***P value was obtained from generalised estimating equations with the binomial distribution, log link and exchangeable correlation structure.