Table 4

Effects of the intervention on outcomes at end line

	Summary statistics		Intervention effect*
	Intervention (n=288)	Control (n=259)	Basic model		Adjusted model
	n (%)	n (%)	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value
Primary outcomes
Any IPV (physical or sexual violence) in the past 6 months	26 (9.0%)	21 (8.1%)	1.29 (0.70 to 2.39)	0.410	1.47 (0.71 to 3.01)	0.298
Severe IPV (physical and/or sexual violence) in the past 6 months	25 (8.7%)	18 (6.9%)	1.50 (0.76 to 2.97)	0.246	1.38 (0.68 to 2.81)	0.378
Consistent condom use within the past 30 days	165 (57.3%)	162 (62.5%)	0.82 (0.52 to 1.27)	0.372	0.93 (0.58 to 1.47)	0.748
Secondary outcomes
Acceptance of IPV from their IPs	193 (67.0%)	188 (72.6%)	0.68 (0.46 to 0.99)	0.047	0.62 (0.40 0.94)	0.025
Disclosure of IPV†	21 (67.7%)	15 (51.7%)	2.43 (0.74 to 7.95)	0.143	2.07 (0.42 to 10.26)	0.372
Knowledge of self-protection strategies against IPV	61 (21.2%)	32 (12.4%)	1.81 (1.09 to 2.99)	0.021	1.73 (1.04 to 2.89)	0.035
Self-efficacy to negotiate condom use with IP	170 (59.0%)	163 (62.9%)	0.92 (0.59 to 1.45)	0.733	0.96 (0.61 to 1.50)	0.845
Solidarity around issues of IPV	112 (38.9%)	81 (31.3%)	1.49 (0.95 to 2.33)	0.082	1.69 (1.02 to 2.82)	0.042

*OR (95% CI), p value for all the outcomes.
†Among those who reported experience of IPV in the last 6 months and n in summary statistics for control=29 and intervention=31. The basic model for all the outcomes is just adjusted for clusters and strata without any other adjustments for baseline. Individual-level adjusted models controlled for village population strata, age, IP caste, age difference between FSW and IP, frequency of visit by IP, IP's knowledge of sex work profession, membership of community-based organisation (all at individual level at end line) and any alcohol use by IP (at cluster level at baseline). All adjusted models were also controlled for the baseline cluster-level summary of the respective outcome.
IP, intimate partner; IPV, intimate partner violence.