A total of 17,968 women aged 15 to 49 years old from across the Philippines participated in the domestic violence module of the 2017 Philippine NDHS and were included in this analysis. Around 80% of them are Roman Catholics, while around 60% are either married or living with their partner, and around 85% finished high school or college. A little less than half of them were employed in the previous year. Most of them have access to various forms of media at least once a week. Only a quarter drink alcoholic beverage regularly, and only 5% use tobacco. There is a more even distribution of respondents in terms of urbanicity and socio-economic status. Most of them have good knowledge on HIV, with the population having a mean score of 5.18 (95% CI: 5.12–5.23), and a median of 5 with a left-skewed distribution. They also have a low tolerance to domestic violence, with a mean tolerance to domestic violence score of 0.21 (95% CI: 0.20–0.23), a median of 0, and a right-skewed distribution. Most of the respondents did not have controlling partners, with an average of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69–0.75; median = 0, right-skewed distribution) aspects of their life that they feel are controlled by their partner. However, their women’s empowerment score is low, with an average of 4.81 (95% CI: 4.77–4.87), a median of 4 and a right-skewed distribution. Of this population, a total of 3,389 (15.67%) respondents reported experiencing intimate partner violence of any form, with 2,517 (11.35%), 1,122 (5.22%) and 484 (2.12%) experiencing emotional, physical, and sexual violence, respectively, and have not confided it with anybody. In addition to these, there are 386 (1.75%), 364 (1.84%), and 107 (0.4%), who have experienced emotional, physical, and sexual violence, respectively, and have confided it with somebody else. Out of 17,968 respondents, only 594 respondents (4.31%) reported having ever been tested for HIV.
Without controlling for confounders, we found that exposure to any form of IPV, as well as to each of the specific types of IPV, have a lower odds of HIV testing as compared to those who were not victims of IPV. The odds of HIV testing are even lower among victims of any form of IPV, physical violence, and sexual violence who have confided it with other people as compared to those who have not confided it. Among the other categorical variables, there is strong evidence that: having a partner who consumes alcoholic beverages regularly, having a high educational attainment, being Aglipay, Islam or Other Christian, having a partner with high educational attainment, living in an urban area, having weekly access to newspaper or magazine, radio, television and internet, belonging to a higher socio-economic class, working in the previous year, living with partner or being widowed, divorced, or separated, using tobacco or alcohol regularly, are all associated with greater odds of HIV testing (Table 1). Among the other continuous variables there is strong evidence that: being older, having a younger partner, higher HIV knowledge, and having a lower tolerance to domestic violence, have a greater odds of HIV testing (Table 2).
Table 1
Cross-tabulations of categorical exposures and probable confounders with HIV testing (n = 17,968).
|
Never been tested for HIV
|
Have been tested for HIV
|
p-value
|
Crude OR
(with 95% CI)
|
p-value of OR
|
Any Violence
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has not experienced said violence
|
9,487
(94.73)
|
339
(5.27)
|
0.81
|
1
|
|
Experienced violence but did not confide
|
2,787
(95.02)
|
121
(4.98)
|
0.94
(0.68–1.30)
|
0.71
|
Experienced violence but confided
|
457
(95.59)
|
24
(4.41)
|
0.83
(0.43–1.58)
|
0.57
|
Missing
|
4,643
(97.27)
|
110
(2.73)
|
|
|
|
Emotional Violence
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has not experienced said violence
|
9,955
(94.78)
|
357
(5.22)
|
0.97
|
1
|
|
Experienced violence but did not confide
|
2,409
(94.98)
|
108
(5.02)
|
0.96
(0.67–1.37)
|
0.82
|
Experienced violence but confided
|
367
(94.94)
|
19
(5.06)
|
0.97
(0.47–1.98)
|
0.93
|
Missing
|
4,643
(97.27)
|
110
(2.73)
|
|
|
|
Physical Violence
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has not experienced said violence
|
11,308
(94.76)
|
421
(5.24)
|
0.75
|
1
|
|
Experienced violence but did not confide
|
1,072
(94.99)
|
50
(5.01)
|
0.95
(0.57–1.60)
|
0.86
|
Experienced violence but confided
|
351
(96.26)
|
13
(3.74)
|
0.70
(0.29–1.71)
|
0.44
|
Missing
|
4,643
(97.27)
|
110
(2.73)
|
|
|
|
Sexual violence
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has not experienced said violence
|
12,162
(94.75)
|
462
(5.25)
|
0.21
|
1
|
|
Experienced violence but did not confide
|
467
(96.29)
|
17
(3.71)
|
0.70
(0.37–1.30)
|
0.25
|
Experienced violence but confided
|
102
(97.55)
|
5
(2.45)
|
0.45
(0.15–1.34)
|
0.15
|
Missing
|
4,643
(97.27)
|
110
(2.73)
|
|
|
|
Hurting Partner
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
11,205
(94.80)
|
422
(5.20)
|
0.89
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
1,526
(94.99)
|
62
(5.01)
|
0.96
(0.56–1.64)
|
0.89
|
Missing
|
4,643
(97.27)
|
110
(2.73)
|
|
|
|
Alcohol intake of partner
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
4,981
(96.38)
|
151
(3.62)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
7,750
(93.96)
|
333
(6.04)
|
1.71
(1.24–2.37)
|
< 0.01
|
Missing
|
4,643
(97.27)
|
110
(2.73)
|
|
|
|
Respondent’s father beats mother
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
13,906
(95.69)
|
461
(4.31)
|
0.86
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
3,091
(95.83)
|
119
(4.17)
|
0.96
(0.64–1.45)
|
0.86
|
Missing
|
377
(94.59)
|
14
(5.41)
|
|
|
|
Educational attainment of respondent
|
|
|
|
|
|
No education
|
231
(100.00)
|
0
(0.00)
|
< 0.01
|
N/A
|
|
Primary education
|
2,962
(98.3)
|
40
(1.67)
|
0.21
(0.13–0.35)
|
< 0.01
|
Secondary education
|
8,518
(97.17)
|
221
(2.83)
|
0.37
(0.28–0.48)
|
< 0.01
|
Higher
|
5,662
(92.63)
|
333
(7.37)
|
1
|
|
Missing
|
1
(100.00)
|
0
(0.00)
|
|
|
|
Educational attainment of partner
|
|
|
|
|
|
No education
|
227
(99.64)
|
2
(0.36)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Primary education
|
3,556
(98.22)
|
54
(1.78)
|
4.97
(0.82–30.08)
|
0.08
|
Secondary education
|
4,999
(95.27)
|
184
(4.73)
|
13.66
(2.28–81.90)
|
< 0.01
|
Higher
|
3,296
(91.93)
|
195
(8.07)
|
24.14
(4.00 -145.58)
|
< 0.01
|
Missing
|
5,296
(96.75)
|
159
(3.25)
|
|
|
|
Domicile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban
|
5,853
(93.55)
|
378
(6.45)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Rural
|
11,521
(97.76)
|
216
(2.24)
|
0.33
(0.22–0.49)
|
< 0.01
|
Religion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roman Catholic
|
12,544
(95.42)
|
480
(4.58)
|
0.05
|
1
|
|
Protestant
|
1,659
(95.48)
|
55
(4.52)
|
0.99
(0.61–1.60)
|
0.96
|
Iglesia ni Cristo
|
507
(96.09)
|
13
(3.91)
|
0.85
(0.35–2.08)
|
0.72
|
Aglipay
|
244
(98.35)
|
6
(1.65)
|
0.35
(0.13–0.95)
|
0.04
|
Islam
|
1,560
(98.31)
|
16
(1.69)
|
0.36
(0.19–0.67)
|
< 0.01
|
Other Christian
|
538
(98.60)
|
11
(1.40)
|
0.30
(0.13–0.70)
|
< 0.01
|
Other/None
|
322
(95.91)
|
13
(4.09)
|
0.89
(0.41–1.93)
|
0.77
|
Access to newspaper or magazine
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
8,975
(97.08)
|
200
(2.92)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Less than once a week
|
6,267
(95.65)
|
242
(4.35)
|
1.51
(1.02–2.25)
|
0.04
|
At least once a week
|
2,132
(91.60)
|
152
(8.40)
|
3.05
(2.03–4.57)
|
< 0.01
|
Access to radio
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
5,228
(97.18)
|
130
(2.82)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Less than once a week
|
6,223
(95.60)
|
218
(4.40)
|
1.58
(1.13–2.22)
|
< 0.01
|
At least once a week
|
5,923
(94.71)
|
246
(5.29)
|
1.92
(1.34–2.77)
|
< 0.01
|
Access to television
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
1,643
(99.05)
|
15
(0.95)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Less than once a week
|
3,283
(94.72)
|
106
(5.28)
|
5.82
(2.79–12.11)
|
< 0.01
|
At least once a week
|
12,448
(95.66)
|
473
(4.34)
|
4.74
(2.31–9.71)
|
< 0.01
|
Access to internet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
7,764
(98.39)
|
96
(1.61)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Less than once a week
|
1,823
(95.91)
|
65
(4.09)
|
2.60
(1.72–3.93)
|
< 0.01
|
At least once a week
|
3,423
(96.66)
|
125
(3.34)
|
2.11
(1.36–3.27)
|
< 0.01
|
Almost every day
|
4,364
(92.55
|
308
(7.45)
|
4.91
(3.33–7.24)
|
< 0.01
|
Wealth index
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poorest
|
4,624
(99.16)
|
33
(0.84)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Poorer
|
3,936
(97.68)
|
92
(2.32)
|
2.79
(1.54–5.05)
|
< 0.01
|
Middle
|
3,334
(95.66)
|
134
(4.34)
|
5.32
(2.95–9.59)
|
< 0.01
|
Richer
|
2,970
(94.99)
|
160
(5.01)
|
6.19
(3.54–10.84)
|
< 0.01
|
Richest
|
2,510
(92.25)
|
175
(7.75)
|
9.87
(5.51–17.66)
|
< 0.01
|
Work (Employment status)
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
9,255
(97.06)
|
252
(2.94)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
8,119
(94.10)
|
342
(5.90)
|
2.07
(1.58–2.72)
|
< 0.01
|
Marital Status
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never in union
|
4,643 (97.27)
|
110
(2.73)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Married
|
9,017 (96.35)
|
256
(3.65)
|
1.35
(0.95–1.90)
|
0.09
|
Living with partner
|
3,067 (91.67)
|
180
(8.33)
|
3.23
(1.93–5.42)
|
< 0.01
|
Widowed/divorced/separated
|
647
(92.59)
|
48
(7.41)
|
2.85
(1.44–5.64)
|
< 0.01
|
Consistent condom use
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did not use condoms during most recent sexual encounter
|
11,655
(94.73)
|
432
(5.27)
|
0.18
|
1
|
|
Inconsistent condom use
|
51
(94.95)
|
5
(5.05)
|
0.95
(0.32–2.84)
|
0.93
|
Consistent condom use
|
190
(89.72)
|
11
(10.28)
|
2.06
(0.74–5.76)
|
0.17
|
Missing
|
5,478
(97.27)
|
146
(2.73)
|
|
|
|
Tobacco use
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
16,567
(95.87)
|
547
(4.13)
|
0.03
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
807
(92.56)
|
47
(7.44)
|
1.86
(1.05–3.32)
|
0.03
|
Alcohol consumption
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
13,145
(96.76)
|
376
(3.24)
|
< 0.01
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
4,229
(92.65)
|
218
(7.35)
|
2.37
(1.77–3.17)
|
< 0.01
|
Table 2
Continuous Variables and their association with HIV testing.
|
Range
|
Mean
|
Median
|
Distribution
|
p-value
|
Crude OR
(with 95% CI)
|
p-value of OR
|
Age of respondent (n = 17,968)
|
15–49
|
30.10
|
31
|
Right-skewed
|
< 0.01
|
1.02
(1.01–1.03)
|
< 0.01
|
Household size (n = 17,968)
|
1–21
|
5.35
|
5
|
Right-skewed
|
< 0.01
|
0.94
(0.87–1.01)
|
0.10
|
Age at first sex (n = 13,737)
|
8–45
|
20.38
|
19
|
Right-skewed
|
0.20
|
1.00
(0.97–1.04)
|
0.77
|
Age of partner (n = 12,334)
|
10–95
|
37.14
|
36
|
Right-skewed
|
< 0.01
|
0.97
(0.96–0.99)
|
< 0.01
|
Number of lifetime sexual partners (n = 13,998)
|
1–95+
|
1.41
|
1
|
Right-skewed
|
< 0.01
|
1.01
(1.00 -1.02)
|
0.17
|
Number of children (n = 17,968)
|
0–18
|
1.77
|
2
|
Right-skewed
|
0.86
|
0.99
(0.94–1.05)
|
0.75
|
HIV knowledge (n = 16,382)
|
0–8
|
5.18
|
5
|
Left-skewed
|
< 0.01
|
1.40
(1.25–1.58)
|
< 0.01
|
Tolerance to domestic violence score
(n = 17,968)
|
0–5
|
0.21
|
0
|
Right-skewed
|
0.02
|
0.75
(0.61–0.92)
|
< 0.01
|
Women’s empowerment score (n = 12,384)
|
0–13
|
4.82
|
4
|
Left-skewed
|
0.23
|
0.96
(0.87–1.05)
|
0.36
|
Extent of controlling behavior of spouse (n = 13,215)
|
0–5
|
0.72
|
0
|
Right-skewed
|
0.21
|
1.06
(0.92–1.22)
|
0.42
|
We also found that there is strong evidence of association between emotional violence and the following variables: physical violence, sexual violence, any form of violence, hurting one’s partner, alcohol intake of partner, having a father who beats her mother, educational attainment of respondent, educational attainment of partner, religion, access to television, wealth index, marital status, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, age at first sexual intercourse, number of lifetime sexual partners, number of children, HIV knowledge score, tolerance to domestic violence score, women’s empowerment score, and extent of controlling behavior of spouse (Supplementary File 1). On the other hand, the following variables are associated with physical violence: emotional violence, sexual violence, any form of violence, hurting one’s partner, alcohol intake of partner, having a father who beats her mother, educational attainment of respondent, educational attainment of partner, religion, access to internet, wealth index, employment status, marital status, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, age at first sexual intercourse, number of lifetime sexual partners, number of children, tolerance to domestic violence score, women’s empowerment score, and extent of controlling behavior of spouse (Supplementary File 2). We also found the following variables are found to be associated with sexual violence: emotional violence, physical violence, any form of violence, hurting partner, alcohol intake of partner, having a father who beats her mother, educational attainment of respondent, educational attainment of partner, domicile, access to internet, wealth index, marital status, employment status, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, age at first sexual intercourse, number of lifetime sexual partners, number of children, tolerance to domestic violence score, women’s empowerment score, and extent of controlling behavior of spouse (Supplementary File 3). Lastly, we the following variables are associated with any form of violence: hurting partner, alcohol intake of partner, respondent’s father beats her mother, educational attainment of respondent, domicile, religion, wealth index, marital status, employment status, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, age, age at first sexual intercourse, number of lifetime sexual partners, number of children, HIV knowledge score, tolerance to domestic violence score, women’s empowerment score, and extent of controlling behavior of spouse (Supplementary File 4). From these cross-tabulations, we control for the effect of the following confounders in the regression model: alcohol intake of partner, educational attainment of respondent, educational attainment of partner, domicile, religion, newspaper, weekly access to radio, tv and internet, wealth index, employment status, marital status, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, age of respondent, household size, age of partner, number of lifetime sexual partners, and tolerance to domestic violence score. Even if women’s empowerment score, having a father who beats her mother, and controlling behavior of partner is not associated with our outcome from the data, we will still be controlling for these variables because previous studies have shown that these are known to confound the main association of interest (13–25). We also assessed the potential confounding effect of the other remaining variables through regression modelling, but we did not find any, hence they were not controlled for in our final models.
Prior to multivariate analysis, we run a correlation matrix to assess potential autocorrelation. We find that the three specific types of IPV variables are correlated with the any type of IPV variable, further providing justification for two separate models. We also excluded respondents who have missing data from the remaining variables of interest, which meant that the multivariate analysis has an effective sample size of 10,265 (50.0%). After adjusting for confounding, experiencing any form of violence, but not confiding it with anyone lowers the odds of HIV testing by 12% (aOR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.60–1.29, Table 3) as compared to those who never experienced any form of violence. On the other hand, experiencing any form of violence and confiding it with anyone lowers the odds of HIV testing by 42% (aOR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.16–2.05). In our model for the specific types of violence, with respect to not experiencing emotional violence, those who have experienced it but have not confided it with anyone increases the odds of HIV testing by 19% (aOR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.80–1.79, Table 4), while those who experienced emotional violence but have confided it with other people increases the odds of HIV testing by 56% (aOR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.44–5.51). We also find that with respect to those who have not experienced physical violence, those who have experienced physical violence but have not confided it with anybody else decreases the odds of HIV testing by 28% (aOR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.35–1.48) while those who confided it with somebody else decreases the odds of HIV testing by 57% (aOR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.07–2.50). Lastly, we also find that with respect to those who have not experienced any form of sexual violence, those who experienced any form of sexual violence but have not confided it with anybody have a 42% (aOR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.21–1.60) lower odds of HIV testing, while those who have confided it with anybody has a 53% (aOR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.06–3.63) lower odds of HIV testing. None of these exposure variables showed a statistically significant association with HIV testing, however, urban domicile, weekly access to radio, almost daily access to internet, higher wealth index, living with partner, and high HIV knowledge score are strongly associated with greater odds of HIV testing.
Table 3
Association of experiencing any form of violence with HIV testing after adjusting for confounding (n = 10,265).
|
Adjusted Odds Ratio
|
95% Confidence Interval
|
p-value
|
Any Violence
|
|
|
|
Has not experienced said violence
|
1
|
|
|
Experienced violence but did not confide
|
0.88
|
0.60–1.29
|
0.52
|
Experienced violence but confided
|
0.58
|
0.16–2.05
|
0.40
|
Alcohol intake of partner
|
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
|
|
Yes
|
1.31
|
0.88–1.93
|
0.18
|
Educational attainment of respondent
|
|
|
|
Primary education
|
1
|
|
|
Secondary education
|
1.04
|
0.52–2.05
|
0.92
|
Higher
|
1.45
|
0.67–3.14
|
0.34
|
Educational attainment of partner
|
|
|
|
No education
|
1
|
|
|
Primary education
|
1.54
|
0.22–10.74
|
0.66
|
Secondary education
|
1.62
|
0.24–10.96
|
0.62
|
Higher
|
1.60
|
0.23–11.02
|
0.63
|
Domicile
|
|
|
|
Urban
|
1
|
|
|
Rural
|
0.52
|
0.33–0.80
|
< 0.01
|
Access to newspaper or magazine
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
1
|
|
|
Less than once a week
|
0.82
|
0.53–1.27
|
0.38
|
At least once a week
|
1.30
|
0.78–2.17
|
0.32
|
Access to radio
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
1
|
|
|
Less than once a week
|
1.49
|
0.91–2.45
|
0.11
|
At least once a week
|
1.79
|
1.11–2.89
|
0.02
|
Access to television
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
1
|
|
|
Less than once a week
|
2.34
|
0.92–5.97
|
0.07
|
At least once a week
|
2.15
|
0.89–5.19
|
0.09
|
Access to internet
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
1
|
|
|
Less than once a week
|
1.44
|
0.83–2.49
|
0.19
|
At least once a week
|
1.16
|
0.59–2.27
|
0.67
|
Almost every day
|
2.41
|
1.30–4.49
|
0.01
|
Wealth index
|
|
|
|
Poorest
|
1
|
|
|
Poorer
|
2.48
|
1.16–5.30
|
0.02
|
Middle
|
2.93
|
1.35–6.38
|
0.01
|
Richer
|
3.27
|
1.49–7.19
|
< 0.01
|
Richest
|
3.57
|
1.47–8.68
|
0.01
|
Work (Employment status)
|
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
|
|
Yes
|
1.09
|
0.78–1.53
|
0.62
|
Marital Status
|
|
|
|
Married
|
1
|
|
|
Living with partner
|
1.91
|
1.23–2.96
|
< 0.01
|
Alcohol consumption
|
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
|
|
Yes
|
1.16
|
0.80–1.70
|
0..43
|
Age of respondent
|
0.98
|
0.95–1.01
|
0.15
|
Household size
|
1.01
|
0.91–1.11
|
0.91
|
Age of partner
|
1.00
|
0.98–1.02
|
0.88
|
Number of lifetime sexual partners
|
1.01
|
0.99–1.02
|
0.48
|
HIV knowledge
|
1.26
|
1.08–1.46
|
< 0.01
|
Tolerance to domestic violence score
|
0.88
|
0.65–1.18
|
0.39
|
Tobacco use
|
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
|
|
Yes
|
1.33
|
0.74–2.39
|
0.35
|
Religion
|
|
|
|
Roman Catholic
|
1
|
|
|
Protestant
|
1.23
|
0.67–2.27
|
0.50
|
Iglesia ni Cristo
|
0.72
|
0.21–2.47
|
0.60
|
Aglipay
|
0.26
|
0.06–1.10
|
0.07
|
Islam
|
1.46
|
0.60–3.51
|
0.40
|
Other Christian
|
0.43
|
0.12–1.47
|
0.18
|
Other/None
|
1.02
|
0.42–2.49
|
0.96
|
Women’s empowerment score
|
0.97
|
0.87–1.09
|
0.64
|
Respondent’s father beats mother
|
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
|
|
Yes
|
1.04
|
0.64–1.69
|
0.88
|
Table 4
Association of experiencing specific forms of violence with HIV testing after adjusting for confounding (n = 10,265).
|
Adjusted Odds Ratio
|
95% Confidence Interval
|
p-value
|
Emotional Violence
|
|
|
|
Has not experienced said violence
|
1
|
|
|
Experienced violence but did not confide
|
1.19
|
0.80–1.79
|
0.39
|
Experienced violence but confided
|
1.56
|
0.44–5.51
|
0.49
|
Physical Violence
|
|
|
|
Has not experienced said violence
|
1
|
|
|
Experienced violence but did not confide
|
0.72
|
0.35–1.48
|
0.37
|
Experienced violence but confided
|
0.43
|
0.07–2.50
|
0.34
|
Sexual Violence
|
|
|
|
Has not experienced said violence
|
1
|
|
|
Experienced violence but did not confide
|
0.58
|
0.21–1.60
|
0.29
|
Experienced violence but confided
|
0.47
|
0.06–3.63
|
0.47
|
Alcohol intake of partner
|
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
|
|
Yes
|
1.30
|
0.88–1.93
|
0.19
|
Educational attainment of respondent
|
|
|
|
Primary education
|
1
|
|
|
Secondary education
|
1.02
|
0.51–2.03
|
0.95
|
Higher
|
1.45
|
0.67–3.15
|
0.35
|
Educational attainment of partner
|
|
|
|
No education
|
1
|
|
|
Primary education
|
1.63
|
0.23–11.35
|
0.62
|
Secondary education
|
1.70
|
0.25–11.53
|
0.58
|
Higher
|
1.69
|
0.25–11.61
|
0.60
|
Domicile
|
|
|
|
Urban
|
1
|
|
|
Rural
|
0.51
|
0.33–0.79
|
< 0.01
|
Access to newspaper or magazine
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
1
|
|
|
Less than once a week
|
0.82
|
0.53–1.28
|
0.39
|
At least once a week
|
1.29
|
0.77–2.15
|
0.33
|
Access to radio
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
1
|
|
|
Less than once a week
|
1.51
|
0.91–2.50
|
0.11
|
At least once a week
|
1.81
|
1.10–2.97
|
0.02
|
Access to television
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
1
|
|
|
Less than once a week
|
2.27
|
0.88–5.81
|
0.09
|
At least once a week
|
2.10
|
0.87–5.07
|
0.10
|
Access to internet
|
|
|
|
Not at all
|
1
|
|
|
Less than once a week
|
1.42
|
0.82–2.48
|
0.21
|
At least once a week
|
1.14
|
0.57–2.25
|
0.71
|
Almost every day
|
2.35
|
1.26–4.38
|
< 0.01
|
Wealth index
|
|
|
|
Poorest
|
1
|
|
|
Poorer
|
2.43
|
1.13–5.22
|
0.02
|
Middle
|
2.95
|
1.35–6.43
|
0.01
|
Richer
|
3.38
|
1.53–7.45
|
< 0.01
|
Richest
|
3.64
|
1.49–8.88
|
0.01
|
Work (Employment status)
|
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
|
|
Yes
|
1.09
|
0.77–1.53
|
0.62
|
Marital Status
|
Married
|
1
|
|
|
Living with partner
|
1.90
|
1.23–2.94
|
< 0.01
|
Alcohol consumption
|
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
|
|
Yes
|
1.15
|
0.79–1.68
|
0.47
|
Age of respondent
|
0.98
|
0.95–1.01
|
0.13
|
Household size
|
1.00
|
0.91–1.10
|
0.94
|
Age of partner
|
1.00
|
0.98–1.02
|
0.92
|
Number of lifetime sexual partners
|
1.00
|
0.99–1.02
|
0.65
|
HIV knowledge
|
1.26
|
1.08–1.47
|
< 0.01
|
Tolerance to domestic violence score
|
0.87
|
0.64–1.17
|
0.35
|
Tobacco use
|
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
|
|
Yes
|
1.36
|
0.75–2.45
|
0.31
|
Religion
|
|
|
|
Roman Catholic
|
1
|
|
|
Protestant
|
1.21
|
0.65–2.24
|
0.55
|
Iglesia ni Cristo
|
0.77
|
0.23–2.63
|
0.68
|
Aglipay
|
0.27
|
0.06–1.13
|
0.07
|
Islam
|
1.46
|
0.60–3.52
|
0.40
|
Other Christian
|
0.41
|
0.12–1.39
|
0.15
|
Other/None
|
1.02
|
0.42–2.46
|
0.97
|
Women’s empowerment score
|
0.97
|
0.87–1.09
|
0.59
|
Respondent’s father beats mother
|
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
|
|
Yes
|
1.04
|
0.64–1.69
|
0.87
|