Skip to main content

Table 5 Logistic regression models examining alter measures at month-6 as mediators of intervention effect on alter cervical cancer (CC) screening

From: Mediators and moderators of the effect of the game changers for cervical cancer prevention intervention on cervical cancer screening among previously unscreened social network members in Uganda

 

CC Knowledge

CC risk management self-efficacy

CC prevention advocacy

Without mediator

With mediator

Without mediator

With mediator

Without mediator

With mediator

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

Intervention

1.76 (1.50, 2.08)

2.53 (0.83, 7.69)

1.42 (1.18, 1.71)

3.29 (1.09, 9.91)

2.09 (1.73, 2.51)

2.07 (0.59, 7.31)

Direct effect

--

4.48 (0.94, 21.20)

--

5.97 (1.43, 24.90)

--

1.82 (0.50, 6.66)

CC knowledge (bsln)

1.04 (1.01, 1.06)

1.06 (0.98, 1.14)

--

--

--

--

CC knowledge (M6

--

1.08 (0.99, 1.17)

--

--

--

--

CC risk management self-efficacy (bsln)

--

--

1.04 (1.00, 1.09)

1.14 (0.98, 1.32)

--

--

CC risk management self-efficacy (M6)

--

--

--

1.01 (0.73, 1.40)

--

--

CC prevention advocacy (bsln)

--

--

--

--

1.24 (1.10, 1.40)

0.91 (0.69, 1.20)

CC prevention advocacy (M6)

--

--

--

--

--

1.42 (1.15, 1.75)

Indirect effect

 

2.53 (0.93, 6.93)

 

2.22 (0.90, 5.52)

 

5.75

(1.90, 17.40)

  1. A two-step approach was used to test each potential mediator separately. In step one (“without mediator column”), the dependent variable was alter uptake of CC screening by month 6, while independent variables consisted of an indicator of study arm and the baseline measure of the mediator. In step two (“with mediator column”), the month 6 measure of the mediator was added to the model. Covariates included in each model consisted of age < 35 years, any secondary education, and presence of a main sex partner
  2. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; bsln = baseline; M6 = month-6 follow-up visit