Engagement in HIV Medical Care and Technology Use among Stimulant-Using and Nonstimulant-Using Men who have Sex with Men

Table 3

Estimated effect of recent (past 30 days) stimulant use on engagement in HIV care in past year.

Ref. no missed appointments	Model 1^a	Model 2^b	Model 3^c
	RRR^d (95% CI^e),; 𝑃 value	RRR (95% CI),; 𝑃 value	RRR (95% CI),; 𝑃 value
Missed appointment(s)
Stimulant use	1.84 (0.87, 3.87),; 𝑃=0.111	1.99 (0.91, 4.37),; 𝑃=0.085	1.73 (0.72, 4.16),; 𝑃=0.218
Age	—^f	0.98 (0.94, 1.01),; 𝑃=0.121	0.97 (0.94, 1.01),; 𝑃=0.127
Nonwhite race/ethnicity	—	1.56 (0.82, 2.96),; 𝑃=0.173	1.68 (0.85, 3.32),; 𝑃=0.136
Education
High school or less	—	Ref.	Ref.
Technical school/some college	—	0.45 (0.19, 1.08),; 𝑃=0.075	0.51 (0.20, 1.28),; 𝑃=0.152
College degree	—	0.20 (0.08, 0.52),; 𝑃=0.001	0.21 (0.08, 0.58),; 𝑃=0.003
Depression	—	—	1.04 (0.48, 2.27),; 𝑃=0.915
Life chaos	—	—	1.17 (1.09, 1.26),; 𝑃=0.000
Not in HIV medical care
Stimulant use	2.84 (1.07, 7.58),; 𝑃=0.036	3.16 (1.13, 8.84),; 𝑃=0.028	3.44 (1.17, 10.15),; 𝑃=0.025
Age	—	0.97 (0.92, 1.01),; 𝑃=0.152	0.97 (0.92, 1.01),; 𝑃=0.162
Nonwhite race/ethnicity	—	2.33 (0.95, 5.70),; 𝑃=0.063	2.58 (1.04, 6.40),; 𝑃=0.041
Education
High school or less	—	Ref.	Ref.
Technical/some college	—	0.64 (0.17, 2.31),; 𝑃=0.491	0.73 (0.20, 2.73),; 𝑃=0.642
College degree	—	0.22 (0.05, 0.94),; 𝑃=0.040	0.22 (0.05, 0.98),; 𝑃=0.047
Depression^g	—	—	0.54 (0.19, 1.52),; 𝑃=0.242
Life chaos^h	—	—	1.11 (0.99, 1.23),; 𝑃=0.065

Notes: ^aunadjusted model; ^bModel 1 plus demographic variables significantly associated with treatment engagement in the bivariate analyses; ^cModel 2 plus psychosocial variables significantly associated with treatment engagement in the bivariate analyses, 5 missing cases; ^drelative risk ratio; ^econfidence interval; ^fvariable not included in model; ^gusing the 10-item CES-D scale [30]; ^husing the life chaos scale [32].