Results of univariate analysis between the difference in FSW HIV prevalence (R2-R1) and different independent variables for each class of factors
| Types of independent variables | N | Coefficient of correlation (r) (if pv <0.1) | p value |
| Intervention factors | |||
| Difference* in consistent condom use (CCU) by FSW with occasional clients | 27 | – | ns |
| Difference in Syphilis (Tp) prevalence | 23 | 0.36 | 0.06 |
| Difference in HSV-2 prevalence (D.FSW HSV2) | 27 | 0.45 | 0.03 |
| Difference in gonorrhoea or Chlamydia prevalence | 27 | – | ns |
| Difference in the fraction tested for HIV | 27 | – | ns |
| %FSW contacted by NGO at R1 | 27 | – | ns |
| %FSW who visited NGO clinic at R1 | 27 | – | ns |
| %FSW who received condom from NGO at R1 | 27 | – | ns |
| Baseline contextual factors (mainly at R1) | |||
| R1 FSW HIV prevalence | 27 | −0.53 | <0.01 |
| R1 Syphilis (Tp) prevalence | 27 | −0.41 | 0.03 |
| R1 HSV-2 prevalence | 27 | −0.55 | <0.01 |
| R1 Gonorrhoea or Chlamydia prevalence | 27 | – | ns |
| R1 % of FSW ever been asked for anal intercourse (R1 AI) | 27 | −0.34 | 0.08 |
| R1 weekly client number per FSW | 27 | – | ns |
| R1 % FSW who are brothel based | 26 | – | ns |
| R1 % FSW tested for HIV | 27 | – | ns |
| Estimated CCU by FSW with occasional clients in 1998† | 20 | – | ns |
| Estimated increase in CCU with occasional clients before R1† | 21 | – | ns |
| Design factors (related to conduct of surveys) | |||
| Date of R1 | 27 | – | ns |
| Time between R1 and R2 | 27 | – | ns |
| Difference in response rate between survey rounds (R2−R1) | 27 | −0.39 | 0.06 |
| Contextual changes (difference between survey round (R2−R1)) | |||
| Differences in weekly client number per FSW | 27 | – | ns |
| Difference in the % FSW ever asked for AI | 27 | 0.35 | 0.08 |
| Different in the fraction of FSW who are literate | 27 | – | ns |
| Difference in the fraction of married FSW | 27 | – | ns |
| Difference in % FSW brothel based | 26 | – | ns |
| Difference in mean duration of sex work for FSW | 27 | – | ns |