1) (59.66.1) (39.26.0) (52.18.1) 0.103 (39.18.9) (59.37.1) (41.73.0) (39.08.four) 0.159 (40.73.1) (34.48.0) (42.18.5) (42.43.0) 0.362 (43.76.four) (53.26.7) (67.13.0) (45.75.6) (57.41.six) (39.56.8) (38.51.six) (59.84.8) (62.20.0) (47.57.7) (48.36.3)p Value 0.0.411 0.0.562 0.0.a The probability of HIV testing as time passes amongst Black, non-Latinos and patients attending CHC was connected having a p 0.05 in our generalized linear model. b CHC, neighborhood health center; {ED, emergency department.trends in testing over time.21,22 Specifically, using the coefficients from the estimated logit models the following prediction equation was estimated: Probability(HIV testing in year i) = 1/1 + e – (B0 + B1X1 + B2X2 + B3 (X1 * X2)), where i indexes the year or policy period of the surveys, and the terms of the prediction model were the indicator for the survey wave and the primary sociodemographic or access exposures of interest (e.g., race, gender, insurance status) and their interaction. Confidence intervals of the predicted probabilities were generated using standard errors estimated using the delta method. All descriptive statistics and regression analysesTable 2.Anagliptin Odds of HIV Testing in Later Years Compared to 2002, Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Health Survey Odds ratio, 95 CI 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 0.92 1.03 1.17 1.47 ref (0.82.03) (0.86.23) (1.00.37) (1.22.76)MOMPLAISIR ET AL.FIG. 1. The curves represent the predicted probability of HIV testing between 2002 and 2010 using HIV testing data from the Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Survey, a biennial telephone survey of 50,698 adults in Pennsylvania. The sample is representative of the region sampled. CHC, community health center; ED, emergency department.Montelukast sodium HIV TESTING TRENDS IN PENNSYLVANIAFIG.PMID:25818744 1.(Continued)used balancing weights specific to the SEPA Household Health Survey accounting for race, age, gender, household size, and income based on US Census data. Data analyses were done using STATA 12.ResultsBetween 2002 and 2010, 50,698 adults were surveyed, roughly 10,000 people per survey year (Table 1). The majority were female (53.8 ), White (69.2 ), and married (55.2 ). Over 35 were 189 years old and 44.7 had a 4-year college degree. Nearly 10 of the sample lived below the federal poverty line, and 8 were uninsured. The majority of patients had access to primary care (89.4 ), with most receiving care in a private clinic (78.4 ). In total, 97.1 of individuals responded to the HIV testing question. HIV testing gradually increased and significantly peaked in 2010, rising from 42.1 (95 CI, 37.46.7) in2002 to 51.4 (95 CI 42.50.7) in 2010 (Table 1). Compared to 2002, the odds of HIV testing were: 3 higher in 2006 (95 CI 0.86.23), 17 higher in 2008 (95 CI 1.00.37), and 47 higher in 2010 (95 CI 1.22.76) (Table 2). When comparing the period preceding the CDC recommendation (2002006) to the post recommendation period, HIV testing increased overall by 33 (OR 1.33, 95 CI 1.23.44, p 0.001). We performed a subanalysis excluding those aged 65 or older from the sample and found that HIV testing was higher in the remaining group (age 184): HIV testing was 48.5 (95 CI 43.63.3) in 2002 and rose to 58.8 (95 CI 49.67.9) in 2010. HIV testing increased among all demographic and socioeconomic groups, but differences in testing which existed before 2006 persisted (Fig. 1). In 2002, the probability of HIV testing among people age 189 was 0.58 (95 CI 0.540.63) compared to 0.16 (95 CI 0.13.19) amon.