Intervention effects on cervical cancer screening, and other related outcomes, among alter participants at month 6
SE, cancer, SD, pre-cancerous lesions
REGRESSION, CANCER, CERVICAL CANCER, SECONDARY

All enrolled alters reported never having been screened for CC at baseline. Conversely, at month 6, 38 (66.7%) of 57 intervention alters who had completed the assessment had been screened for CC, compared to 7 (17.1%) of 41 control alters; after classifying the five cases with missing data at month 6 as “not screened”, 66.5% (38/58) of the intervention alters had been screened, compared to 15.6% (7/45) of control alters. Among the 45 alters who were screened, 3 were found to have pre-cancerous lesions and received thermal therapy, and two other screenings suggested potential cancer (neither woman received treatment, but one did receive a biopsy).Among the alters named by the index participants in their survey assessments (means of 7.8 and 8.9 alters named per index at baseline and month 6, respectively), no alters were perceived by the index to have been screened for CC at baseline; however, at month 6, 57.3% (SD = 23.7) of alters in the intervention group were perceived to have been screened for CC since baseline, compared to 14.4% in the control group [beta (SE) = 0.43 (0.06), p < .001]. Among enrolled alter participants, if the index participant who recruited the alter reported during the month 6 assessment that the alter had screened for CC, this perception was accurate for 88.2% of the cases.In multivariate regression models controlling for baseline measures of the dependent variable (except for CC screening) and covariates, alter participants in the intervention group were much more likely to have been screened for CC at month 6 [adjusted OR (95% CI) = 12.13 (4.07, 36.16)], and a greater percentage of named alters were perceived to have been screened by intervention index participants at month 6 [adjusted beta (SE) = 0.40 (0.07); p < .001], compared to counterparts in the control group (see Table 
Intervention effects on alter uptake of cervical cancer (CC) screening, and related outcomes, at month 6, controlling for baseline levels of the outcome and background characteristics* Odds ratio (OR) [and 95% confidence interval (CI)] or beta coefficient [and standard error (SE)] for main effect of the intervention, from logistic or linear regression model with the outcome measure at month 6 as the dependent variable, and independent variables being the baseline measure of the outcome (except for CC screening uptake, since all alters had never screened at baseline), treatment condition (intervention or control), and background characteristic covariates (age, secondary education, whether alter had a main sex partner, HIV status). The model for percent of alters perceived to have been screened for CC did not include alter background characteristic covariates, since this outcome was reported by index participants