Statistical methods




a) Explain how missing data were addressed

Missing data were excluded from each analysis, hence the use of subtotals with varying values.

b) If applicable, describe analytical methods taking account of sampling strategy

Although sampling was stratified according to sex and region, analysis only took into account differences in sex, one of the primary objectives. The use of region was only to give proportionate selection across the country.





a) Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study―e.g. numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and analyzed

The return rate was a hundred percent although not all the questions were answered by all the respondents (Page 19).



Descriptive data


a) Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders

The response rate to the questionnaire developed for this purpose was 974/1068 (91.2%). This may be attributable to those who decline to associate with a particular age group or perhaps did not know their correct ages. There were 484 females and the rest were males (Page 9).

b) Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest

See attachment

Outcome data


Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures

The respective Chi-square tables show this and should be used in conjunction with the logistic regression table.

Main results


a) Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (e.g., 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included

The logistic regression models were unadjusted and confounders not taken into account.

b) Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized.

This was done for age (years) as follows:

16-20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46 and over.

c) If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period

Relative odds were used instead of risk in the study.

Other analyses


Report other analyses done―e.g. analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses

These were not done.


Key results


Summarise key results with reference to study objectives

About 27% of the respondents have had either anal sex or have had homosexual experience before.

The curiosity of Ghanaians in sex appears to be quite extensive. They seem ready to try multiple configurations of sexual activities, including having sex with multiple partners, (ménage-a-trois) at the same time. More than 24% of the males and (19%) of the females said they would like to try to have sex with three, four or five persons at the same time (Page 9).



Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision.

In looking at the sexual habits of people, it is difficult to audit the true nature of the information provided by respondents. As far as Ghana is concerned, this is the first of its kind where a cross-sectional study of this nature has been carried out (page 19).

Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias

Admittedly, the sample could be biased. The return rate was a hundred percent although not all the questions were answered by all the respondents. This could be attributable to the youthfulness of the research assistants, who established a rapport with the respondents.

Due to the self-reporting nature of the questionnaire administered, it is possible that respondents might not be truthful, or have difficulty in expressing the true nature of their sexual proclivities and thus leading to poor characterization (page 19).