It is worth noting, however, that we did not investigate the presence of gender homophily, which has been observed in primary schools [44], where the likelihood of infection transmission in school children of the same gender is high due to gender assortativity of contacts [41].
Gender of household contacts was not included due to the lack of difference shown between the comparison groups in Table 2.
Information was recorded on the age and gender of each contact, the location and duration of the contact, whether skin-to-skin contact had occurred, and how often the interviewee normally had contact with the individual.
Figure 5 Pairs categorized into different subsets based on gender, frequency of contact and distance of separation.
Gender, age of contact to the treatment clinic and age at ART commencement were excluded from the table as these were not significant in unadjusted analysis and so not included in adjusted analysis.
The multiple imputation model included age, gender, total number of contacts, all 15 PHQ-15 questions and the outcome variable MUPS.
Participants were not asked whether they identified as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, and the gender of individual sexual contacts was not specified.
Risk factors for the syndrome include age, sex (female gender), race, use of contact lenses, environmental conditions of low humidity, systemic medications and autoimmune disorders.
We did not find any significant difference by gender in the durations of contacts, with the distributions being essentially equal to the aggregated one.
We also included data on patient age, gender, and time of contact from the patient administration system as well as GP age and gender.
