Table 3.

IllustrationofIntensityEffectSizes(ESs)of(A)FindingswithFrequencyEffectSizes >25%(n = 12) and (B) All Findings (n = 63)

	Intensity ESs (%)
Report	A	B	Formatted Findings With Frequency Effect Sizes
Abel	50	16	Favoring adherence
			Belief in effectiveness, advantages, and lack of harm of ARVs (Abel, Erlen, Fourney, Garcia-Teague, Misener, Richter, Schrimshaw, Siegel & Lekas; 39%)
			Supportive, trustworthy, accessible, or demonstrably caring MD/provider (Abel, Misener, Powell-Cope, Sankar, Siegel & Lekas; 26%)
			Having less complex regimen, or one that allows integration into routine schedule (Abel, Gant, Powell-Cope, Richter; 21%)
			Receiving understandable educational materials (Abel, Fourney; 11%)
			Access to care and to providers to answer questions (Abel, Sankar; 11%)
			Having aids and prompts (Abel, Powell-Cope; 11%)
			Favoring Non-adherence
			Side effects of ARV (Abel, Erlen, Fourney, Gant, Garcia-Teague, Jones, Mellins, Misener, Powell-Cope, Richter, Roberts, 2000, 2003, Schrimshaw, Siegel & Gorey, Siegel & Lekas, Wilson, S. Wood; 89%)
			Not wanting others to notice or know HIV status (Abel, Durante, Erlen, Garcia-Teague, Jones, Powell-Cope, Roberts, 2000, 2003, Sankar, Wilson, S. Wood; 58%)
			Having ARV regimen that is difficult to execute in routine daily schedule (e.g., forget, asleep; Abel, Durante, Erlen, Fourney, Gant, Garcia-Teague, Jones, Powell-Cope, Roberts, 2000, Wilson, S. Wood; 58%)
			Denial of, ambivalence about, HIV; negative Emotions/emotional trauma associated with chronicity and uncertainty of HIV (Abel, Durante, Fourney, Garcia-Teague, Jones, Powell-Cope, Sankar, S. Wood; 37%)