Table 4.

Mixed Model Growth Analysis—Dependent Variable, Natural Logarithm Stigma

	Unconditional means model	Unconditional growth model	Growth model missing medications	Growth model with missing medications, health worries, symptoms & social support with country
Fixed Effectsa	Model A	Model B	Model C	Model D	Guide to coefficients in Model D
Initial status—Intercept (standard error [SE])	0.300 (0.009)	0.330 (0.010)	0.290 (0.015)	0.206 (0.024)	1. Significant variation in individual initial stigma scores about the mean score of 0.23 (ln 0.206).
Initial status—Missed medications yes/no			0.041 (0.020)	0.046 (0.018)	2. Significantly higher initial stigma scores in individual who reported missing at least one ARV dose in the past month.
Initial status—Medication worries				ns	3. No significant difference in report of worries about taking medications support on initial stigma scores.
Initial status—Uses support group				0.053 (0.014)	4. Individuals who participated in support group more frequently reported significantly higher initial stigma scores.
Initial status—Symptom intensity				0.039 (0.005)	5. For every unit increase in the report of symptom intensity, there is a significant increase in the baseline report of stigma.
Initial status—Country—Lesotho				0.141 (0.028)	6. Lesotho participants reported higher than average initial stigma scores.
Initial status—Malawi				−0.120 (0.012)	7. Malawi participants reported lower than average initial stigma scores.
Initial status—South Africa				ns	8. South African participants reported initial stigma scores that were near the group average.
Initial status—Swaziland				−0.029 (0.006)	9. Swaziland participants reported lower than average initial stigma scores.
Initial status—Tanzania				ns	10. Tanzanian participants reported initial stigma scores that were near the group average.
Rate of change—Intercept		−0.037 (0.007)	−0.057 (0.011)	ns	11. There is no significant change in the average stigma group scores over the 1-year period.
Rate of change—Missed medications yes/nob time			0.057 (.016)	0.032 (0.014)	12. Individuals who reported missing at least one ARV dose in the past month report significantly higher stigma scores over time.
Rate of change—Medication worriesb time				−0.009 (0.003)	13. Individuals who reported fewer worries about their medication taking had significantly decreased mean stigma scores over time.
Rate of change—Support groupb time				ns	14. There was no significant interaction of support group use on reported stigma over time.
Rate of change—Symptom intensityb time				ns	15. There was no significant interaction of symptom intensity on the report of stigma over time.
Rate of change—Lesotho				−0.107 (0.018)	16. Lesotho participants reported significantly decreasing reports of stigma over time.
Rate of change—Malawi				0.043 (0.008)	17. Malawi participants reported significantly increasing reports of stigma over time.
Rate of change—South Africa				−0.019 (0.007)	18. South African participants reported significantly decreasing stigma over time.
Rate of change—Swaziland				ns	19. Swaziland participants reported stigma scores were consistently lower and nonvarying over time.
Rate of change—Tanzania				ns	20. Tanzania participants reported stigma scores were near the group mean and nonvarying over time.
Variance components Within-person variation	0.056 (0.002)	0.049 (0.003)	0.044 (0.003)	0.042 (0.003)	21. There is significant remaining unexplained within-person variation in stigma scores.
Initial status of stigma	0.028 (0.003)	0.041 (0.005)	0.040 (0.006)	0.017 (0.004)	22. There is significant remaining unexplained variation in the initial total stigma scores.
Level 2 in rate of change of stigma		0.006 (0.002)	0.005 (0.002)	0.0004 ns	23. There is no significant remaining unexplained variation in the rates of change in stigma scores over time.
Within-person variation of stigma			10%	4.5%	24. There is a total of 14.5% explained variance in the within person variation from model B by adding the level 2 predictors to the model.
Initial status variation of stigma			2%	57%	25. There is a total of 59% additional explained variance in initial stigma scores by adding the level 2 predictors to the model.
Rate of change variation of stigma			17%	92%	26. 92% of the variation in change over time in reported stigma is explained by adding the level 2 predictors to the model.
Goodness of Fit (lower is better)
Deviance statistic	475	439b	257b	46b	27. The addition of level 2 predictor variables to the unconditional growth model (Model B) significantly improved the model fit.
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)	481	451	273	14
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC)	498	484	316	70

DV, dependent variable; ln, natural logarithm; ns, not significant; ARV, antiretroviral.

^aAll parameters are significant at the p < 0.01 level except where noted.

^bχ² significant improvement in model fit.