TABLE 3—
Relation Between Degree Centrality (Increased Social Network Ties) and Main HIV Outcomes Variables: Harnessing Online Peer Education (HOPE) Intervention; Los Angeles, CA; September 2010–February 2011
| Intervention |
Control |
|||
| Group 1 (n = 26), B (P) | Group 2 (n = 28), B (P) | Group 3 (n = 26), B (P) | Group 4 (n = 27), B (P) | |
| Tested and returned kita | 58.59 (.09) | 11.65 (.43) | . . . | . . . |
| Followed up for test resultsab | Predicts perfectly | . . . | . . . | . . . |
| Participated in group discussionsa | Predicts perfectly | 20.54 (.09) | 24.09 (.34) | −4.58 (.8) |
| Used social networks to talk about sexual behaviors | 7.18 (.48) | 4.86 (.003) | −7.34 (.56) | −4.41 (.69) |
Note. Analyses include baseline social network ties as a covariate. The sample size was n = 107.
a
Insufficient control group participants tested and returned kits and followed up for test results to calculate associations with increased degree centrality.
b
Predicts perfectly: every individual who had an increase in network degree followed up for test results and participated in group discussions, making statistical modeling impossible.