TABLE 2—

Factors Associated With Chinese Immigrant Religious Institutions’ Views on Approaches to HIV Education: New York City, 2009–2011

	Model 1a		Model 2b		Model 3c
Predictors	b (95% CI)	P or F; P	b (95% CI)	P or F; P	b (95% CI)	P or F; P
Intercept	4.78 (4.03, 5.54)	≤ .001	3.44 (3.14, 3.73)	≤ .001	3.14 (0.02, 6.25)	.049
Religion type		F(2, 687) = 3.70; .025		F(2, 691) = 10.02; ≤ .001		F(2, 680) = 0.76; .47
Buddhist	−0.78 (−1.35, −0.21)	.008	0.3002 (0.07, 0.53)	.009	−0.41 (−3.26, 2.43)	.776
Evangelical	−0.63 (−1.31, 0.05)	.07	−0.4563 (−0.83, −0.09)	.016	0.05 (−2.80, 2.90)	.972
Mainline (Ref)	0.00		0.00		0.00
Age, y					−0.02 (−0.02, −0.01)	≤ .001
Acculturation level (range = 0–16)	−0.041 (−0.07, −0.01)	.006			−0.10 (−0.20, −0.01)	.035
Church or temple attendance (range = 0–8)					−0.27 (−0.78, 0.25)	.304
Prayer or meditation frequency (range = 0–6)	−0.24 (−0.45, −0.04)	.019			−0.06 (−0.10, −0.01)	.011
HIV knowledge (range = 0–16)	0.04 (0.01, 0.07)	.006	0.05 (0.03, 0.08)	≤ .001	0.13 (0.10, 0.17)	≤ .001
Male					0.26 (0.03, 0.49)	.028
Religion × acculturation						F(2, 680) = 6.59; .002
Religion × church or temple attendance						F(2, 680) = 3.61; .028
Religion × prayer or meditation frequency		F(2, 687) = 3.92; .02
Religion × HIV knowledge						F(2, 680) = 4.39; .013

Note. CI = confidence interval.

^aModel 1: support for teaching adolescents about condoms (n = 712).

^bModel 2: support for nonjudgmental discussion of homosexuality (n = 712).

^cModel 3: disagreement that teaching abstinence should be main point of workshop (n = 712).