Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: AIDS Behav. 2016 Jun;20(6):1256–1264. doi: 10.1007/s10461-015-1252-2

Table I. State-Level Random Effects of Action Words on Counties' HIV Prevalence.

State Intercept B
Alabama -0.30 -0.15
Arizona -0.07 0.05
Arkansas -0.16 -0.07
California -0.19 -0.15
Colorado 0.04 -0.35
Connecticut -0.08 -0.41
Delaware -0.11 -0.46
Florida 0.08 -0.60
Georgia -0.11 -0.23
Hawaii -0.07 -0.04
Idaho -0.09 -0.04
Illinois -0.13 0.12
Indiana -0.06 -0.04
Iowa -0.11 -0.02
Maryland -0.33 -2.42
Massachusetts 0.00 -0.14
Michigan -0.17 0.05
Minnesota -0.11 -0.05
Mississippi -0.32 -0.38
Missouri -0.01 -0.19
Montana -0.09 -0.02
Nebraska -0.09 0.01
Nevada -0.07 -0.18
New Hampshire -0.08 -0.08
New Jersey -0.17 -0.67
New Mexico -0.08 -0.05
New York 0.16 0.24
North Carolina -0.07 -0.19
Ohio -0.11 0.03
Oklahoma -0.13 -0.03
Oregon -0.10 -0.15
Pennsylvania -0.01 -0.12
Rhode Island -0.15 -0.15
South Carolina -0.07 -0.29
Tennessee 0.00 -0.16
Texas -0.23 -0.06
Utah -0.12 0.00
Vermont -0.07 -0.01
Virginia -0.01 -0.20
Washington -0.14 -0.05
West Virginia -0.07 -0.02
Wisconsin -0.14 0.01
Wyoming -0.07 0.00

Note. All variables were z-scored before analyses. Random effects are from a hierarchical linear model that allowed slopes and intercepts for action language to vary randomly between states and controlled for major socioeconomic determinants of HIV.