9. An article from the American Journal of Public Health reports the results from a randomized study designed to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention targeted to Hispanic/Latino men who identify as gay, bi-sexual or other men who have sex with men (MSM). A representative sample of 254 such men was randomized to be in either the intervention group (n=152, with 141 ultimately participating in the study) or the control group (n=152, with 147 ulitmately participating in the study). The primary outcome under study getting tested for HIV within the six-months following group assignment (randomization) among those who had been sexually active in this same six-month follow-up period. At six months of follow-up, 141 subjects in the intervention group reported having had sex (with men and/or women) since randomization. Of these 141 men, 114 had been tested for HIV since being randomized. At six months of follow-up, 147 subjects in the control group reported having had sex (with men and/or women) since randomization. Of these 147 men, 40 had been tested for HIV since being randomized. The difference in proportions of men being tested in the intervention group compared to the control group is 0.54 (54%). Suppose this intervention were used in a community with 1,000 Hispanic/Latino men who identify as gay. bi-sexual or other men who have sex with men (MSM). What would be the expected effect on HIV testing outcomes? There would be an estimated 460 fewer men getting tested for HIV (in the six months following the intervention) than if the intervention was not given. There would be an estimated 540 fewer men getting tested for HIV (in the six months following the intervention) than if the intervention was not given. There would be an estimated 460 more men getting tested for HIV (in the six months following the intervention) than if the intervention was not given. There would be an estimated 540 more men getting tested for HIV (in the six months following the intervention) than if the intervention was not given.