<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lam, Christine A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sherbourne, Cathy</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tang, Lingqi</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Belin, Thomas R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Williams, Pluscedia</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Young-Brinn, Angela</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Miranda, Jeanne</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wells, Kenneth B.</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Impact of Community Engagement on Health, Social, and Utilization Outcomes in Depressed, Impoverished Populations: Secondary Findings from a Randomized Trial</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Journal of the American Board of Family
                Medicine</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016-05-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">325-338</style></pages><doi><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.3122/jabfm.2016.03.150306</style></doi><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">29</style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Background: Disparities in depression care exist among the poor. Community Partners in Care (CPIC) compared a community coalition model with technical assistance to improve depression services in under-resourced communities. We examine effects on health, social, and utilization outcomes among the poor and, non-poor depressed, and poor subgroups.Methods: This study analyzed clients living above (n = 268) and below (n = 750) the federal-poverty level and, among the poor, 3 nonoverlapping subgroups: justice-involved (n = 158), homeless and not justice-involved (n = 298), and other poor (n = 294). Matched programs (n = 93) from health and community sectors were randomly assigned to community engagement and planning (CEP) or resources for services (RS). Primary outcomes were poor mental health–related quality of life and 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores, whereas community-prioritized and utilization outcomes were secondary. Effects were scrutinized using false discovery rate–adjusted P values to account for multiple comparisons.Results: In the impoverished group, CEP and RS clients of participating study programs did not differ in primary outcomes, but CEP more than RS improved mental wellness among the depressed poor (unadjusted P = .004) while providing suggestive evidence for other secondary outcomes. Within the poor subgroups, evidence favoring CEP was only suggestive but was strongest among justice-involved clients.Conclusions: A coalition approach to improving outcomes for low-income clients with depression, particularly those involved in the justice system, may offer additional benefits over standard technical assistance programs.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>