Table 6.

Service Utilization by Intervention Assignment among Mutually Exclusive Client Subgroups Below the Federal Poverty Line (Model 2)

Involved in the Justice System (n = 158)Homeless, Not Involved in the Justice System (n = 298)Other Poor (n = 294)
RSCEPCEP vs. RS, Test (95% CI)ESRSCEPCEP vs. RS, Test (95% CI)ESRSCEPCEP vs. RS, Test (95% CI)ES
Nights spent in a behavioral health hospital (%)OROROR
    6-Month follow-up13.5 (4.2)7.5 (4.4)0.5 (0.1–2.3)0.2011.6 (4.1)6.3 (2.8)0.5 (0.1–2.1)0.196.8 (2.7)4.9 (2.0)0.7 (0.2–2.2)0.08
    12-Month follow-up4.0 (2.2)4.4 (2.2)1.1 (0.3–4.3)0.028.0 (2.0)5.1 (2.1)0.6 (0.2–1.8)0.121.8 (1.6)3.8 (1.8)2.4 (0.3–18.2)0.13
Any MHS outpatient visits (%)
    6-Month follow-up52.1 (7.2)61.0 (7.2)1.6 (0.6–4.3)0.1854.6 (5.1)52.8 (5.3)0.9 (0.5–1.8)0.0461.4 (5.3)55.4 (4.2)0.7 (0.4–1.4)0.12
    12-Month follow-up38.1 (7.5)42.4 (7.6)1.2 (0.5–2.9)0.0945.6 (5.0)41.3 (4.6)0.8 (0.4–1.6)0.0950.5 (5.3)48.1 (4.7)0.9 (0.5–1.7)0.05
# MHS outpatient visits (mean)IRRIRRIRR
    6-Month follow-up13.3 (4.4)10.4 (2.7)0.8 (0.3–1.9)0.1011.3 (3.7)8.2 (1.8)0.7 (0.3–1.9)0.1311.7 (3.4)6.9 (1.4)0.6 (0.3–1.3)0.24
    12-Month follow-up3.6 (1.0)4.4 (1.1)1.2 (0.7–2.2)0.087.6 (1.8)4.6 (0.8)0.6 (0.3–1.1)0.195.7 (1.7)5.5 (1.0)1.0 (0.5–1.9)0.02
MHS outpatient visits received advice for medication if visited (mean)
    6-Month follow-up14.3 (5.9)5.7 (1.1)0.4 (0.2–0.9)*0.3110.9 (4.4)4.9 (0.7)0.5 (0.2–1.1)0.2612.4 (4.3)5.3 (1.1)0.4 (0.2–1.1)0.35
    12-Month follow-up6.6 (1.9)6.1 (1.4)0.9 (0.5–2.0)0.056.1 (1.3)6.2 (1.3)1 (0.6–1.8)0.015.4 (1.8)6.1 (1.3)1.1 (0.5–2.7)0.07
MHS outpatient visits received counseling if visited (mean)
    6-Month follow-up24.9 (7.2)9.0 (2.4)0.4 (0.2–0.7)0.4814.8 (4.5)12.7 (2.3)0.9 (0.3–2.4)0.0715.8 (5.1)10.1 (2.5)0.6 (0.2–1.7)0.26
    12-Month follow-up8.0 (2.4)9.0 (1.7)1.1 (0.5–2.8)0.089.4 (1.9)7.8 (1.4)0.8 (0.5–1.4)0.138.9 (2.3)7.3 (1.6)0.8 (0.4–1.5)0.15
Any outpatient substance abuse service or self-help group (%)OROROR
    6-Month follow-up39.1 (6.9)38.8 (5.8)1 (0.4–2.3)0.0124.3 (5.0)30.9 (4.7)1.5 (0.7–3.3)0.1523.9 (5.9)26.6 (6.1)1.2 (0.4–3.6)0.06
    12-Month follow-up23.0 (4.7)22.8 (6.2)1 (0.4–2.6)0.0117.7 (3.9)20.5 (4.2)1.2 (0.5–3.1)0.0716.0 (4.5)19.8 (4.5)1.3 (0.4–4.3)0.10
Stayed in residential treatment for substance abuse problem (%)
    6-Month follow-up18.4 (4.7)19.6 (5.4)1.1 (0.4–2.7)0.0310.5 (4.2)15.7 (4.1)1.8 (0.6–5.5)0.169.8 (5.2)12.1 (5.3)1.3 (0.3–6.2)0.07
    12-Month follow-up7.3 (3.9)6.8 (3.4)1.0 (0.2–4.4)0.0210.2 (2.7)8.3 (3.1)0.8 (0.3–2.1)0.073.7 (2.3)3.3 (2.0)0.9 (0.1–5.9)0.02
Visited primary care (%)
    6-Month follow-up58.3 (6.5)60.9 (9.4)1.1 (0.4–3.4)0.0564.2 (4.3)72.0 (4.4)1.5 (0.8–2.9)0.1773.3 (3.8)65.5 (4.3)0.7 (0.4–1.2)0.17
    12-Month follow-up53.7 (5.7)63.7 (7.4)1.6 (0.7–3.4)0.2061.2 (5.4)70.8 (4.5)1.6 (0.8–3.1)0.2062.8 (4.8)74.5 (4.3)1.8 (1.0–3.3)0.25
Visits in community (informal) sector for depression (mean)
    6-Month follow-up2.8 (1.6)4.7 (1.7)1.7 (0.5–5.8)0.141.9 (0.8)4.5 (1.8)2.3 (0.8–7.1)0.111.8 (1.2)4.3 (1.8)2.5 (0.5–12.2)0.18
    12-Month follow-up1.3 (0.8)4.8 (3.1)3.6 (0.8–15.7)0.182.4 (0.8)4.2 (1.8)1.8 (0.6–5)0.111.0 (0.4)3.2 (1.6)3.3 (1.0–11.0)*0.21
Outpatient contacts for depression, all sectors (mean)
    6-Month follow-up28.3 (8.0)33.1 (8.3)1.2 (0.7–2.1)0.0725.2 (7.5)21.3 (5.5)0.8 (0.3–2.7)0.0822.3 (6.2)19.1 (4.8)0.9 (0.4–1.9)0.08
    12-Month follow-up11.4 (3.5)21.8 (5.9)1.9 (1.0–3.8)0.2724.5 (4.5)17.5 (3.9)0.7 (0.4–1.2)0.1320.5 (5.0)17.5 (3.7)0.9 (0.5–1.6)0.09
  • Data are estimate (standard error) unless otherwise indicated.

  • Intervention–by–vulnerable subgroups interaction models used multiple imputed data weighted for eligible sample for enrollment and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. A logistic regression model was used for a binary variable (presented as odds ratio [OR]) or a Poisson regression model for a count variables (presented as incidence rate ratios [IRR]); adjusted for baseline status of the dependent variable, age, education, race/ethnicity, 12-month depressive disorder, and community; and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. No significant interactions of intervention by poverty status were found for any outcome variables.

  • * P < .05.

  • P < .01.

  • CEP, Community Engagement and Planning; CI, confidence interval; ES, standardized effect size; MHS, mental health service; RS, Resources for Services.