Health and Social Outcomes by Poverty Status and Intervention Assignment (Model 1)
| Income Not Below the Federal Poverty Line (n = 268) | Income Below the Federal Poverty Line (n = 750) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RS | CEP | CEP vs. RS, Test (95% CI) | ES | RS | CEP | CEP vs. RS, OR (95% CI) | ES | |
| Poor MHQOL (%) | OR | OR | ||||||
| 6-Month follow-up | 51.4 (4.4) | 37.0 (4.7) | 0.5 (0.3–1.1) | 0.29 | 51.6 (3.0) | 46.5 (2.5) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) | 0.10 |
| 12-Month follow-up | 45.3 (4.9) | 42.4 (5.8) | 0.9 (0.5–1.6) | 0.06 | 52.2 (3.0) | 45.7 (3.2) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) | 0.13 |
| PHQ-8 standard score (mean) | Difference | Difference | ||||||
| 6-Month follow-up | 12.1 (0.8) | 11.8 (0.7) | −0.2 (−2.6-2.2) | 0.04 | 13.1 (0.5) | 12.7 (0.5) | −0.4 (−2.3-1.4) | 0.06 |
| 12-Month follow-up | 10.9 (0.9) | 10.9 (0.8) | 0.0 (−2.2-2.3) | 0.00 | 12.4 (0.4) | 12.1 (0.4) | −0.3 (−1.5-0.9) | 0.04 |
| Mental wellness (%) | OR | OR | ||||||
| 6-Month follow-up | 40.1 (4.9) | 49.0 (6.5) | 1.5 (0.6–3.4) | 0.18 | 31.6 (3.0) | 44.6 (2.6) | 1.8 (1.2–2.7)* | 0.27 |
| 12-Month follow-up | 54.7 (5.7) | 51.0 (4.3) | 0.9 (0.5–1.6) | 0.07 | 44.8 (3.6) | 48.2 (3.4) | 1.2 (0.7–1.8) | 0.07 |
| Good physical health (%) | ||||||||
| 6-Month follow-up | 78.1 (4.3) | 80.2 (3.9) | 1.2 (0.5–2.5) | 0.05 | 73.5 (2.8) | 76.4 (2.2) | 1.2 (0.8–1.7) | 0.07 |
| 12-Month follow-up | 78.0 (4.2) | 77.4 (3.8) | 1.0 (0.5–1.9) | 0.01 | 69.6 (3.5) | 78.4 (2.8) | 1.6 (1.1–2.4)† | 0.20 |
| Homeless/risk (%) | ||||||||
| 6-Month follow-up | 38.1 (6.6) | 27.9 (4.8) | 0.6 (0.3–1.2) | 0.22 | 40.3 (3.4) | 30.3 (3.1) | 0.6 (0.4–1.0) | 0.21 |
| 12-Month follow-up | 25.7 (4.1) | 31.0 (5.3) | 1.3 (0.7–2.5) | 0.12 | 33.8 (3.6) | 35.7 (3.5) | 1.1 (0.8–1.6) | 0.04 |
| Worried about cost (%) | ||||||||
| 6-Month follow-up | 29.5 (4.5) | 32.2 (5.8) | 1.1 (0.5–2.7) | 0.06 | 33.0 (2.7) | 29.6 (2.6) | 0.9 (0.6–1.2) | 0.07 |
| 12-Month follow-up | 28.7 (4.8) | 30.1 (4.6) | 1.1 (0.6–2.0) | 0.03 | 32.6 (2.6) | 24.0 (3.2) | 0.6 (0.4–1.0)† | 0.19 |
| Life difficulties total score out of 15 (mean) | Difference | Difference | ||||||
| 6-Month follow-up | 3.0 (0.3) | 2.7 (0.3) | −0.3 (−1.0 to 0.5) | 0.12 | 3.0 (0.2) | 2.7 (0.1) | −0.3 (−0.7 to 0.2) | 0.12 |
| 12-Month follow-up | 2.6 (0.2) | 2.4 (0.2) | −0.2 (−0.9 to 0.4) | 0.09 | 2.8 (0.2) | 2.6 (0.2) | −0.2 (−0.5 to 0.2) | 0.09 |
Data are estimate (standard error) unless otherwise indicated.
Intervention–by–poverty status interaction models used multiple imputed data weighted for the sample eligible for enrollment and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. A linear regression model was used for a continuous variable (presented as between-group difference) or a logistic regression model for a binary variable (presented as odds ratio [OR]), adjusted for the baseline status of the dependent variable, age, education, race/ethnicity, 12-month depressive disorder, and community; it accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. No significant interactions of intervention and poverty status were found for any of the outcome variables.
↵* P < .01.
↵† P < .05.
CEP, Community Engagement and Planning; CI, confidence interval; ES, standardized effect size; MHQOL, mental health quality of life; RS, Resources for Services.