Table 4.

Service Utilization By Poverty Status and Intervention Assignment (Model 1)

Not Below the Federal Poverty Line (n = 268)Below the Federal Poverty Line (n = 750)
RSCEPCEP vs. RS, Test (95% CI)ESRSCEPCEP vs. RS, Test (95% CI)ES
Spent nights in a behavioral health hospital (%)OROR
    6-Month follow-up10.9 (4.0)5.4 (2.6)0.5 (0.2–1.3)0.2010.4 (2.2)5.9 (1.6)0.5 (0.3–1.1)0.17
    12-Month follow-up5.0 (1.9)3.9 (1.5)0.8 (0.2–2.4)0.055.1 (1.2)4.5 (1.0)0.9 (0.4–1.7)0.03
Any MHS outpatient visits (%)
    6-Month follow-up50.3 (6.7)51.0 (5.4)1.0 (0.5–2.0)0.0155.4 (3.4)54.4 (3.6)0.9 (0.6–1.6)0.02
    12-Month follow-up44.4 (6.1)40.3 (6.0)0.8 (0.3–2.1)0.0844.5 (3.8)43.4 (3.8)0.9 (0.6–1.5)0.02
MHS outpatient visits (mean)IRRIRR
    6-Month follow-up7.5 (2.6)8.0 (1.7)1.1 (0.5–2.5)0.0311.7 (2.4)8.0 (1.3)0.7 (0.4–1.3)0.15
    12-Month follow-up5.5 (1.9)4.7 (1.2)0.9 (0.4–1.9)0.066.0 (1.0)4.8 (0.5)0.8 (0.5–1.2)0.09
MHS outpatient visits in which advice for medication was received (mean)
    6-Month follow-up7.0 (3.3)5.3 (0.8)0.8 (0.3–2.2)0.1112.2 (2.8)5.2 (0.5)0.4 (0.2–0.7)*0.30
    12-Month follow-up6.4 (2.5)8.2 (2.0)1.3 (0.5–3.4)0.126.0 (1.0)6.1 (0.8)1.0 (0.6–1.6)0.01
MHS outpatient visits during which counseling was received (mean)
    6-Month follow-up10.5 (3.6)10.7 (1.9)1.0 (0.5–2.3)0.0117.3 (3.3)10.7 (1.4)0.6 (0.3–1.2)0.24
    12-Month follow-up9.3 (2.6)10.3 (2.4)1.1 (0.5–2.3)0.068.9 (1.3)7.7 (0.8)0.9 (0.6–1.3)0.10
Any outpatient substance abuse service or self-help group (%)OROR
    6-Month follow-up22.3 (3.9)28.3 (5.5)1.5 (0.6–3.6)0.1428.0 (4.3)30.6 (3.7)1.2 (0.7–2.1)0.06
    12-Month follow-up13.7 (3.2)18.4 (3.6)1.5 (0.7–3.3)0.1318.6 (3.0)20.5 (3.3)1.1 (0.6–2.3)0.05
Stayed in residential treatment for substance abuse problem (%)
    6-Month follow-up12.8 (4.1)12.4 (4.1)1.0 (0.4–2.6)0.0112.8 (3.5)15.1 (3.7)1.3 (0.6–2.6)0.07
    12-Month follow-up5.2 (2.4)3.8 (2.8)0.6 (0.0–11.6)0.077.4 (1.9)5.9 (2.0)0.8 (0.3–1.9)0.06
Visited primary care (%)
    6-Month follow-up73.0 (3.9)67.5 (5.6)0.8 (0.4–1.5)0.1266.7 (3.5)67.8 (3.6)1.1 (0.7–1.6)0.02
    12-Month follow-up71.1 (4.9)68.6 (4.7)0.9 (0.4–1.8)0.0561.1 (2.7)71.7 (2.7)1.7 (1.2–2.4)*0.23
Visits in community (informal) sector for depression (mean)
    6-Month follow-up3.7 (1.7)3.0 (1.5)0.8 (0.2–3.0)0.042.2 (0.5)4.4 (1.0)2.0 (1.1–3.9)0.15
    12-Month follow-up2.5 (1.0)2.5 (1.5)0.9 (0.3–3.6)0.001.7 (0.4)3.9 (1.2)2.3 (1.1–5.1)0.14
Outpatient contacts for depression all sectors (mean)
    6-Month follow-up16.4 (3.8)19.8 (4.8)1.2 (0.6–2.3)0.0925.0 (4.8)22.6 (3.1)0.9 (0.5–1.6)0.05
    12-Month follow-up14.7 (4.9)14.6 (3.9)1.0 (0.4–2.2)0.0019.8 (2.8)18.0 (2.6)0.9 (0.6–1.3)0.04
  • 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 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 the 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 < .01.

  • P < .05.

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