Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Dual Diagn. 2011 July-September;7(3):117–129. doi: 10.1080/15504263.2011.592411

TABLE 2.

Effect of Service Cluster Membership on Odds of Good Treatment Response to ITa,b

GSI ASI-A ASI-D PTSD
n = 930 OR (SE) n = 332 OR (SE) n = 433 OR (SE) n = 615 OR (SE)
Cluster 1: Low service use (referent) —
—		 —
—		 —
—		 —
—
Cluster 2: High-intensity counseling use 0.837 (0.184) 1.790 (0.816) 0.709 (0.320) 0.943 (0.278)
Cluster 3: High-level residential treatment use 0.862 (0.216) 1.121 (0.557) 2.319 (1.157) 1.400 (0.464)
Cluster 4: Moderate-level residential treatment use 0.674 (0.158) 0.679 (0.292) 1.452 (0.610) 0.704 (0.128)
Cluster 5: High psychotropic drug and external medical costs 0.609* (0.121) 0.479* (0.179) 0.597 (0.233) 0.533** (0.128)
Wald test of joint significanceb 2.940
p = .401		 3.30
p = .347		 9.03
p = .061		 3.400
p = .333
a

All models controlled for site-level fixed effects and person-level characteristics, including demographics, illness/disability, insurance, current victimization, perceived need for treatment, mandated treatment, and baseline symptom severity.

b

GSI, ASI-A, and PTSD model tested for joint significance of coefficients for clusters 2, 3, and 4; ASI-D model tested for joint significance of all model coefficients.

*

Significant at 5%.

**

Significant at 1%.