Table 3.
Effects of chronic care management intervention for substance dependence on mutual help meeting attendance and addiction treatment utilization
BASELINE | 12-MONTH FOLLOW-UP | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outcome | Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control | Odds ratio† (95% confidence interval) | p |
All participants | n=282 | n=281 | n=270 | n=262 | n=553 | |
Any mutual help meeting attendance (No. (%)) | 136 (48%) | 133 (48%) | 147 (54%) | 147 (56%) | 0.91 (0.69, 1.19) § | 0.49 |
Any addiction treatment (No. (%)) | 95 (34%) | 111 (40%) | 132 (49%) | 116 (44%) | 1.41 (1.09, 1.83) § | 0.01 |
Any inpatient addiction treatment (No. (%)) | 60 (21%) | 70 (25%) | 49 (18%) | 48 (18%) | 0.97 (0.73, 1.30) § | 0.86 |
Any addiction medications (No. (%)) | 13 (5%) | 20 (7%) | 58 (21%) | 39 (15%) | 1.88 (1.28, 2.75) § | 0.001 |
Alcohol dependence subgroup | n=206 | n=207 | n=199 | n=195 | n=409 | |
Any mutual help meeting attendance (No. (%)) | 103 (50%) | 94 (46%) | 106 (53%) | 103 (53%) | 1.04 (0.76, 1.44) § | 0.79 |
Any addiction treatment (No. (%)) | 68 (33%) | 82 (40%) | 86 (43%) | 81 (42%) | 1.36 (1.01, 1.84) § | 0.04 |
Any inpatient addiction treatment (No. (%)) | 42 (20%) | 53 (26%) | 33 (17%) | 37 (19%) | 1.00 (0.71, 1.41) § | 1.00 |
Any addiction medications (No. (%)) | 8 (4%) | 16 (8%) | 32 (16%) | 19 (10%) | 2.12 (1.29, 3.48) § | 0.002 |
Drug dependence subgroup | n=233 | n=232 | n=224 | n=217 | n=458 | |
Any mutual help meeting attendance (No. (%)) | 114 (49%) | 113 (49%) | 126 (56%) | 126 (58%) | 0.91 (0.68, 1.22) § | 0.53 |
Any addiction treatment (No. (%)) | 81 (35%) | 96 (41%) | 119 (53%) | 99 (46%) | 1.47 (1.10, 1.96) § | 0.008 |
Any inpatient addiction treatment (No. (%)) | 54 (23%) | 60 (26%) | 43 (19%) | 43 (20%) | 0.96 (0.70, 1.31) § | 0.79 |
Any addiction medications (No. (%)) | 11 (5%) | 15 (6%) | 54 (24%) | 36 (17%) | 1.97 (1.30, 3.00) § | 0.001 |
Outcomes over the past 3 months were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 month follow-up
Corresponds to the main effect of the intervention in models that do not include interaction terms
from GEE Logistic Model