Table 3. Health and Social Outcomes By Poverty Status and Intervention Assignment (Model 1).
| Not Below the Federal Poverty Line (N=268) | Below the Federal Poverty Line (N=750) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||||
| RS | CEP | CEP vs. RS | RS | CEP | CEP vs. RS | |||
|
|
|
|||||||
| Estimate (SE) |
Estimate (SE) |
Test (95% CI) | ES | Estimate (SE) |
Estimate (SE) |
Test (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) | .29 | 51.6 (3.0) | 46.5 (2.5) | 0.8 (0.6, 1.1) | .10 |
| 12-month follow-up (%) | 45.3 (4.9) | 42.4 (5.8) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) | .06 | 52.2 (3.0) | 45.7 (3.2) | 0.8 (0.6, 1.1) | .13 |
|
| ||||||||
| PHQ-9 standard score | Difference | Difference | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (mean) | 12.1 (0.8) | 11.8 (0.7) | -0.2 (-2.6, 2.2) | .04 | 13.1 (0.5) | 12.7 (0.5) | -0.4 (-2.3, 1.4) | .06 |
| 12-month follow-up (mean) | 10.9 (0.9) | 10.9 (0.8) | 0.0 (-2.2, 2.3) | .00 | 12.4 (0.4) | 12.1 (0.4) | -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9) | .04 |
|
| ||||||||
| Mental wellness | OR | OR | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (%) | 40.1 (4.9) | 49.0 (6.5) | 1.5 (0.6, 3.4) | .18 | 31.6 (3.0) | 44.6 (2.6) | 1.8 (1.2, 2.7)** | .27 |
| 12-month follow-up (%) | 54.7 (5.7) | 51.0 (4.3) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) | .07 | 44.8 (3.6) | 48.2 (3.4) | 1.2 (0.7, 1.8) | .07 |
|
| ||||||||
| Good physical health | . | . | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (%) | 78.1 (4.3) | 80.2 (3.9) | 1.2 (0.5, 2.5) | .05 | 73.5 (2.8) | 76.4 (2.2) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.7) | .07 |
| 12-month follow-up (%) | 78.0 (4.2) | 77.4 (3.8) | 1.0 (0.5, 1.9) | .01 | 69.6 (3.5) | 78.4 (2.8) | 1.6 (1.1, 2.4)* | .20 |
|
| ||||||||
| Homeless/risk | . | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (%) | 38.1 (6.6) | 27.9 (4.8) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.2) | .22 | 40.3 (3.4) | 30.3 (3.1) | 0.6 (0.4, 1.0) | .21 |
| 12-month follow-up (%) | 25.7 (4.1) | 31.0 (5.3) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.5) | .12 | 33.8 (3.6) | 35.7 (3.5) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.6) | .04 |
|
| ||||||||
| Worried about cost | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (%) | 29.5 (4.5) | 32.2 (5.8) | 1.1 (0.5, 2.7) | .06 | 33.0 (2.7) | 29.6 (2.6) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.2) | .07 |
| 12-month follow-up (%) | 28.7 (4.8) | 30.1 (4.6) | 1.1 (0.6, 2.0) | .03 | 32.6 (2.6) | 24.0 (3.2) | 0.6 (0.4, 1.0)* | .19 |
|
| ||||||||
| Life difficulties total score out of 15 | Difference | Difference | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (mean) | 3.0 (0.3) | 2.7 (0.3) | -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5) | .12 | 3.0 (0.2) | 2.7 (0.1) | -0.3 (-0.7, 0.2) | .12 |
| 12-month follow-up (mean) | 2.6 (0.2) | 2.4 (0.2) | -0.2 (-0.9, 0.4) | .09 | 2.8 (0.2) | 2.6 (0.2) | -0.2 (-0.5, 0.2) | .09 |
Note: Intervention-by-poverty status interaction models used multiple imputed data, weighted for eligible sample 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 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 all outcome variables.
MHQOL, mental health quality of life; RS, resource for services; CEP, community engagement and planning; SE, standard error; CI, 95% confidence interval; ES, standardized effect size.
p value < 0.01;
p value < 0.05.