Table 5. Health and Social Outcomes by Intervention Assignment Among Mutually Exclusive Client Subgroups Below the Federal Poverty Line (Model 2).
| Justice involved (N=158) |
Homeless not justice involved (N=298) |
Other Poor (N=294) |
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||||||||
| RS | CEP | CEP vs. RS | 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 | Estimate (SE) |
Estimate (SE) |
Test (95% CI) | ES | |
| Poor MHQOL | OR | OR | OR | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (%) | 50.1 (5.3) | 38.0 (5.7) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.2) | .24 | 55.6 (5.8) | 49.4 (4.8) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.5) | .12 | 47.9 (4.4) | 47.6 (3.7) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.5) | .00 |
| 12-month follow-up (%) | 50.6 (8.0) | 40.9 (7.9) | 0.7 (0.3, 1.8) | .19 | 55.3 (4.4) | 48.1 (4.6) | 0.7 (0.5, 1.2) | .14 | 50.2 (4.8) | 45.8 (5.4) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.4) | .09 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| PHQ-9 standard score | Difference | Difference | Difference | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (mean) | 13.0 (1.0) | 13.0 (0.9) | 0.0 (-2.9, 2.9) | .00 | 13.7 (0.6) | 12.8 (0.7) | -0.9 (-2.7, 1.0) | .13 | 12.5 (0.8) | 12.5 (0.7) | 0.0 (-2.5, 2.4) | .00 |
| 12-month follow-up (mean) | 11.8 (0.9) | 11.5 (1.2) | -0.3 (-2.6, 2.1) | .04 | 12.7 (0.6) | 12.1 (0.6) | -0.6 (-2.2, 1.0) | .09 | 12.5 (0.8) | 12.6 (0.6) | 0.0 (-1.9, 1.9) | .00 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Mental wellness | OR | OR | OR | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (%) | 31.0 (6.4) | 50.8 (6.7) | 2.5 (0.9, 6.9) | .41 | 33.4 (4.7) | 40.3 (4.2) | 1.4 (0.7, 2.7) | .14 | 29.6 (4.1) | 45.7 (4.3) | 2.1 (1.2, 3.7)** | .33 |
| 12-month follow-up (%) | 51.8 (8.3) | 58.4 (6.8) | 1.3 (0.4, 4.1) | .13 | 40.1 (5.0) | 48.9 (6.1) | 1.5 (0.7, 3.0) | .18 | 46.1 (5.5) | 43.0 (4.5) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) | .06 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Good physical health | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (%) | 74.2 (5.5) | 79.8 (5.5) | 1.4 (0.6, 3.5) | .13 | 73.5 (3.1) | 74.0 (4.8) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.8) | .01 | 72.9 (4.4) | 76.8 (3.9) | 1.2 (0.6, 2.4) | .09 |
| 12-month follow-up (%) | 73.9 (5.4) | 81.8 (7.1) | 1.6 (0.5, 4.9) | .19 | 66.5 (4.0) | 78.3 (4.0) | 1.9 (1, 3.4)* | .27 | 70.9 (5.3) | 77.0 (3.6) | 1.4 (0.8, 2.5) | .14 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Homeless/risk | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (%) | 41.9 (7.3) | 20.6 (6.4) | 0.4 (0.1, 0.9)* | .46 | 55.1 (4.5) | 46.1 (5.9) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | .18 | 24.5 (4.6) | 17.9 (3.3) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | .16 |
| 12-month follow-up (%) | 32.2 (8.6) | 36.7 (6.6) | 1.2 (0.5, 2.8) | .10 | 45.2 (4.7) | 48.0 (4.9) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.9) | .06 | 23.1 (5.1) | 21.7 (4.6) | 0.9 (0.4, 2.1) | .03 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Worried about cost | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (%) | 34.9 (6.5) | 32.9 (5.4) | 0.9 (0.4, 1.9) | .04 | 35.7 (4.4) | 30.7 (4.2) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.4) | .11 | 29.0 (4.6) | 27.5 (4.1) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.6) | .03 |
| 12-month follow-up (%) | 30.8 (5.6) | 26.4 (7.7) | 0.8 (0.3, 2.0) | .10 | 37.3 (4.3) | 23.3 (4.9) | 0.5 (0.2, 1.0) | .31 | 28.3 (4.8) | 23.7 (3.7) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.4) | .11 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Life difficulties total score out of 15 | Difference | Difference | Difference | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| 6-month follow-up (mean) | 2.9 (0.4) | 1.9 (0.3) | -1.1 (-1.9, -0.2)* | .44 | 3.3 (0.3) | 3.3 (0.3) | 0.0 (-0.8, 0.7) | .01 | 2.6 (0.3) | 2.6 (0.2) | -0.1 (-0.7, 0.5) | .03 |
| 12-month follow-up (mean) | 2.5 (0.4) | 2.6 (0.3) | 0.1 (-1.3, 1.5) | .04 | 3.0 (0.2) | 2.7 (0.3) | -0.2 (-0.9, 0.4) | .10 | 2.7 (0.3) | 2.5 (0.3) | -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6) | .12 |
Note: Intervention-by- vulnerable subgroups 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.