Table 2. Case manager training participation and care practices at follow-up by intervention group status.

Variable	Unadjusted Estimates†						Adjusted Analysis‡
	Analytic N	RS		CEP			RS		CEP		CEP vs RS
		No.	%.	No.	%.	p	Estimate	95% CI	Estimate	95% CI	OR	95% CI	t	df	p	p-FDR
Training participation %	112	15	27	42	74	<.001	27	15.9 – 41.8	73.9	57.9 – 85.4	7.78	2.9 – 20.89	4.2	50	<.001	<.001
		Mean		Mean							Difference
Depression care techniquesa (mean)	85	2.5 ± 1.1		3 ± 1.1		.04	2.8	2.5 – 3	3.1	2.9 – 3.3	.32	.03 – .61	2.2	57	.031	.042
Depression case managementa (mean)	97	2.8 ± 1.3		2.8 ± 1.2		.893	2.8	2.5 – 3.1	2.9	2.6 – 3.1	.05	-.30 – .41	.3	43	.767	.767
Community services provisionb (mean)	116	.6 ± .9		1.3 ± 1.4		.003	.7	.4 – .9	1.2	0.9 – 1.5	.51	.13 – .89	2.7	62	.009	.018

^†Raw data without weighting or imputation; plus-minus values are mean ± SD.

^‡Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=117); data were weighted to account for attrition to present eligible sample; a logistic regression model for the binary variable (training participation) and linear regression models for continuous variables adjusted for baseline status of the dependent variable, sector (formal vs. informal), and provider type (licensed vs. non-licensed) and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. p-FDR=adjusted p value from the False Discovery Rate procedure.

^aPossible scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater use depression care techniques.

^bPossible scores range from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater hours providing services.