Table 2.
Weighted bivariate group comparisons on study outcomes.
| Non-HELP | HELP | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted N (%) | Weighted N (%) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Risk Identificationa | |||
| Weighted Total N | 382 | 410 | |
| MD | 57 (15%) | 110 (27%) | 2.08 (1.44, 3.01)*** |
| SU | 17 (5%) | 36 (9%) | 2.07 (1.12, 3.81)* |
| IPV | 16 (4%) | 32 (8%) | 1.96 (1.04, 3.67)* |
| Discussionb | |||
| Weighted Total N | 576 | 573 | |
| MD | 164 (29%) | 312 (55%) | 2.80 (2.16, 3.63)*** |
| SU | 59 (10%) | 280 (49%) | 7.63 (5.37, 9.84)*** |
| IPV | 49 (8%) | 238 (41%) | 6.46 (4.71, 8.87)*** |
| Referralc | |||
| Weighted Total N | 576 | 573 | |
| MD | 50 (9%) | 55 (10%) | 1.11 (.72, 1.72) |
| SU | 1 (0.13%) | 13 (2%) | 16.79 (2.04, 138.21)** |
| IPV | 13 (2%) | 31 (5%) | 2.49 (1.27, 4.91)** |
Note.
a
Client identified as risk positive in the MIS at any follow-up timepoint
b
Home visitor noted discussion of risk on any home visit log during the study period
c
Home visitor noted a referral in the MIS at any time during the study period. ATE weights were applied to all analyses.
*
p < .05
**
p < .01
***
p < .001.