Table 4

Trend change in fair or good mental health between the preintervention (2004–2008) and intervention (2008–2011) period in 19 target districts intervening with high intensity and 17 districts with low intensity, comparably deprived districts and the rest of the Netherlands

 Trend in fair or good mental health (slope estimate* (95% CI))
 Period
IntensityType of areaPreintervention period (2004–2008)Intervention period (2008–2011)Intervention vs preintervention period† (difference in difference)
More intensiveTarget districts−0.07 (−0.14 to 0.01)0.05 (−0.07 to 0.17)0.12 (−0.06 to 0.29)
Comparably deprived districts PSM ‘narrow’−0.02 (−0.07 to 0.04)−0.02 (−0.10 to 0.07)−0.00 (−0.13 to 0.12)
Target districts vs comparably deprived districts PSM ‘narrow’† 0.13 (−0.08 to 0.34)
Comparably deprived districts PSM ‘broad’0.02 (−0.01 to 0.04)−0.04 (−0.09 to 0.00)−0.06 (−0.13 to 0.00)
Target districts vs comparably deprived districts PSM ‘broad’† 0.19 (0.01 to 0.38)‡
Rest of the Netherlands0.02 (0.01 to 0.03)‡−0.05 (−0.07 to −0.03)‡−0.07 (−0.09 to −0.04)‡
Target districts vs rest of the Netherlands† 0.18 (0.01 to 0.36)‡
Less intensiveTarget districts0.03 (−0.05 to 0.11)−0.09 (−0.23 to 0.04)−0.12 (−0.32 to 0.07)
Comparably deprived districts PSM ‘narrow’−0.01 (−0.06 to 0.04)−0.04 (−0.13 to 0.04)−0.03 (−0.16 to 0.09)
Target districts vs comparably deprived districts PSM ‘narrow’† −0.11 (−0.33 to 0.12)
Comparably deprived districts PSM ‘broad’0.02 (−0.01 to 0.05)−0.05 (−0.10 to −0.01)‡−0.07 (−0.14 to −0.01)‡
Target districts vs comparably deprived districts PSM ‘broad’† −0.06 (−0.26 to 0.14)
Rest of the Netherlands0.02 (0.01 to 0.03)‡−0.05 (−0.07 to −0.03)‡−0.07 (−0.09 to −0.04)‡
Target districts vs rest of the Netherlands† −0.06 (−0.25 to 0.14)
  • *Adjusted for age, gender, household composition, ethnicity, education and income.

  • †Reference category.

  • ‡The association is statistically significant by p≤0.05, two-sided test.

  • PSM, propensity score matching.