Subtypes and service utilization among opioid use disorder patients at a community health center: findings from a medically underserved urban area of the Northeastern United States

Ware, Orrin D.; Lister, Jamey J.; Cooper, Sarah E.; Kim, Andrew H.; Lister, Holly H.; Peterson, N. Andrew; Fioravanti, Stephen; Powell, Kristen Gilmore; Marcello, Stephanie C.; Joseph, Bethany

doi:10.1186/s13722-025-00564-z

Addiction Science & Clinical Practice

Table 3 Service utilization differences by cluster

From: Subtypes and service utilization among opioid use disorder patients at a community health center: findings from a medically underserved urban area of the Northeastern United States

Clusters		Number of Psychotherapy Sessions	Number of Psychiatric Eval & Tx Sessions	Number of Group Therapy Sessions
Cluster 1: “Medicare/Medicaid healthcare plan with SUD needs”	n = 82	• < cluster 3 (p < 0.001) • < cluster 5 (p < 0.001)	• < cluster 2 (p < 0.001) • < cluster 3 (p < 0.001)	• < cluster 3 (p < 0.001)
Cluster 2: “Private pay and Charity Care healthcare plan with cocaine use disorder needs”	n = 117	• < cluster 3 (p = 0.023) • < cluster 5 (p = 0.022)	Significantly higher utilization than all other clusters except clusters 3 and 4. • > cluster 1 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 5 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 6 (p = 0.007)	• < cluster 3 (p = 0.002)
Cluster 3: “Medicare/Medicaid and other publicly-funded healthcare plans with mood disorder needs”	n = 120	Significantly higher utilization than all other clusters except cluster 5. • > cluster 1 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 2 (p = 0.023) • > cluster 4 (p = 0.008) • > cluster 6 (p < 0.001)	Significantly higher utilization than all other clusters except cluster 2. • > cluster 1 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 4 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 5 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 6 (p < 0.001)	Significantly higher utilization than all other clusters. • > cluster 1 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 2 (p = 0.002) • > cluster 4 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 5 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 6 (p < 0.001)
Cluster 4: “Private insurance + with low co-occurring needs”	n = 121	• < cluster 3 (p = 0.008) • < cluster 5 (p = 0.008)	Significantly higher utilization than cluster 5. • < cluster 3 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 5 (p < 0.001)	• < cluster 3 (p < 0.001)
Cluster 5: “Other publicly-funded healthcare plan with cannabis use disorder needs”	n = 135	Significantly higher utilization than all other clusters except cluster 3. • > cluster 1 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 2 (p = 0.022) • > cluster 4 (p = 0.008) • > cluster 6 (p < 0.001)	• < cluster 2 (p < 0.001) • < cluster 3 (p < 0.001) • < cluster 4 (p < 0.001) • < cluster 6 (p = 0.002)	• < cluster 3 (p < 0.001)
Cluster 6: “Medicare/Medicaid healthcare plan with MHD needs”	n = 130	• < cluster 3 (p < 0.001) • < cluster 5 (p < 0.001)	Significantly higher utilization than cluster 5. • < cluster 2 (p = 0.007) • < cluster 3 (p < 0.001) • > cluster 5 (p = 0.002)	• < cluster 3 (p < 0.001)

Note. P values reported from Bonferroni post hoc mean differences

Back to article page

ISSN: 1940-0640

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com