Skip to main content
. 2006 Sep 15;3(4):A122.

Table 2.

Coalition Initiatives by Coalition and Type, 11 Rural Appalachian Coalitions in Pennsylvania and New York, 2002–2004

Coalitiona Type of Initiativeb Total, No. (%)

Development, No. (%) Outreach Only, No. (%) Education Only, No. (%) Outreach and Education, No. (%) Screening, No. (%)
1 10 (5.6) 140 (78.7) 25 (14.0) 1 (0.6) 2 (1.1) 178 (13.0)
2 38 (13.9) 124 (45.3) 53 (19.3) 9 (3.3) 50 (18.2) 274 (20.0)
3 40 (28.2) 71 (50.0) 2 (1.4) 22 (15.5) 7 (4.9) 142 (10.4)
4 28 (43.8) 14 (21.9) 8 (12.5) 0 (0.0) 14 (21.9) 64 (4.7)
5 14 (8.4) 111 (66.5) 6 (3.6) 32 (19.2) 4 (2.4) 167 (12.2)
6 30 (27.8) 58 (53.7) 15 (13.9) 3 (2.8) 2 (1.9) 108 (7.9)
7 2 (11.1) 5 (27.8) 2 (11.1) 7 (38.9) 2 (11.1) 18 (1.3)
8 22 (18.6) 42 (35.6) 27 (22.9) 20 (16.9) 7 (5.9) 118 (8.6)
9 13 (14.3) 52 (57.1) 9 (9.9) 11 (12.1) 6 (6.6) 91 (6.6)
10 13 (13.4) 69 (71.1) 8 (8.2) 5 (5.2) 2 (2.1) 97 (7.1)
11 12 (10.7) 90 (80.4) 3 (2.7) 7 (6.3) 0 (0.0) 112 (8.2)
Total 222 (16.2) 776 (56.7) 158 (11.5) 117 (8.5) 96 (7.0) 1369 (100.0)
a

Coalition no. 6 recorded data for only half of study period.

b

P < .001 for each type of initiative (χ2 test)