Table 3.
Characteristics of study sample, AGTO versus non-AGTOh
| |
Baseline |
Post |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGTO (n = 174) | Non-AGTO (n = 202) | AGTO (n = 159) | Non-AGTO (n = 156) | |
| Age in years, % |
|
|
|
|
| 12-49 |
53 |
53 |
46 |
48 |
| 50+ |
47 |
47 |
55 |
52 |
| Female, % |
72 |
74 |
71 |
74 |
| White, % |
98 |
97 |
97 |
100 |
| Education, % |
|
|
|
|
| HS graduate or less |
6 |
12 |
4 |
6 |
| Some college |
22 |
6 |
21 |
10 |
| College graduate |
21 |
27 |
27 |
32 |
| Graduate education |
50 |
54 |
49 |
51 |
| Employment status, % |
|
|
|
|
| Full time |
81 |
78 |
78 |
81 |
| Part time |
13 |
9 |
13 |
12 |
| Out of labor force |
6 |
12 |
10 |
7 |
| Coalition leadership (0–100), mean (SD) |
77.4 (16.1) |
71.9 (19.1) |
80 (17.7) |
74 (18.8) |
| Coalition cohesion (0–100), mean (SD) |
76.0 (15.4) |
71.9 (14.3) |
77 (13.4) |
72 (14.8) |
| Coalition receptivity to change (0–100), mean (SD) |
72.9 (13.0) |
69.1 (13.7) |
74 (11.5) |
69 (13.4) |
| Satisfaction with involvement in coalition, % |
|
|
|
|
| 1 = Very dissatisfied, 2, 3 |
6 |
9 |
2 |
6 |
| 4 |
9 |
16 |
7 |
19 |
| 5 |
17 |
16 |
13 |
19 |
| 6 |
41 |
43 |
44 |
46 |
| 7 = Very satisfied |
27 |
17 |
34 |
11 |
| Years in coalition, % |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
7 |
13 |
9 |
21 |
| 1 |
25 |
25 |
8 |
2 |
| 2 |
16 |
16 |
14 |
20 |
| 3 |
7 |
10 |
15 |
13 |
| 4 |
5 |
13 |
9 |
11 |
| 5 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
| 6+ |
32 |
18 |
36 |
24 |
| Type of involvement, % |
|
|
|
|
| Paid staff |
31 |
23 |
26 |
24 |
| Volunteer individual |
21 |
33 |
32 |
34 |
| Volunteer from partner organization | 49 | 45 | 42 | 42 |
hThere were no statistically significant differences between AGTO and non-AGTO study participants on almost all of these characteristics at baseline or post (p>0.05), except for satisfaction with involvement in coalition.