Table 5.
Differences in Outcomes of Various Project Stages by District
| District 1 |
District 2 |
District 3 |
District 4 |
District 5 |
Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of schools | 6 | 6 | 15 | 7 | 6 | 40 |
| Percent eligible who returned screener consents a |
41.9AB | 72.9C | 50.5ABC | 58.2BC | 28.5A | 47.0 |
| Percent consented who were screened by teachers b |
72.0AB | 94.6B | 58.3AB | 87.2B | 26.8A | 70.4 |
| Percent screened who were at risk c | 23.7A | 23.1A | 18.8A | 18.7A | 27.7A | 18.1 |
| Percent at risk who were able to be contacted d |
52.3A | 62.1A | 61.2A | 68.9A | 29.5B | 60.9 |
| Percent contacted who accepted the recommendation to contact PCP e |
55.1A | 56.8A | 50.9A | 51.6A | 61.5A | 53.1 |
Note: Percentages across districts that do not share subscripts differ by p < .05 based on a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test.
Percent of total students in the district whose parents returned consents to be screened; total percentage based on N = 17,440 eligible children; ANOVA based on school-level summary data, N = 40; F(4, 35) = 5.63, p = 001.
Percent of children returning screener consents who were actually screened by teachers; total percentage based on N = 8,197 children with consents; ANOVA based on school-level summary data, N = 40; F(4, 35) = 5.14, p = .001.
Percent of children who were screened who met at risk criteria; ANOVA based on N = 5,772 screened children; F(4, 5767) = 2.16, p = 07.
Percent of families with a child who screened at risk who were able to be contacted; ANOVA based on N = 1,044 at-risk children; F(4, 1039) = 7.60, p < .001.
Percent of families who were contacted who accepted a recommendation to contact their PCP; ANOVA based on N = 636; F(4, 631) = .47, p = .76.