TABLE 2.

Association of Baseline Disposable E-Cigarette Device Type Used With Past 30-d E-cigarette Use Patterns at Follow-up

	N (%) or M (SD)	Partially Adjusted Associationa		Full Adjusted Associationb
		Estimate (95% CI)	P	Estimate (95% CI)	P
Outcome: continued e-cigarette use (yes or no)
Disposable device	196 (74.2)c	1.68 (1.02–2.76)e	.040	1.92 (1.09–3.42)e	.025
Only nondisposable devices	68 (58.1)c	Reference	—	Reference	—
Outcome: number of days used e-cigarettes
Disposable device	13.4 (12.6)d	1.26 (0.92–1.72)f	.153	1.32 (0.95–1.83)f	.103
Only nondisposable devices	8.4 (11.9)d	Reference	—	Reference	—
Outcome: number of times used e-cigarettes per dayg
Disposable device	9.6 (7.7)d	1.25 (1.00–1.55)f	.045	1.29 (1.02–1.63)f	.031
Only nondisposable devices	6.0 (7.0)d	Reference	—	Reference	—
Outcome: number of puffs per episodeg
Disposable device	3.4 (4.2)d	1.06 (0.80–1.39)f	.696	1.11 (0.82–1.48)f	.501
Only nondisposable devices	3.1 (4.9)d	Reference	—	Reference	—

E-values for point estimate and lower 95% confidence limit are reported in Supplemental Table 4.

^a Adjusting for baseline e-cigarette use frequency and intensity covariates listed in Table 1.

^b Adjusting for all baseline e-cigarette use frequency and intensity, demographic, e-cigarette and other substance use covariates listed in Table 1.

^c N (%) of respective outcome at follow-up, stratified by based disposable device type use status.

^d M (SD) of respective outcome at follow-up, stratified by based disposable device type use status.

^e Odds ratio of association of baseline device type use (disposable versus only nondisposable) with outcome from binary logistic regression models.

^f Incident rate ratio of association of baseline device type use (disposable versus only nondisposable) with outcome from negative binomial logistic regression models.

^g Participants who did not use e-cigarettes in the past 30 d were coded 0.