Table 4.
|
Model 1: predicting the perceived risk of vaping at follow-up (n=42) | Model 2: predicting the perceived risk of conventional tobacco use at follow-up (n=42) | Model 3: predicting tobacco knowledge at follow-up (n=19) | |||
|
B (SE) | P value | B (SE) | P value | B (SE) | P value |
Receiving Storm-Heroes | 0.40 (0.17) | .02 | 0.35 (0.18) | .046 | 1.75 (0.56) | .002 |
Perceived risk of vaping at baseline | 0.60 (0.17) | <.001 | —a | — | — | — |
Perceived risk of conventional tobacco use at baseline | — | — | 0.68 (0.19) | <.001 | — | — |
Tobacco knowledge at baseline | — | — | — | — | 0.53 (0.21) | .01 |
Number of detentions | –0.44 (0.31) | .16 | –0.28 (0.15) | .06 | — | — |
Average grades at school | — | — | — | — | 0.93 (0.21) | <.001 |
Parents’ level of education | — | — | — | — | 0.76 (1.84) | .68 |
aNot available; the models were fitted based on identified key covariates.