TABLE 1—

Magnitude of Relationship Between Town-Level Characteristics and Local Restaurant Smoking Regulations

	Relative Risk Ratioa
Predictor Variable	Strong vs Weak	CIb	Medium vs Weak	CIb
Population with college degree, %
< 35	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
≥ 35	2.99	1.50, 5.96	1.64	0.96, 2.81
Per capita income
< $28 000	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
≥ $28 000	1.61	0.88, 2.96	1.84	1.07, 3.14
Percentage of non-Hispanic White residents
< 97%	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
≥ 97%	0.41	0.20, 0.83	0.22	0.10, 0.47
Percentage of foreign-born residents
≤ 4%	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
> 4%	1.41	0.79, 2.52	2.65	1.54, 4.59
Town population
< 20 000	0.36	0.19, 0.72	0.63	0.33, 1.19
20 000–50 000	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
> 50 000	0.51	0.16, 1.62	0.20	0.04, 0.99
Proportion youths (< 18 y)
< 23%	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
≥ 23%	0.37	0.20, 0.66	0.71	0.41, 1.24
Region of Massachusetts
Northeast	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
Southeast	1.99	0.60, 6.60	1.41	0.35, 5.62
Metrowest/Boston	1.51	0.41, 5.58	3.72	1.40, 9.90
Central	0.70	0.17, 2.92	2.56	0.71, 9.23
Western	0.67	0.19, 2.35	1.57	0.45, 5.44
Percentage who voted yes to Question 1c	1.87	1.34, 2.62	1.37	1.01, 1.84
Funding by local board of health
Funded	7.34	1.72, 31.27	10.25	2.41, 43.38
Not funded	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
Bordering a town with a strong regulation
Bordering	3.29	1.73, 13.37	1.24	0.75, 2.07
Not bordering	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
Mean household income
< $48 000	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
$48 000–$60 000	0.77	0.37, 1.66	0.78	0.41, 1.50
> $60 000	1.18	0.59, 2.37	1.15	0.62, 2.14
Percentage of families living below poverty line
< 4%	1.19	0.66, 2.14	0.90	0.53, 1.52
≥ 4%	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .
Percentage of households without a telephone
< 1%	0.68	0.31, 1.48	0.47	0.22, 1.01
≥ 1%	1.00	. . .	1.00	. . .

Note. CI = confidence interval.

^aRelative risk ratios represent the bivariate analyses and are unadjusted.

^bAnalyses represent 95% CIs; however, analyses for the region variable represent 99% CIs.

^cRelative risk ratio is based on a 10% increase in the percentage of yes votes.