TABLE 3—
Adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for Cross-City Differences Based on Logistic Regression Models for Each Theoretical Mediator of Tobacco Control Among Mexicans in Tijuana and Guadalajara, Mexico, and Americans of Mexican Descent in San Diego, Calif (N = 1901): 2003–2004.
| Tijuana | Guadalajara | |
| Social criticism for smoking inside public places very likely, OR (95% CI) | ||
| Workplace | 0.43 (0.33, 0.56) | 0.37 (0.28, 0.47) |
| Restaurants | 0.37 (0.28, 0.48) | 0.21 (0.16, 0.27) |
| Public transportation | 0.36 (0.27, 0.48) | 0.34 (0.25, 0.46) |
| Schools | 0.31 (0.22, 0.42) | 0.28 (0.21, 0.39) |
| Health centers and hospitals | 0.63 (0.42, 0.95) | 1.09 (0.67, 1.78) |
| Intolerance toward smoking from normative group, OR (95% CI) | ||
| Spouse | 0.56 (0.41, 0.77) | 0.31 (0.23, 0.43) |
| Most family members | 0.54 (0.40, 0.72) | 0.42 (0.31, 0.57) |
| Most friends | 0.50 (0.35, 0.71) | 0.20 (0.12, 0.32) |
| Perceived access to nearest tobacco selling point > 1 minute away from home | 0.48 (0.34, 0.67) | 0.26 (0.19, 0.35) |
| Participation in tobacco prevention and awareness of free, local cessation programs, OR (95% CI) | ||
| Education | 0.57 (0.36, 0.92) | 0.31 (0.19, 0.52) |
| Cessation | 0.34 (0.26, 0.45) | 0.37 (0.28, 0.49) |
| Reported density of smoke-free public places, OR (95% CI) | ||
| All workplaces | 0.50 (0.33, 0.74) | 0.38 (0.25, 0.58) |
| All restaurants | 0.26 (0.18, 0.39) | 0.17 (0.11, 0.26) |
| All public transportation | 0.36 (0.27, 0.47) | 0.44 (0.34, 0.57) |
| All schools | 0.58 (0.43, 0.77) | 0.30 (0.23, 0.39) |
| All health centers and hospitals | 0.80 (0.59, 1.09) | 0.79 (0.58, 1.06) |
| Reported legislation banning smoking inside public places, OR (95% CI) | ||
| Workplaces | 0.56 (0.41, 0.75) | 0.48 (0.35, 0.65) |
| Restaurants | 0.32 (0.24, 0.44) | 0.21 (0.15, 0.29) |
| Public transportation | 0.30 (0.20, 0.43) | 0.49 (0.33, 0.73) |
| Schools | 0.41 (0.28, 0.60) | 0.36 (0.25, 0.51) |
| Health centers and hospitals | 0.82 (0.56, 1.21) | 0.79 (0.54, 1.15) |
| High support for smoke-free legislation for public places, OR (95% CI) | ||
| Workplaces | 0.68 (0.46, 0.99) | 0.43 (0.30, 0.61) |
| Restaurants | 0.36 (0.25, 0.52) | 0.20 (0.14, 0.28) |
| Public transportation | 0.79 (0.50, 1.25) | 0.55 (0.36, 0.85) |
| Schools | 0.62 (0.35, 1.09) | 0.37 (0.23, 0.60) |
| Health centers and hospitals | 1.13 (0.61, 2.11) | 0.90 (0.49, 1.66) |
| SOMERSTOL composite score,a b (95% CI) | −11.3 (−13.0,−9.7) | −15.3 (−16.9, −13.7) |
Note. SOMERSTOL = Scale of Theoretical Mediators of Tobacco Control. San Diego, Calif, was the reference category. All regression models included gender, age, level of education, marital status, employment status, and country of birth as covariates and were based on standardized data.
aAdjusted unstandardized regression coefficients (b) and 95% CIs were based on a linear regression model of total scores in the SOMERSTOL scale.