Table 4.

Relationship Between Perceived Accessibility, Peer Smoking, and Smoking Outcomes

	Smoking Outcome, Hazard Ratio (95% CI)a
Characteristics	Initiation		Regular Smoking		Progression Among Initiators
	Unadjusted	Adjustedb	Unadjusted	Adjustedc	Unadjusted	Adjustedc
Neither perceived accessibility nor peer smoking	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
Has perceived accessibility but no peer smokers	2.00 (1.31–3.06)	1.53 (0.98–2.41)	2.32 (1.07–5.02)	1.16 (0.49–2.75)	0.83 (0.39–1.75)	0.64 (0.28–1.44)
Peer smoking but no perceived accessibility	5.60 (3.76–8.36)	4.04 (2.66–6.15)	9.53 (4.92–18.47)	4.85 (2.35–10.02)	2.98 (1.55–5.75)	2.24 (1.09–4.62)
Both perceived accessibility and peer smokers	6.82 (4.53–10.29)	3.65 (2.26–5.9)	27.63 (15.61–48.91)	8.27 (4.23–16.19)	4.74 (2.69–8.35)	3.08 (1.64–5.78)

CI = confidence interval; ref = reference group.

^a All estimates shown were derived from city-stratified Cox proportional hazards model to account for clustering within students’ city of residence.

^b Model was adjusted for age, sex, parental smoking, perceived parental approval of smoking, concerns about weight, anger coping, parental permissiveness of watching R-rated movies, and school disaffection.

^c Model was adjusted for age, sex, parental smoking, perceived parental approval of smoking, having a favorite cigarette advertisement, parental involvement, anger coping, and impulsivity.

^d The categories were the 4 possible combinations of perceived accessibility and peer smoking.