Table 1.
Adjusted logistic regression analysis1 | Sample size | MDMA use vs. no use2 | Other hallucinogen use vs. no use2 | MDMA use vs. other hallucinogen use |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sample characteristics | 100% | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) |
Gender | ||||
Male | 51.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Female | 48.9 | 1.4 (1.13–1.70) | 0.8 (0.71–0.99) | 1.7 (1.31–2.08) |
| ||||
Age group in years | ||||
12–13 | 32.5 | 0.1 (0.05–0.11) | 0.2 (0.13–0.22) | 0.5 (0.27–0.73 |
14–15 | 34.4 | 0.4 (0.28–0.45) | 0.5 (0.38–0.55) | 0.8 (0.58–1.03) |
16–17 | 33.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| ||||
Race/ethnicity | ||||
White | 60.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
African American | 15.2 | 0.4 (0.25–0.51) | 0.2 (0.14–0.32) | 1.7 (0.95–2.90) |
American Indian/Alaska native | 0.6 | 0.5 (0.27–1.09) | 2.6 (1.53–4.43) | 0.2 (0.08–0.51) |
Asian/Pacific Islander/native Hawaiian | 4.4 | 0.3 (0.13–0.88) | 0.1 (0.04–0.29) | 3.0 (0.76–11.75) |
Multi-racial | 1.6 | 1.2 (0.67–2.27) | 1.2 (0.68–2.20) | 1.0 (0.40–2.53) |
Hispanic | 17.4 | 0.7 (0.47–0.92) | 0.7 (0.48–0.93) | 1.0 (0.610–1.56) |
| ||||
Student status | ||||
Yes | 98.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
No | 1.5 | 3.5 (2.23–5.64) | 1.5 (1.00–2.18) | 2.4 (1.37–4.17) |
| ||||
Family income | ||||
$0–$19,999 | 17.7 | 1.0 (0.69–1.52) | 1.3 (0.98–1.77) | 0.8 (0.48–1.27) |
$20,000–$39,999 | 22.3 | 1.1 (0.78–1.41) | 1.0 (0.75–1.33) | 1.1 (0.70–1.58) |
$40,000–$74,999 | 29.7 | 1.3 (1.00–1.65) | 1.1 (0.87–1.37) | 1.2 (0.83–1.68) |
$75,000 or more | 30.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| ||||
Survey year | ||||
2004 | 33.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
2005 | 33.8 | 0.8 (0.56–1.00) | 0.9 (0.71–1.09) | 0.8 (0.59–1.23) |
2006 | 33.1 | 1.0 (0.76–1.31) | 0.7 (0.54–0.86) | 1.5 (1.02–2.11) |
The adjusted multinomial logistic model included all the independent variables listed in the first column.
Each hallucinogen use group was compared with adolescents who reported no use of any hallucinogens in the past year.
AOR: adjusted odds ratio; CI: confidence intervals; Boldface: p < 0.05.