Table 2.
Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis of Abstinencea Comparing Participating Quit and Win College Students from the Midwest who Concurrently Smoke Hookah and Cigarettes with Non-hookah Users, 2010–2012
| Odd Ratio of Abstinence for Hookah Users vs. Non-Hookah Usersa |
95% Confidence Interval (CI) |
P-valueb | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quit at 1 month | |||||
| Self-report | 0.81 | 0.59 | 1.10 | 0.17 | |
| Verified | 0.81 | 0.58 | 1.15 | 0.24 | |
| Quit at 4 months | |||||
| Self-report | 0.64 | 0.45 | 0.93 | 0.02 | |
| Verified | 0.75 | 0.47 | 1.19 | 0.22 | |
| Quit at 6 months | |||||
| Self-report | 0.76 | 0.51 | 1.13 | 0.18 | |
| Verified | 0.71 | 0.42 | 1.20 | 0.20 | |
| Continuous at 6 months | |||||
| Self-report | 0.45 | 0.25 | 0.81 | <0.01 | |
| Verified | 0.37 | 0.14 | 0.99 | 0.05 | |
a
Adjusted for: treatment condition (counseling vs. no counseling and multiple vs. single contest), age, gender, ethnicity (white vs. non-white), marital status (married/living with partner vs. other), type of school (2- vs. 4-year school), number of 24-hour quit attempts in the past year, CPD, use of smokeless tobacco (Y/N) in the past 30 days, and use of cigars and/or pipe (Y/N) in the past 30 days.
b
Wald test p-values.