Table 2. Associations between the presence of smoking and presence of cigarette butts in indoor public places in 12 cities, Turkey, 2012–2013.
| Variable | No. of venues | No. of locations | Smokinga |
Cigarette butt(s)a |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI)b | cOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI)b | ||||
| Location type | |||||||
| Non-hospitality venuec | |||||||
| Non-dining aread | 447 | 2422 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| Dining area | 244 | 246 | 17.7 (9.0–34.6) | 5.1 (2.0–13.1) | 6.7 (3.9–11.3) | 1.8 (0.8–3.9) | |
| Restaurant or modern cafe | 238 | 547 | 6.5 (3.3–12.9) | 4.0 (1.6–9.7) | 2.5 (1.5–4.4) | 1.5 (0.8–3.0) | |
| Traditional coffee house | 120 | 180 | 26.5 (13.5–52.1) | 14.9 (5.6–39.9) | 9.5 (5.5–16.4) | 4.6 (2.1–10.1) | |
| Bar or nightclub | 79 | 266 | 108.7 (60.2–196.3) | 12.1 (5.4–27.3) | 47.8 (31.1–73.6) | 8.3 (4.5–15.1) | |
| Ashtray | |||||||
| Not observedd | 982 | 3447 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Observed | 145 | 211 | 608.1 (352.9–1047.7) | 315.9 (174.9–570.8) | 267.8 (170.8–420.0) | 165.4 (98.0–279.1) | |
| No-smoking sign | |||||||
| Not observedd | 435 | 2629 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| Observed | 693 | 1032 | 1.9 (1.5–2.5) | 0.8 (0.4–1.5) | 1.4 (1.1–1.9) | 0.5 (0.3–0.8) | |
| No-smoking sign/ashtray | |||||||
| Observed/not observedd | 603 | 938 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| Not observed/not observed | 379 | 2509 | 0.9 (0.4–2.0) | 1.3 (0.5–3.1) | 2.1 (1.1–4.3) | 2.6 (1.3–5.4) | |
| Observed/observed | 89 | 93 | 611.8 (250.0–1496.9) | 342.3 (129.5–904.7) | 439.1 (190.2–1013.9) | 232.6 (95.7–564.4) | |
| Not observed/observed | 56 | 118 | 512.1 (221.0–1186.6) | 396.5 (155.0–1014.4) | 521.2 (229.9–1181.5) | 353.9 (147.1–851.8) | |
| Cigarette sales | |||||||
| Not observedd | 1026 | NDe | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| Observed | 102 | NDe | 0.8 (0.4–1.5) | 1.5 (0.6–4.0) | 0.8 (0.5–1.6) | 1.9 (0.9–3.9) | |
aOR: adjusted odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; cOR: crude odds ratio; ND: not determined.
a Odds ratios were estimated in logistic regression models, with generalized estimating equations used – for all of the variables evaluated except for cigarette sales because this variable was only recorded at venue level – to account for the clustering of study locations within study venues.
b Adjusted models included all the other variables shown in the table.
c Government buildings, hospitals, schools, shopping malls and universities.
d Used as a reference category.
e Cigarette sales were only recorded at venue level and not at location level.