Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Tob Control. 2016 Jan 25;26(1):34–39. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052705

Table 5.

Multinomial regression results for prediction of T2 usage category membership among T1 non-user group

T1 predictor T2 status contrast OR CI p Value
Age Dual-user vs non-user 2.05 1.42 to 2.96 0.0001
Cig only vs non-user 1.38 0.74 to 2.55 0.31
E-cig only vs non-user 1.27 0.96 to 1.66 0.09
Native Hawaiian* Dual-user vs non-user 3.10 2.36 to 4.06 <0.0001
Cig only vs non-user 2.47 0.87 to 7.03 0.09
E-cig only vs Non-user 2.36 1.60 to 3.48 <0.0001
Caucasian* Dual-user vs non-user 2.15 1.36 to 3.38 0.001
Cig only vs non-user 2.56 1.20 to 5.45 0.02
E-cig only vs non-user 1.48 1.05 to 2.11 0.03
Filipino Dual-user vs non-user 1.52 1.05 to 2.20 0.03
Cig only vs non-user 1.38 0.48 to 3.98 0.55
E-cig only vs non-user 1.33 1.07 to 1.65 0.01
Parental support Dual-user vs non-user 0.76 0.62 to 0.92 0.005
Cig only vs non-user 0.65 0.46 to 0.91 0.01
E-cig only vs non-user 0.79 0.67 to 0.92 0.004
Rebelliousness Dual-use vs non-user 3.32 2.58 to 4.27 <0.0001
Cig only vs non-user 2.50 1.69 to 3.70 <0.0001
E-cig only vs non-user 1.83 1.49 to 2.23 <0.0001
Father’s education Dual-user vs non-user 0.65 0.54 to 0.78 <0.0001
Cig only vs non-user 1.09 0.77 to 1.54 0.62
E-cig only vs non-user 0.77 0.62 to 0.94 0.01
E-cigs healthier Dual-user vs non-user 2.59 1.67 to 4.00 <0.0001
Cig only vs non-user 2.38 1.37 to 4.13 0.002
E-cig only vs non-user 3.18 2.24 to 4.50 <0.0001

p Value for contrast is from Wald χ2 test with 1 df. Gender, sensation seeking and parental monitoring were included in the model but did not have any significant effects.

*

Reference group is Asian-Americans.