Skip to main content
. 2016 Nov;138(5):e20154306. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4306

TABLE 2.

Logistic Regression Models Assessing Belief That e-Cigarettes, Cigars, and Smokeless Tobacco Are Less Harmful Than Cigarettes

Variable Electronic Cigarettes Cigars, Cigarillos, or Little Cigars Chewing Tobacco, Snuff, Dip, or Snus
OR (95% CI)a Average Marginal Effect: Product Is Less Harmfulb OR (95% CI)a Average Marginal Effect: Product Is Less Harmfulb OR (95% CI)a Average Marginal Effect: Product Is Less Harmfulb
Probability, % (95% CI) P Probability, % (95% CI) P Probability, % (95% CI) P
Use of cigarettes
 No Reference Reference Reference
 Yes 0.72 (0.63 to 0.82) −5.9 (−8.2 to −3.6) <.001 0.52 (0.43 to 0.64) −11.4 (−14.7 to −8.1) <.001 0.66 (0.57 to 0.78) −6.1 (−8.5 to −3.8) <.001
Use of listed product
 No Reference Reference Reference
 Yes 1.51 (1.24 to 1.85) 7.4 (3.5 to 10.9) <.001 1.55 (1.26 to 1.91) 7.7 (4.1 to 11.2) <.001 4.09 (3.42 to 4.90) 21.0 (18.4 to 23.5) <.001
Belief that will use listed product soon
 Definitely yes 0.91 (0.58 to 1.44) −1.7 (−10.3 to 6.8) .688 1.71 (1.23 to 2.39) 10.3 (3.5 to 17.0) .003
 Probably yes 1.48 (1.15 to 1.91) 6.8 (2.7 to 11.0) .001 1.45 (1.13 to 1.86) 6.9 (2.2 to 11.6) .004
 Probably no 1.45 (1.26 to 1.67) 6.5 (4.0 to 8.9) <.001 1.21 (1.03 to 1.42) 3.4 (0.5 to 6.2) .021
 Definitely no Reference Reference
Would use listed product if offered
 Definitely yes 4.36 (2.83 to 6.73) 23.1 (18.1 to 28.1) <.001 2.32 (1.65 to 3.25) 16.0 (8.8 to 23.1) <.001
 Probably yes 2.79 (2.23 to 3.48) 18.0 (14.6 to 21.5) <.001 2.26 (1.81 to 2.81) 15.4 (11.0 to 19.8) <.001
 Probably no 1.99 (1.68 to 2.37) 13.1 (9.9 to 16.3) <.001 1.89 (1.56 to 2.30) 11.6 (7.9 to 15.4) <.001
 Definitely no Reference Reference
Gender
 Female Reference Reference Reference
 Male 1.53 (1.37 to 1.70) 7.6 (5.7 to 9.5) <.001 1.22 (1.06 to 1.41) 3.5 (1.2 to 5.9) .003 1.31 (1.15 to 1.49) 4.0 (2.1 to 5.9) <.001
Age
 <15 y Reference Reference Reference
 ≥15 y 0.92 (0.82 to 1.02) −1.5 (−3.4 to 0.3) .11 1.04 (0.90 to 1.21) 0.7 (−1.9 to 3.3) .59 1.02 (0.86 to 1.21) 0.3 (−2.2 to 2.8) .83
Ethnicity
 White Reference Reference Reference
 Black 0.76 (0.62 to 0.94) −4.8 (−8.6 to −1.0) .014 1.15 (0.97 to 1.35) 2.5 (−0.5 to 5.6) .11 0.72 (0.53 to 0.96) −4.8 (−8.8 to −0.8) .018
 Hispanic 0.60 (0.52 to 0.68) −9.5 (−12.0 to −6.9) <.001 0.71 (0.61 to 0.82) −5.8 (−8.2 to −3.4) <.001 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92) −4.3 (−7.4 to −1.2) .007
 Other or missing 0.80 (0.67 to 0.95) −3.9 (−7.0 to −0.8) .013 0.66 (0.51 to 0.86) −6.8 (−10.7 to −3.0) .001 0.82 (0.67 to 1.01) −2.9 (−5.8 to 0.0) .050
Household member uses listed product
 No Reference Reference Reference
 Yes 1.84 (1.60 to 2.11) 10.8 (8.5 to 13.1) <.001 1.70 (1.43 to 2.02) 9.3 (6.3 to 12.3) <.001 1.79 (1.47 to 2.18) 8.7 (5.9 to 11.4) <.001

—, not included in multivariate regression models.

a

Odds ratios (ORs) displayed represent estimates from the weighted logistic model in which all listed covariates are included, with 95% CIs calculated by Taylor series linearization to account for the complex survey design. ORs presented are for respondents perceiving the listed product as less harmful than cigarettes among respondents who provided an assessment.

b

Average marginal effects estimate the average pp change by altering listed covariates among the study population, estimating the likelihood that a respondent perceived the product to be less harmful than conventional cigarettes.