Table 4.
Nested logistic regression analysis results for the sociocultural environment of influence (N=533 students).
| Variables | Model 1 Ultimate Odds Ratio (95% CI) |
Model 2 Ultimate + Distal Odds Ratio (95% CI) |
Model 3 Ultimate + Distal + Proximal Odds Ratio (95% CI) |
Model 4 Ultimate + Distal + Proximal + Immediate Precursor Odds Ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sociocultural Environment Stream | ||||
| Ultimate Underlying Causes | ||||
| Financial-Healtha | 1.11 (0.87, 1.41) | 1.19 (0.93, 1.52) | 1.23 (0.95, 1.59) | 1.12 (0.83, 1.52) |
| Participation in Religious Activitiesb | 0.92 (0.73, 1.17) | 1.01 (0.79, 1.30) | 1.09 (0.84, 1.41) | 1.14 (0.83, 1.55) |
| Exposure to Rx Drug Media on Televisionc | 1.21 (0.80, 1.82) | 1.13 (0.74, 1.75) | 1.13 (0.74, 1.73) | 1.37 (0.83, 2.25) |
| Exposure to Rx Drug Print Mediac | 0.95 (0.62, 1.46) | 1.00 (0.64, 1.57) | 1.04 (0.67, 1.63) | 0.92 (0.55, 1.54) |
| Campus Culture – Perception of Academic Demand #1c | 0.74 (0.48, 1.14) | 0.74 (0.48, 1.14) | 0.85 (0.53, 1.34) | 0.71 (0.40, 1.27) |
| Campus Culture – Perception of Academic Demand #2c | 0.96 (0.67, 1.39) | 0.79 (0.53, 1.19) | 0.81 (0.53, 1.22) | 0.81 (0.50, 1.29) |
| Campus Culture – Perception of Substance | 1.75 (1.22, 2.52)** | 1.62 (1.11, 2.35)* | 1.39 (0.95, 2.04) | 1.30 (0.85, 2.01) |
| Use During Collegec Campus Culture – | 1.08 (0.80, 1.46) | 1.03 (0.75, 1.42) | 1.08 (0.78, 1.49) | 1.07 (0.73, 1.55) |
| Perception of Health Care Providers Prescription writingc | ||||
| Diversiond | 6.66 (4.10, 10.79)** | 5.45 (3.32, 8.94)** | 5.55 (3.33, 9.25)** | 4.37 (2.46, 7.76)** |
| Distal Predisposing Influences | ||||
| Interactions with Social Institutionsc | 1.04 (0.74, 1.45) | 1.03 (0.73, 1.46) | 1.10 (0.72, 1.67) | |
| Interactions with Social Institutions Influencing Valuesc | 1.17 (0.85, 1.62) | 1.29 (0.92, 1.80) | 1.43 (0.97, 2.10) | |
| IUPS Expectanciesb | ||||
| Positive Expectancies | 2.28 (1.56, 3.34)** | 1.95 (1.31, 2.89)** | 1.24 (0.78, 1.98) | |
| Negative Expectancies | 0.500 (0.34, 0.74)** | 0.58 (0.39, 0.87)** | 0.65 (0.41, 1.03) | |
| Proximal Immediate Predictors | ||||
| Attitudes towards IUPSc | 1.99 (1.42, 2.81)** | 0.95 (0.59, 1.54) | ||
| Immediate Precursors IUPS Intentionse | 5.22 (3.26, 8.35)** | |||
| Pseudo-R2 | 30.44% | 35.75% | 39.08% | 52.30% |
| Log Likelihood | − 168.36 | − 155.49 | − 147.43 | − 115.43 |
Note. Each of the four blocks significantly contributed to the final model. IUPS = Illicit use of prescription stimulants.
a
Response options for item ranges from 1 = Poor to 5 = Excellent
b
Response options for items in composite range from 1 = None of the time to 5 = All of the time
c
Response options for items in composite range from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree
d
Response options for items in composite range from 1 = Never to 8 = 40 or more times
e
Response options for items in composite measure range from 1 = Definitely won’t to 4 = Definitely will
*
p<0.05.
**
p<0.01.