Table 2.
Hierarchical generalized linear models predicting initiation of alcohol use at wave 2 among the alcohol naïve adolescents at baseline in Taipei, Taiwan between 2010 and 2012.
| Variables | Bivariate |
Model 0 | Model 1 |
Model 2a |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cOR (95% CI) | P-value | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) | P-value | aOR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| Fixed effects | |||||||
| Level-1 (individual) variables | |||||||
| Gender (boys) | 0.96 (0.70, 1.33) | 0.810 | 0.98 (0.68, 1.42) | 0.928 | 0.98 (0.67, 1.43) | 0.912 | |
| Living with parents (one or none) | 1.57 (0.96, 2.57) | 0.074 | 1.35 (0.77, 2.37) | 0.295 | 1.44 (0.82, 2.55) | 0.209 | |
| Parental education (both under college) | 1.33 (0.94, 1.90) | 0.107 | 1.32 (0.88, 1.97) | 0.177 | 1.38 (0.91, 2.08) | 0.129 | |
| Monthly allowance (≥ $NTD 500) | 1.55 (1.12, 2.15) | 0.008 | 1.69 (1.18, 2.44) | 0.004 | 1.74 (1.20, 2.51) | 0.003 | |
| Parental drinking (one or both) | 1.05 (0.75, 1.48) | 0.760 | 0.89 (0.61, 1.32) | 0.570 | 0.96 (0.62, 1.48) | 0.840 | |
| Elder sibling drinking (any) | 1.53 (0.82, 2.85) | 0.180 | 1.49 (0.72, 3.11) | 0.284 | 1.44 (0.67, 3.09) | 0.355 | |
| Peer drinking (any) | 1.62 (0.97, 2.70) | 0.065 | 1.77 (0.99, 3.17) | 0.054 | 1.78 (0.96, 3.30) | 0.067 | |
| Parental approval to drink (one or both) | 1.19 (0.62, 2.30) | 0.600 | 1.26 (0.59, 2.66) | 0.552 | 1.17 (0.43, 3.20) | 0.752 | |
| Exposure to alcohol advertising | |||||||
| Televisions (yes) | 2.81 (1.41, 5.62) | 0.003 | 2.35 (1.05, 5.25) | 0.038 | 2.39 (1.06, 5.38) | 0.036 | |
| Other channels | 1.11 (1.00, 1.23) | 0.060 | 1.08 (0.95, 1.23) | 0.242 | 1.08 (0.95, 1.23) | 0.240 | |
| Level-2 (district) variables | |||||||
| Social environment | |||||||
| Economic disadvantage index | 0.87 (0.67, 1.14) | 0.296 | 0.38 (0.15, 0.98) | 0.046 | 0.37 (0.14, 0.97) | 0.044 | |
| Violent crime rate | 1.00 (0.98, 1.03) | 0.921 | 1.05 (0.99, 1.11) | 0.086 | 1.05 (0.99, 1.11) | 0.095 | |
| Alcohol access environment | |||||||
| On-premises alcohol outlets | 1.04 (0.88, 1.22) | 0.660 | 0.89 (0.55, 1.45) | 0.626 | 0.88 (0.53, 1.46) | 0.594 | |
| Off-premises alcohol outlets | 1.01 (0.97, 1.05) | 0.658 | 1.04 (0.95, 1.14) | 0.357 | 1.05 (0.95, 1.15) | 0.312 | |
| Betel nut kiosks | 1.05 (0.82, 1.35) | 0.689 | 1.62 (1.04, 2.52) | 0.036 | 1.68 (1.05, 2.67) | 0.033 | |
| Institutional resource environment | |||||||
| MRT | 1.30 (1.00, 1.70) | 0.052 | 0.81 (0.41, 1.62) | 0.526 | 0.78 (0.39, 1.57) | 0.452 | |
| Recreational resources | 1.01 (0.88, 1.16) | 0.850 | 0.74 (0.48, 1.13) | 0.151 | 0.75 (0.48, 1.16) | 0.171 | |
| Temples | 0.40 (0.17, 0.95) | 0.038 | 0.30 (0.09, 1.02) | 0.052 | 0.31 (0.09, 1.08) | 0.063 | |
| Cross-level interactions | |||||||
| Parental drinking×economic disadvantage | 0.96 (0.56, 1.63) | 0.869 | |||||
| Parental drinking×violent crime | 1.05 (1.00, 1.11) | 0.037 | |||||
| Peer drinking×economic disadvantage | 1.40 (0.63, 3.10) | 0.410 | |||||
| Peer drinking×violent crime | 0.95 (0.87, 1.03) | 0.185 | |||||
| Approval to drink×economic disadvantage | 0.79 (0.23, 2.67) | 0.698 | |||||
| Approval to drink×violent crime | 1.02 (0.93, 1.12) | 0.648 | |||||
| Random effects | |||||||
| Intercept (u0j) | 0.05505 | 0.00012 | 0.00011 | ||||
| Deviance (−2LL) | 2861.84 | 2460.02 | 2486.26 | ||||
| Number of parameters | 2 | 23 | 33 | ||||
Statistically significant effects are printed in boldface (P<0.05).
b Sample size: individual-level: 1016; district-level: 22; c ICC for level-2 variance component=0.02.
a
The grand-mean centering was performed for both individual-level and district-level variables to adjust for multicollinearity.