Table 3.
Hierarchical generalized linear models predicting continuation of alcohol use at wave 2 among the alcohol experienced 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) | 0.71 (0.53, 0.94) | 0.018 | 0.66 (0.47, 0.92) | 0.016 | 0.64 (0.45, 0.90) | 0.011 | |
| Living with parents (one or none) | 1.05 (0.71, 1.56) | 0.806 | 1.02 (0.63, 1.64) | 0.948 | 0.99 (0.61, 1.60) | 0.956 | |
| Parental education (both under college) | 1.05 (0.76, 1.46) | 0.761 | 1.01 (0.69, 1.47) | 0.972 | 1.02 (0.70, 1.50) | 0.906 | |
| Monthly allowance (≥$NTD 500) | 1.41 (1.04, 1.91) | 0.026 | 1.24 (0.88, 1.75) | 0.217 | 1.24 (0.88, 1.76) | 0.226 | |
| Parental drinking (one or both) | 1.66 (1.13, 2.43) | 0.009 | 1.30 (0.82, 2.06) | 0.261 | 1.68 (0.96, 2.97) | 0.081 | |
| Elder sibling drinking (any) | 1.84 (1.21, 2.79) | 0.004 | 1.50 (0.92, 2.45) | 0.104 | 1.55 (0.94, 2.56) | 0.083 | |
| Peer drinking (any) | 1.61 (1.16, 2.24) | 0.005 | 1.43 (0.96, 2.12) | 0.079 | 1.30 (0.85, 2.00) | 0.543 | |
| Parental approval to drink (one or both) | 1.89 (1.34, 2.67) | <0.001 | 1.60 (1.07, 2.40) | 0.022 | 1.58 (1.02, 2.45) | 0.486 | |
| Exposure to alcohol advertising | |||||||
| Televisions (yes) | 1.28 (0.79, 2.08) | 0.310 | 1.28 (0.67, 2.44) | 0.452 | 1.30 (0.68, 2.50) | 0.432 | |
| Other channels | 1.05 (0.96, 1.16) | 0.307 | 0.99 (0.88, 1.12) | 0.895 | 0.98 (0.87, 1.11) | 0.763 | |
| Level-2 (district) variables | |||||||
| Social environment | |||||||
| Economic disadvantage index | 0.93 (0.68, 1.28) | 0.640 | 0.58 (0.28, 1.23) | 0.141 | 0.57 (0.27, 1.21) | 0.070 | |
| Violent crime rate | 1.01 (0.98, 1.04) | 0.556 | 1.04 (0.99, 1.09) | 0.095 | 1.04 (0.99, 1.09) | 0.124 | |
| Alcohol access environment | |||||||
| On-premises alcohol outlets | 1.09 (0.88, 1.35) | 0.432 | 0.66 (0.41, 1.04) | 0.070 | 0.63 (0.40, 1.02) | 0.058 | |
| Off-premises alcohol outlets | 1.04 (0.99, 1.08) | 0.114 | 1.14 (1.05, 1.24) | 0.004 | 1.14 (1.05, 1.24) | 0.004 | |
| Betel nut kiosks | 0.95 (0.70, 1.29) | 0.715 | 1.03 (0.70, 1.52) | 0.866 | 1.08 (0.72, 1.64) | 0.683 | |
| Institutional resource environment | |||||||
| MRT | 1.06 (0.77, 1.47) | 0.692 | 0.47 (0.24, 0.92) | 0.030 | 0.48 (0.24, 0.94) | 0.034 | |
| Recreational resources | 1.08 (0.91, 1.29) | 0.365 | 0.85 (0.57, 1.28) | 0.410 | 0.87 (0.58, 1.32) | 0.487 | |
| Temples | 0.46 (0.17, 1.26) | 0.124 | 0.26 (0.24, 0.92) | 0.016 | 0.24 (0.08, 0.69) | 0.012 | |
| Cross-level interactions | |||||||
| Parental drinking×economic disadvantage | 2.13 (1.00, 4.55) | 0.052 | |||||
| Parental drinking×violent crime | 0.96 (0.90, 1.02) | 0.175 | |||||
| Peer drinking×economic disadvantage | 0.81 (0.48, 1.38) | 0.411 | |||||
| Peer drinking×violent crime | 1.00 (0.95, 1.05) | 0.848 | |||||
| Approval to drink×economic disadvantage | 0.77 (0.45, 1.33) | 0.355 | |||||
| Approval to drink×violent crime | 1.04 (0.99, 1.10) | 0.140 | |||||
| Random effects | |||||||
| Intercept (u0j) | 0.22308 | 0.00046 | 0.00036 | ||||
| Deviance (−2LL) | 2190.41 | 1871.33 | 1902.54 | ||||
| Number of parameters | 2 | 23 | 33 | ||||
Statistically significant effects are printed in boldface (P<0.05).
b Sample size: individual-level: 779; district-level: 22; c ICC for level-2 variance component=0.06.
a
The grand-mean centering was performed for both individual-level and district-level variables to adjust for multicollinearity.