Table 4.
Interactive associations of male binge drinking rates and abortion rights with harm from drinking strangers.
| Predictor Variables | Full Sample | Men | Women |
|---|---|---|---|
| (N = 7792) | (n = 3156) | (n = 4636) | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Male | 1.36 (1.07, 1.74) * | - | - |
| Unmarried | 1.34 (1.03, 1.74) * | 1.52 (0.96, 2.41) † | 1.31 (0.92, 1.86) |
| Race/Ethnicity 1 | |||
| Black | 1.08 (0.74, 1.56) | 1.18 (0.67, 2.08) | 0.90 (0.56, 1.44) |
| Hispanic | 0.90 (0.66, 1.22) | 0.87 (0.51, 1.48) | 0.81 (0.44, 1.49) |
| Other/Missing | 1.63 (1.11, 2.41) * | 2.50 (1.44, 4.35) ** | 0.97 (0.47, 1.97) |
| Less than College Degree | 0.90 (0.64, 1.26) | 1.21 (0.74, 1.97) | 0.67 (0.43, 1.05) † |
| Income 2 | |||
| Up to $20,000 | 1.34 (0.85, 2.11) | 0.84 (0.43, 1.63) | 1.90 (0.90, 3.99) † |
| $20,000–$60,000 | 1.23 (0.75, 2.03) | 1.21 (0.60, 2.42) | 1.19 (0.65, 2.16) |
| $60,001–$100,000 | 0.97 (0.64, 1.48) | 1.04 (0.53, 2.03) | 0.81 (0.37, 1.76) |
| Missing Income | 1.01 (0.61, 1.67) | 1.08 (0.52, 2.22) | 0.89 (0.36, 2.16) |
| Age | 0.97 (0.97, 0.98) *** | 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) * | 0.96 (0.95, 0.97) *** |
| Drinking Status 3 | |||
| Drinker, Does not Exceed Guidelines | 0.95 (0.70, 1.29) | 0.89 (0.55, 1.42) | 0.91 (0.52, 1.59) |
| At-risk Drinker, Exceeds Guidelines | 1.85 (1.40, 2.43) *** | 1.80 (1.11, 2.92) * | 1.81 (1.05, 3.11) * |
| State Median Income | 1.68 (0.26, 11.02) | 1.63 (0.07, 37.35) | 2.87 (0.39, 20.94) |
| State Male Binge Drinking Rate | 1.14 (1.02, 1.29) * | 1.06 (0.92, 1.23) | 1.18 (0.95, 1.48) |
| State Female Binge Drinking Rate | 1.02 (0.85, 1.22) | 1.07 (0.83, 1.38) | 0.96 (0.74, 1.25) |
| Abortion Rights | 0.74 (0.49, 1.12) | 0.64 (0.30, 1.37) | 0.81 (0.46, 1.42) |
| Male Binge * Abortion Rights 4 | 0.90 (0.82, 0.98) * | - | 0.88 (0.76, 1.01) † |
| Constant | 0.12 (0.04, 0.40) *** | 0.07 (0.01, 0.51) ** | 0.21 (0.54, 0.84) * |
Note: *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 †p < 0.10; 1 Reference = White; 2 Reference = $100,001+; 3 Reference = Non-drinker; 4 Main effects model reported for men because interaction was not significant, p > 0.10.