Table 3.
Weighted, adjusted logistic regression models of support for e-cigarette-related policies among a nationally representative sample of adults (18-64 years-old) in the United States (n = 3211).
| Tobacco products out of view to adolescents | Ban on flavored e-cigarette sale | Prohibit e-cigarette use in indoor public places | Prohibit e-cigarette use in restaurants | Prohibit e-cigarette use in bars | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) |
| Age | |||||
| Years (cont.) | 1.00 (0.99-1.01) | 1.01 (1.00-1.01) | 0.99 (0.98-1.00) | 1.00 (0.99-1.01) | 0.99 (0.98-1.00) |
| Gender | |||||
| Male | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF |
| Female | 2.18 (1.76-2.70)*** | 1.54 (1.28-1.87)*** | 1.30 (1.01-1.66)* | 1.43 (1.09-1.86)** | 1.30 (1.04-1.62)* |
| Race/ethnicity | |||||
| Non-Hispanic White | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF |
| Non-Hispanic African American | 0.83 (0.59-1.19) | 0.71 (0.51-0.97)* | 0.66 (0.44-1.00) | 0.65 (0.42-1.00)* | 0.61 (0.42-0.90)* |
| Latino/Hispanic | 1.20 (0.83-1.72) | 1.16 (0.86-1.57) | 1.15 (0.76-1.75) | 1.02 (0.66-1.59) | 0.82 (0.57-1.16) |
| Non-Hispanic Other/2+ Races | 1.03 (0.66-1.59) | 1.67 (1.14-2.45)** | 0.64 (0.37-1.10) | 0.79 (0.43-1.45) | 0.72 (0.44-1.17) |
| Education | |||||
| Less than high school | 1.43 (0.89-2.32) | 1.54 (1.02-2.30)* | 0.42 (0.26-0.68)*** | 0.34 (0.21-0.57)*** | 0.67 (0.43-1.04) |
| High school or equivalent | 0.80 (0.60-1.06) | 1.02 (0.79-1.33) | 0.66 (0.47-0.93)* | 0.68 (0.46-1.00)* | 0.72 (0.54-0.98)* |
| Some college | 1.01 (0.78-1.33) | 1.08 (0.86-1.36) | 0.74 (0.53-1.03) | 0.71 (0.50-1.01) | 0.75 (0.56-1.00)* |
| College or above | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF |
| Region | |||||
| Northeast | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF |
| Midwest | 1.12 (0.75-1.66) | 1.30 (0.90-1.88) | 1.05 (0.65-1.71) | 1.15 (0.67-1.97) | 0.90 (0.59-1.38) |
| South | 0.88 (0.60-1.29) | 1.00 (0.70-1.44) | 0.87 (0.55-1.38) | 0.86 (0.51-1.45) | 0.79 0.52-1.20) |
| West | 0.85 (0.60-1.18) | 0.80 (0.60-1.08) | 1.12 (0.75-1.69) | 1.28 (0.82-1.99) | 0.94 (0.65-1.34) |
| Political orientation | |||||
| Conservative | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF |
| Moderate | 1.56 (1.18-2.07)** | 1.24 (0.96-1.59) | 1.32 (0.95-1.83) | 1.29 (0.91-1.83) | 1.18 (0.89-1.57) |
| Liberal | 1.94 (1.46-2.59)*** | 1.41 (1.11-1.80)** | 1.40 (0.99-1.97) | 1.87 (1.27-2.75)** | 1.71 (1.27-2.30)*** |
| Unspecified | 0.72 (0.51-1.02) | 0.85 (0.62-1.18) | 0.64 (0.42-0.97)* | 0.56 (0.37-0.87)** | 0.69 (0.48-0.99)* |
| Cigarette smoking status | |||||
| Never | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF |
| Former | 0.80 (0.61-1.05) | 0.80 (0.63-1.00)* | 0.86 (0.62-1.20) | 0.98 (0.69-1.39) | 0.78 (0.59-1.03) |
| Current | 0.61 (0.44-0.85)** | 0.80 (0.58-1.11) | 0.51 (0.35 0.73)*** | 0.40 (0.27-0.58)*** | 0.47 (0.34-0.67)*** |
| E-cigarette use status | |||||
| Never | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF |
| Former | 0.96 (0.69-1.35) | 0.76 (0.55-1.03) | 0.55 (0.38-0.80)** | 0.78 (0.53-1.16) | 0.52 (0.37-0.74)*** |
| Current | 1.22 (0.78-1.89) | 0.36 (0.24-0.56)*** | 0.22 (0.14-0.35)*** | 0.43 (0.27-0.70)** | 0.25 (0.16-0.39)*** |
| E-Cigarette harm perceptions | |||||
| Perception of harm to user (cont.) | 1.15 (1.07-1.24)*** | 1.17 (1.09-1.25)*** | 1.16 (1.06-1.27)** | 1.19 (1.09-1.30)*** | 1.14 (1.05-1.24)** |
| Perception of harm to others (cont.) | 1.21 (1.14-1.29)*** | 1.24 (1.17-1.31)*** | 1.31 (1.21-1.41)*** | 1.29 (1.20-1.39)*** | 1.31 (1.23-1.40)*** |
| State indoor air policy coveragea | |||||
| Smoke-free air law coverage,b (cont.) | 0.95 (0.87-1.04) | 1.03 (0.95-1.12) | 1.00 (0.90-1.11) | 1.01 (0.90-1.14) | 1.04 (0.95-1.15) |
| E-cigarette air law coverage (cont.) | 1.13 (1.00-1.28)* | 1.06 (0.96-1.19) | 1.00 (0.86-1.17) | 0.99 (0.84-1.17) | 0.93 (0.81-1.06) |
Abbreviations: e-cigarette, electronic cigarette; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, 95% confidence interval; (cont.), continuous variable; REF, reference group.
P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
State indoor air policy coverage refers to the strength of restrictions on tobacco use in 3 locations: workplaces; bars; and restaurants. An index score (0-6) was constructed based on whether a state had no restrictions (score of 0), some restrictions (score of 1), or 100% comprehensive restrictions (score of 2) on product use in each of the 3 locations.
Exclusively refers to restrictions on combustible product use.