Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Tob Control. 2021 May 31;32(1):42–50. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056479

Table 2.

The associations between experimental condition and postexposure HTP outcomes

Associations between experimental condition and postexposure HTP outcomes
All participants
Experimental group
Control group
Unadjusted logistic regression results
N (%) N (%) N (%) OR (95% CI) P value
HTP use intention
No 1672 (71.4) 846 (71.5) 826 (71.3) Reference
Yes 670 (28.6) 337 (28.5) 333 (28.7) 0.99 (0.83 to 1.18) 0.896
Relative harm of HTPs versus cigarettes
HTPs more harmful/about the same/not sure 2126 (90.8) 1049 (88.6) 1077 (93.0) Reference
HTPs less harmful 216 (9.2) 135 (11.4) 81 (7.0) 1.71 (1.28 to 2.82) 0.000
Relative harm of HTPs versus e-cigarettes
HTPs more harmful/about the same/not sure 2271 (97.2) 1147 (97.0) 1124 (97.3) Reference
HTPs less harmful 66 (2.8) 35 (3.0) 31 (2.7) 1.11 (0.68 to 1.81) 0.686
Relative use of HTPs versus cigarettes
Less likely to use HTPs/equally likely/not sure 1190 (85.1) 980 (83.4) 1004 (86.8) Reference
More likely to use HTPs 348 (14.9) 195 (16.6) 153 (13.2) 1.31 (1.03 to 1.64) 0.023
Relative use of HTPs versus e-cigarettes
Less likely to use HTPs/equally likely/not sure 2231 (95.5) 1119 (95.1) 1112 (95.9) Reference
More likely to use HTPs 105 (4.5) 58 (4.9) 47 (4.1) 1.23 (0.83 to 1.82) 0.310

The results are from five unadjusted logistic regression models estimating the associations between experimental condition and postexposure HTP outcomes.

Bolded p values are statically significant (p<0.05).

HTPs, heated tobacco products.