Table 5. Predictors of communicating with students about e-cigarette avoidance among school personnel working in a school with an e-cigarette/JUUL policy.
| Communicated with students about e-cigarette avoidance | Perception that students are caught using e-cigarettes | |
|---|---|---|
| n = 1,150 | n = 1,136 | |
| Had training on policy | ||
| Training | REF | REF |
| No training | 3.22*** [2.41,4.31] | 2.28*** [1.58,3.29] |
| Perception of e-cigarette problem | ||
| Not a problem | REF | REF |
| Problem | 3.08*** [1.89,5.00] | 6.44*** [4.27,9.70] |
| Somewhat serious problem | 7.39*** [4.48,12.20] | 18.35*** [11.37,29.63] |
| Very serious problem | 15.00*** [8.31,27.08] | 20.07*** [10.66,37.78] |
| Enrollment | ||
| 1–499 | REF | REF |
| 500–999 | 0.74 [0.51,1.06] | 1.63* [1.10,2.41] |
| 1,000–1,499 | 0.60* [0.39,0.94] | 1.31 [0.81,2.10] |
| 1,500–1,999 | 0.63 [0.36,1.09] | 2.92** [1.51,5.65] |
| 2,000+ | 0.91 [0.57,1.45] | 1.40 [0.84,2.33] |
| School level | ||
| High school | REF | REF |
| Middle school | 1.61** [1.18,2.19] | 0.65* [0.47,0.91] |
| Combined middle/high school | 1.32 [0.79,2.21] | 0.86 [0.50,1.48] |
| Job title | ||
| School teacher | REF | REF |
| School administrator | 1.98*** [1.36,2.88] | 0.98 [0.64,1.51] |
| Current smoker | ||
| Yes | REF | REF |
| No | 1.24 [0.79,1.95] | 0.98 [0.64,1.51] |
| Respondent e-cigarette use | ||
| No current use of JUUL or other e-cigarettes | REF | REF |
| Current e-cigarette use, excluding JUUL | 1.25 [0.65,2.39] | 1.39 [0.64,3.03] |
| Current JUUL use | 2.51** [1.30,4.85] | 4.81** [1.79,12.89] |
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001.
Exponentiated coefficients; 95% confidence intervals in brackets.
Each column represents a different logistic regression model where the predictors are the same and the outcome is the variable listed at the top of the column. All models examine respondents who indicated that their school has an e-cigarette policy. Model 1 examines the association between the predictors and whether the respondent reported ever having communicated with students about e-cigarette avoidance. Model 2 examines the association between the predictors and the perception that students are caught using e-cigarettes/JUUL, which was measured by asking school personnel how often they perceived students were caught using e-cigarettes/JUUL on school property (5+ times per day, 2–4 times per day, at least once a week, at least once a month, less than once a month, and never caught). The responses were dichotomized into no (perceived that students are never caught) and yes (perceived that students are caught 5+ times per day, 2–4 times per day, once per day, at least once a week, at least once a month, and less than one month).