TABLE 3

Logistic Regressions of Sexting and Sexual Behaviors Among LAUSD Middle School Students With Text-Capable Cell Phones, Los Angeles, CA, 2012

Received Sext (n = 692)Sent Sext (n = 692)Sexually Active (n = 663)Unprotected Sex at Last Sexual Encounter (n = 79)
Age1.34 (1.05–1.69)*1.13 (0.74–1.75)1.09 (0.80–1.48)0.75 (0.45–1.23)
Male1.45 (0.951–2.22)4.83 (1.68–13.93)**2.61 (1.46–4.66)**0.77 (0.27–2.17)
Race/ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino = 0)
 White1.25 (0.69–2.24)0.979 (0.29–3.35)0.36 (0.13–0.98)*0.85 (0.11–6.54)
 Black/African American1.77 (1.07–2.93)*1.38 (0.50–3.78)1.78 (0.96–3.30)1.06 (0.38–2.98)
 Other race/ethnicity1.27 (0.56–2.89)3.02 (0.68–13.46)0.66 (0.19–2.23)1.61 (0.17–15.26)
Sexual identity (LGBQ = 1)0.69 (0.25–1.93)9.45 (2.12–42.18)**0.54 (0.13–2.26)0.09 (0.00–12.75)
Texts per day (≥100 = 1)2.41 (1.59–3.66)***4.49 (1.67–12.10)**4.13 (2.32–7.38)***1.19 (0.41–3.49)
Received sext (yes = 1)22.77 (7.93–65.32)***6.96 (3.99–12.13)***2.12 (0.71–6.33)
Sent sext (yes = 1)22.69 (7.90–65.17)***3.22 (1.28–8.10)*0.97 (0.29–3.24)
−2 Log619.71169.68374.73106.70
Nagelkerke R20.220.420.390.09
  • Data are ORs (95% CIs) unless otherwise indicated. *P < .05, **P < .01, ***P < .001. LGBQ, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or questioning/unsure.