TABLE 4

Logistic Regression Models Assessing Belief that e-Cigarettes, Cigars, and Smokeless Tobacco Are Less Addictive Than Cigarettes

VariableElectronic CigarettesCigars, Cigarillos, or Little CigarsChewing Tobacco, Snuff, Dip, or Snus
OR (95% CI)aAverage Marginal Effect: Product Is Less AddictivebOR (95% CI)aAverage Marginal Effect: Product Is Less AddictivebOR (95% CI)aAverage Marginal Effect: Product Is Less Addictiveb
Probability, % (95% CI)PProbability, % (95% CI)PProbability, % (95% CI)P
Use of cigarettes
NoReferenceReference
Yes0.90 (0.76 to 1.06)−2.5 (−6.2 to 1.2).1870.66 (0.56 to 0.78)−8.3 (−11.6 to −5.0)<.0010.87 (0.74 to 1.01)−1.7 (−3.4 to 0.0).056
Use of listed product
NoReferenceReference
Yes1.62 (1.39 to 1.89)11.0 (7.6 to 14.4)1.58 (1.32 to 1.90)9.2 (5.7 to 12.7)<.0012.43 (1.94 to 3.04)10.3 (7.8 to 12.7)<.001
Belief that will use listed product soon
Definitely yes1.38 (1.08 to 1.75)7.5 (1.9 to 13.2).0091.56 (1.12 to 2.17)9.4 (2.2 to 16.6).011
Probably yes1.31 (1.08 to 1.59)6.3 (1.7 to 10.9).0071.53 (1.12 to 2.10)8.9 (2.0 to 15.9).011
Probably no1.40 (1.22 to 1.60)7.9 (4.7 to 11.0)<.0011.25 (1.00 to 1.56)4.5 (0.0 to 9.1).051
Definitely noReferenceReference
Would use listed product if offered
Definitely yes2.02 (1.55 to 2.63)16.7 (10.5 to 23.0)<.0012.02 (1.50 to 2.72)15.0 (8.3 to 21.7)<.001
Probably yes1.77 (1.45 to 2.16)13.7 (9.0 to 18.4)<.0011.80 (1.40 to 2.31)12.4 (7.0 to 17.7)<.001
Probably no1.40 (1.20 to 1.63)8.0 (4.3 to 11.7)<.0011.68 (1.35 to 2.08)10.7 (6.3 to 15.2)<.001
Definitely noReferenceReference
Gender
FemaleReferenceReference
Male1.43 (1.30 to 1.57)8.2 (6.1 to 10.3)<.0011.12 (1.00 to 1.26)2.3 (0.1 to 4.5).0371.43 (1.23 to 1.64)4.1 (2.6 to 5.7)<.001
Age
<15 yReferenceReferenceReference
≥15 y1.09 (0.98 to 1.21)1.9 (−0.4 to 4.3).111.24 (1.09 to 1.41)4.3 (1.7 to 6.9).0010.82 (0.72 to 0.93)−2.4 (−3.8 to −0.9).001
Ethnicity
WhiteReferenceReferenceReference
Black1.35 (1.15 to 1.58)6.8 (3.2 to 10.5)<.0010.94 (0.79 to 1.12)−1.3 (−4.8 to 2.2).4760.99 (0.78 to 1.27)0.0 (−2.9 to 2.7).96
Hispanic0.89 (0.80 to 0.99)−2.7 (−5.0 to −0.3).0250.73 (0.61 to 0.87)−6.2 (−9.5 to −2.8)<.0010.96 (0.78 to 1.17)−0.4 (−2.7 to 1.8).68
Other or missing0.86 (0.72 to 1.03)−3.5 (−7.4 to 0.5).0850.77 (0.61 to 0.97)−5.1 (−9.5 to −0.8).0221.18 (0.94 to 1.47)2.0 (−0.8 to 4.8).16
Household member uses listed product
NoReferenceReferenceReference
Yes1.23 (1.10 to 1.45)5.3 (2.1 to 8.4).0011.36 (1.14 to 1.61)6.1 (2.7 to 9.4)<.0011.28 (1.02 to 1.61)2.9 (0.3 to 5.5).030
• —, not included in multivariate regression models.

• a Average marginal effects estimate the average pp change by altering listed covariates among the study population, estimating the likelihood that a respondent perceived the product to be less harmful than conventional cigarettes.

• b Odds ratios (ORs) displayed represent estimates from the weighted logistic model in which all listed covariates are included, with 95% CIs calculated by Taylor series linearization to account for the complex survey design. ORs presented are for respondents perceiving the listed product as less addictive than cigarettes among respondents who provided an assessment.