Table 5

Multinomial regression results for prediction of T2 usage category membership among T1 non-user group

T1 predictor	T2 status contrast	OR	CI	p Value
Age	Dual-user vs non-user	2.05	1.42 to 2.96	0.0001
	Cig only vs non-user	1.38	0.74 to 2.55	0.31
	E-cig only vs non-user	1.27	0.96 to 1.66	0.09
Native Hawaiian*	Dual-user vs non-user	3.10	2.36 to 4.06	<0.0001
	Cig only vs non-user	2.47	0.87 to 7.03	0.09
	E-cig only vs Non-user	2.36	1.60 to 3.48	<0.0001
Caucasian*	Dual-user vs non-user	2.15	1.36 to 3.38	0.001
	Cig only vs non-user	2.56	1.20 to 5.45	0.02
	E-cig only vs non-user	1.48	1.05 to 2.11	0.03
Filipino	Dual-user vs non-user	1.52	1.05 to 2.20	0.03
	Cig only vs non-user	1.38	0.48 to 3.98	0.55
	E-cig only vs non-user	1.33	1.07 to 1.65	0.01
Parental support	Dual-user vs non-user	0.76	0.62 to 0.92	0.005
	Cig only vs non-user	0.65	0.46 to 0.91	0.01
	E-cig only vs non-user	0.79	0.67 to 0.92	0.004
Rebelliousness	Dual-use vs non-user	3.32	2.58 to 4.27	<0.0001
	Cig only vs non-user	2.50	1.69 to 3.70	<0.0001
	E-cig only vs non-user	1.83	1.49 to 2.23	<0.0001
Father's education	Dual-user vs non-user	0.65	0.54 to 0.78	<0.0001
	Cig only vs non-user	1.09	0.77 to 1.54	0.62
	E-cig only vs non-user	0.77	0.62 to 0.94	0.01
E-cigs healthier	Dual-user vs non-user	2.59	1.67 to 4.00	<0.0001
	Cig only vs non-user	2.38	1.37 to 4.13	0.002
	E-cig only vs non-user	3.18	2.24 to 4.50	<0.0001

p Value for contrast is from Wald χ² test with 1 df. Gender, sensation seeking and parental monitoring were included in the initial model but did not have any significant effects.
*Reference group is Asian-Americans.