Final youth multivariate model results showing adjusted odds ratios* associated with strength of local restaurant smoking regulations† and all control variables for having a perception of lower adult smoking prevalence in one’s town,‡ for perceiving smoking in restaurants in one’s town as unacceptable,§ and for perceiving that adults in one’s town view adult smoking in general as socially unacceptable¶
| Perceived adult smoking prevalence‡ | Personal acceptability of smoking in restaurants§ | Perceived social acceptability of smoking in restaurants§ | Perceived social acceptability of adult smoking in general¶ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted odds ratios* (95% CI) for having a lower perception of adult smoking prevalence in one’s town‡ | Adjusted odds ratios* (95% CI) for perceiving smoking in restaurants as unacceptable (based on individual opinion)§ | Adjusted odds ratios* (95% CI) for perceiving smoking in restaurants as socially unacceptable (based on perceived opinion of adults in one’s town)§ | Adjusted odds ratios* (95% CI) for perceiving adults in one’s town as viewing adult smoking in general as socially unacceptable¶ | ||
| CI, confidence interval. | |||||
| *Adjusted odds ratio reflects final model that included only those variables that contributed significantly to the model, as assessed by a Wald test (with α = 0.10). Odds ratios are derived from a GEE logit model that accounts for clustering among subjects from the same town. Odds ratios are adjusted for all other variables included in the model. | |||||
| †Strength of local restaurant smoking regulation was defined as strong if it banned smoking completely in all restaurants with no variances, medium if it banned smoking but allowed variances or restricted smoking to enclosed, separately ventilated areas, and weak if it required only designated smoking areas or did not restrict smoking at all. | |||||
| ‡Having a lower perception of adult smoking prevalence in one’s town was defined as responding that “very few” or “less than half” of adults in one’s town smoke (compared to “about half”, “more than half”, or “almost all”). | |||||
| §For personal acceptability of smoking in restaurants, viewing smoking as personally unacceptable was defined as respondents stating that they think smoking in restaurants should not be allowed at all (compared to being allowed anywhere or only in special sections). For perceived social acceptability of smoking in restaurants, viewing smoking as socially unacceptable was defined as respondents stating that they think adults in their town “disapprove a lot” of smoking in restaurants (compared to “disapprove a little” or “don’t mind”). | |||||
| ¶For perceived social acceptability of adult smoking in general, viewing smoking as socially unacceptable was defined as respondents stating that they think adults in their town “disapprove a lot” of adult smoking (compared to “disapprove a little” or “don’t mind”). | |||||
| Main predictor variable | |||||
| Strength of local restaurant smoking regulation† | |||||
| Weak | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Medium | 1.11 (0.79 to 1.57) | 1.27 (0.86 to 1.86) | 2.30 (1.58 to 3.36) | 1.25 (0.87 to 1.78) | |
| Strong | 1.71 (1.02 to 2.84) | 1.34 (0.98 to 1.83) | 1.61 (1.15 to 2.25) | 2.00 (1.29 to 3.08) | |
| Individual level control variables | |||||
| Age | |||||
| 12–14 | – | – | – | 1.00 | |
| 15–17 | – | – | – | 0.53 (0.36 to 0.76) | |
| Sex | |||||
| Male | – | 1.00 | – | – | |
| Female | – | 1.43 (1.14 to 1.79) | – | – | |
| Race/ethnicity | |||||
| Non-Hispanic white | 1.00 | – | – | – | |
| Other | 0.71 (0.48 to 1.06) | – | – | – | |
| Smoking status | |||||
| Experimenter/smoker | 1.00 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | |
| Never smoker | 1.60 (1.14 to 2.23) | 1.43 (1.07 to 1.91) | – | 1.82 (1.15 to 2.90) | |
| Peer smoking | |||||
| No close friends smoke | 1.00 | 1.00 | – | – | |
| At least one close friend smokes | 0.75 (0.57 to 0.98) | 0.73 (0.55 to 0.95) | – | – | |
| Household smoking | |||||
| No adult smoker in household | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Adult smoker in household | 0.35 (0.27 to 0.45) | 0.78 (0.62 to 0.98) | 0.58 (0.45 to 0.74) | 0.26 (0.17 to 0.38) | |
| Education of adult informant | |||||
| Not college graduate | 1.00 | – | – | – | |
| College graduate | 1.57 (1.17 to 2.11) | – | – | – | |
| Household income | |||||
| ⩽$50000 | 1.00 | – | – | – | |
| >$50000 | 1.65 (1.19 to 2.29) | – | – | – | |
| Town level control variables | |||||
| Percentage of town “yes” vote on Question 1 (continuous variable) | |||||
| Odds ratio corresponding to each 10 percentage point increase in yes vote | 1.78 (1.49 to 2.13) | – | 1.25 (1.06 to 1.47) | – | |
| Percentage of town residents who are white (continuous variable) | |||||
| Odds ratio corresponding to each 10 percentage point increase in proportion of residents who are white | – | – | 0.84 (0.78 to 0.90) | 0.81 (0.74 to 0.89) | |
| Percentage of town residents who are youths (age <18) (continuous variable) | |||||
| Odds ratio corresponding to each 10 percentage point increase in proportion of residents who are youths | 1.48 (0.94 to 2.35) | – | – | 1.53 (1.02 to 2.29) | |