Table 4

Multilevel logistic regression assessing association of tobacco vendor density near schools with student tobacco use

Adjusted OR
Ever tobacco useCurrent tobacco useCurrent smokeless tobacco use
Tobacco vendors within
100 m
 Low, 0–1 (referent)
 Medium, 2–61.01 (0.53, 1.91)1.86 (0.83, 4.17)1.33 (0.59, 3.04)
 High, 7–280.72 (0.36, 1.45)0.99 (0.43, 2.28)0.94 (0.41, 2.18)
200 m
 Low, 1–9 (referent)
 Medium, 10–991.53 (0.79, 2.96)*2.25 (1.19, 4.25)1.57 (0.77, 3.21)
 High, 20–751.54 (0.88, 2.72)*2.05 (1.02, 4.13)1.49 (1.01, 2.82)
300 m
 Low, 1–20 (referent)
 Medium, 21–301.59 (0.93, 2.71)1.56 (0.74, 3.31)1.56 (0.75, 3.23)
 High, 31–1281.66 (0.32, 2.99)*2.16 (1.06, 4.40)*2.12 (1.04, 4.32)
400 m
 Low, 1–32 (referent)
 Medium, 32–501.49 (0.69, 3.24)*2.40 (1.18, 4.87)*1.89 (0.86, 4.13)
 High, 51–1711.53 (0.71, 3.26)*2.74 (1.50, 5.01)*2.60 (1.36, 4.97)
500 m
 Low, 2–38 (referent)
 Medium, 39–601.86 (0.97, 3.57)1.70 (0.69, 4.16)*2.46 (1.25, 4.82)
 High, 61–1991.74 (0.86, 3.51)1.99 (0.92, 4.33)*2.97 (1.74, 5.05)
  • *p<0.05; Adjusted for gender, age, religion, pocket money, parent use, peer use, ease of access, hopelessness and school fee structure; Density measures were grouped into tertiles; Due to instable estimates resulting from low sample sizes of current smokers, this outcome was not included.