Table 4

Unadjusted and adjusted percentages, ORs and 95% CIs from logistic regression models predicting perceived harm outcomes*

Comparing phases—unadjusted modelsComparing phases—adjusted models†PP year 1 trend—adjusted models
Per centOR (95% CI)p ValuePer centOR (95% CI)p ValueFormORp Value
Believes brands do not differ in harmfulness‡ (n=6924)
 Transition67.01.06 (0.86 to 1.29)0.59867.61.09 (0.89 to 1.35)0.405
 PP year 169.81.20 (1.06 to 1.36)0.00469.81.21 (1.06 to 1.38)0.004Linear0.970.012
Higher harmfulness than a year ago§ (n=6838)
 Transition22.10.89 (0.70 to 1.12)0.32321.80.89 (0.70 to 1.13)0.349
 PP year 123.40.96 (0.83 to 1.10)0.53223.60.99 (0.86 to 1.14)0.877Linear1.000.811
Believes variants do not differ in strength‡ (n=6894)
 Transition5.91.16 (0.78 to 1.72)0.4775.81.09 (0.72 to 1.64)0.683
 PP year 16.11.19 (0.92 to 1.55)0.1786.11.15 (0.88 to 1.51)0.303Linear1.010.812
  • Bold text indicates significant findings at p<0.05.

  • *Valid n's for each model vary because of differences in the number of respondents who were eligible for each question (see below) and the number of missing cases for each outcome. Missing cases ranged from 5.4% to 6.6%.

  • †Multivariate models adjusted for age, gender, educational attainment, SES, Heaviness of Smoking Index, past 3-month Target Audience Rating Points for antismoking mass media campaigns and change in cigarette costliness.

  • ‡Items were only asked of cigarette smokers who, when asked to name which brand of FM cigarettes/RYO tobacco they were currently smoking, provided a valid brand name.

  • §Items were asked of all cigarette smokers.

  • FM, factory-made; PP, plain packaging; RYO, roll-your-own; SES, socioeconomic status.