Table 5

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

 OR
Tobacco advertisements withinEver tobacco useCurrent tobacco useCurrent smokeless tobacco use
100 m
 Low, 0 (referent)
 Medium, 11.60 (0.88, 2.91)1.07 (0.54, 2.11)1.13 (0.55, 2.34)
 High, 2–9*2.01 (1.00, 4.07)*2.23 (1.16, 4.28)*2.01 (1.02, 3.98)
200 m
 Low, 0–1 (referent)
 Medium, 2–31.20 (0.57, 2.53)0.76 (0.40, 1.43)0.92 (0.45, 1.90)
 High, 4–501.15 (0.68, 2.00)1.01 (0.50, 2.04)1.40 (0.65, 3.00)
300 m
 Low, 0–3 (referent)
 Medium, 4–61.07 (0.66, 1.72)0.70 (0.39, 1.26)1.10 (0.56, 2.14)
 High, 7–541.09 (0.64, 1.85)0.76 (0.42, 1.36)1.03 (0.49, 2.18)
400 m
 Low, 0–6 (referent)
 Medium, 7–131.17 (0.60, 2.23)0.74 (0.38, 1.47)0.34 (0.45, 1.57)
 High, 14–581.28 (0.55, 2.95)0.73 (0.42, 1.28)0.82 (0.45, 1.50)
500 m
 Low, 1–7 (referent)
 Medium, 8–141.19 (0.61, 2.31)1.14 (0.50, 2.56)0.81 (0.45, 1.45)
 High, 16–641.01 (0.49, 2.08)0.81 (0.33, 1.97)0.62 (0.35, 1.11)
  • *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, these outcomes were not included.