Table 5

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

T1 predictorT2 status contrastORCIp Value
AgeDual-user vs non-user2.051.42 to 2.960.0001
Cig only vs non-user1.380.74 to 2.550.31
E-cig only vs non-user1.270.96 to 1.660.09
Native Hawaiian*Dual-user vs non-user3.102.36 to 4.06<0.0001
Cig only vs non-user2.470.87 to 7.030.09
E-cig only vs Non-user2.361.60 to 3.48<0.0001
Caucasian*Dual-user vs non-user2.151.36 to 3.380.001
Cig only vs non-user2.561.20 to 5.450.02
E-cig only vs non-user1.481.05 to 2.110.03
FilipinoDual-user vs non-user1.521.05 to 2.200.03
Cig only vs non-user1.380.48 to 3.980.55
E-cig only vs non-user1.331.07 to 1.650.01
Parental supportDual-user vs non-user0.760.62 to 0.920.005
Cig only vs non-user0.650.46 to 0.910.01
E-cig only vs non-user0.790.67 to 0.920.004
RebelliousnessDual-use vs non-user3.322.58 to 4.27<0.0001
Cig only vs non-user2.501.69 to 3.70<0.0001
E-cig only vs non-user1.831.49 to 2.23<0.0001
Father's educationDual-user vs non-user0.650.54 to 0.78<0.0001
Cig only vs non-user1.090.77 to 1.540.62
E-cig only vs non-user0.770.62 to 0.940.01
E-cigs healthierDual-user vs non-user2.591.67 to 4.00<0.0001
Cig only vs non-user2.381.37 to 4.130.002
E-cig only vs non-user3.182.24 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.