Any combustible tobacco smokers (n=1549) | Never tobacco users (n=2465) | ||||
Outcome | Exposure variable | AOR (95% CI) | P value | AOR (95% CI) | P value |
Perception e-cigarettes less harmful than combustible cigarettes or don't know the relative harm | Neither (referent) | ||||
E-cigarette ads only | 1.69 (0.55 to 5.20) | 0.36 | 0.66 (0.37 to 1.16) | 0.15 | |
SHS in public places only | 2.10 (0.75 to 5.90) | 0.16 | 1.10 (0.46 to 2.60) | 0.83 | |
Both | 2.12 (0.73 to 6.21) | 0.17 | 1.87 (0.75 to 4.64) | 0.18 | |
Believed ‘e-cigarette advertisements and promotion may make adolescents think of smoking traditional cigarettes’ | Neither (referent) | ||||
E-cigarette ads only | 0.40 (0.14 to 1.13) | 0.08 | 0.97 (0.56 to 1.69) | 0.91 | |
SHS in public places only | 0.22 (0.06 to 0.81) | 0.02 | 0.94 (0.34 to 2.56) | 0.90 | |
Both | 0.19 (0.07 to 0.56) | <0.01 | 1.72 (0.73 to 4.02) | 0.21 | |
Believed that ‘e-cigarette advertisements and promotions may make ex-smokers think of starting smoking cigarettes again’ | Neither (referent) | ||||
E-cigarette ads only | 0.80 (0.19 to 3.36) | 0.76 | 0.61 (0.36 to 1.03) | 0.06 | |
SHS in public places only | 0.38 (0.07 to 1.97) | 0.25 | 0.40 (0.16 to 1.01) | 0.05 | |
Both | 0.48 (0.12 to 1.92) | 0.30 | 0.52 (0.19 to 1.47) | 0.22 | |
Supported that ‘e-cigarette smoking should be banned indoors just as traditional cigarette smoking’ | Neither (referent) | ||||
E-cigarette ads only | 1.49 (0.39 to 5.65) | 0.56 | 0.82 (0.46 to 1.48) | 0.52 | |
SHS in public places only | 0.55 (0.13 to 2.27) | 0.40 | 0.83 (0.31 to 2.22) | 0.71 | |
Both | 0.39 (0.12 to 1.28) | 0.12 | 0.65 (0.27 to 1.54) | 0.32 | |
Supported that ‘e-cigarette advertisement and promotions should be banned just as with traditional cigarettes’ | Neither (referent) | ||||
E-cigarette ads only | 1.66 (0.46 to 6.03) | 0.44 | 0.91 (0.50 to 1.66) | 0.75 | |
SHS in public places only | 0.49 (0.12 to 2.03) | 0.33 | 0.97 (0.33 to 2.83) | 0.95 | |
Both | 0.40 (0.13 to 1.27) | 0.12 | 0.73 (0.30 to 1.77) | 0.49 | |
Believed that ‘Seeing people smoke e-cigarettes in public makes smoking look more acceptable’ | Neither (referent) | ||||
E-cigarette ads only | 0.47 (0.17 to 1.27) | 0.13 | 0.56 (0.34 to 0.92) | 0.02 | |
SHS in public places only | 0.33 (0.11 to 0.95) | 0.04 | 0.47 (0.18 to 1.22) | 0.12 | |
Both | 0.24 (0.08 to 0.71) | 0.01 | 0.33 (0.13 to 0.84) | 0.02 |
Note: Because the exposure variable (e-cigarette advertising exposure) was strongly correlated with e-cigarette use status, the study populations analysed were not stratified further by e-cigarette use status. In the table above, the two mutually exclusive strata of any combustible tobacco smokers (n=1549) and never tobacco users (n=2465) were therefore created regardless of e-cigarette use status. Logistic regression analyses controlled for age, gender, race and education.
AOR, adjusted ORs; SHS, secondhand smoke.