Skip to main content

Table 3 Logistic regression examining perceptions of cigarette smoking associated with waterpipe ever use (n = 106)

From: Determinants of waterpipe use amongst adolescents in Northern Sweden: a survey of use pattern, risk perception, and environmental factors

In comparison to cigarette ever use Study participants Waterpipe ever use Crude odds ratio (95 % confidence interval) Adjusted odds ratioϯ (95 % confidence interval)
N = 106
N (%)
Yes N = 62
N (%)
No N = 44
N (%)
Harm perception cigarette vs. waterpipe
 Less harmful 82 (77) 51 (82) 31 (71) 1.9 (0.7–4.8) 1.6 (0.6–4.3)
 More harmful (reference) 24 (23) 11 (18) 13 (29)   
sEasy to get-away with cigarette vs. waterpipe?
 Easy to get-away 43 (59) 29 (71) 14 (52) 2.2 (1.0–5.1) 2.1 (0.9–5.0)
 Difficult to get way (reference) 63 (41) 33 (29) 30 (48)   
Parental approval cigarette vs. waterpipe?
 More likely approval 84 (79) 44 (71) 38 (86) 0.4 (0.1–1.1) 0.4 (0.1–1.1)
 Approval will be about same (reference) 24 (21) 18 (29) 6 (14)   
Cost cigarette vs. waterpipe?
 Less expensive 10 (9) 7 (11) 3 (7) 1.7 (0.4–7.1) 3.1 (0.7–14.0)
 More expensive (reference) 96 (91) 55 (89) 41 (93)   
Accessibility cigarette vs. waterpipe?*
 Easier access 28 (26) 21 (34) 7 (16) 2.7 (1.1–7.1) 3.2 (1.1–8.9)
 Difficult to access (reference) 78 (74) 41 (66) 37 (84)   
Smell cigarette vs. waterpipe?*
 Much better 62 (58) 46 (74) 16 (36) 5.1 (2.2–11.6) 4.1 (1.7–9.8)
 About the same (reference) 44 (42) 16 (26) 28 (64)   
  1. * p < 0.05, p values for the confidence interval
  2. ϯAdjusted for age and gender