Skip to main content

Table 2 Effect of all tobacco control campaigns (2004–2010) and other factors on odds of smoke-free home, n = 9,872

From: The effectiveness of tobacco control television advertisements in increasing the prevalence of smoke-free homes

Covariate Categories OR (95 % CI) p
Timea   1.01 (1.01–1.02) <0.001
Tobacco control campaigns Total GRPsa 1.01 (0.99–1.04) 0.184
Total GRPs (1 month)a 1.00 (0.98–1.02) 0.959
Total GRPs (2 months)a 1.00 (0.98–1.02) 0.921
TCS Score 24.5 1  
27 1.07 (0.84–1.36) 0.595
  48 1.41 (0.95–2.10) 0.092
  51 1.14 (0.74–1.74) 0.548
Season Summer 1  
Autumn 0.98 (0.84–1.13) 0.756
Spring 0.88 (0.74–1.04) 0.135
Winter 0.84 (0.71–0.98) 0.030
Government office region North East 1  
North West 0.67 (0.52–0.87) 0.027
Yorkshire and the Humber 0.78 (0.59–1.02) 0.0366
East Midland 0.71 (0.54–0.93) 0.013
West Midland 0.85 (0.65–1.12) 0.246
East of England 0.92 (0.70–1.20) 0.526
London 0.71 (0.54–0.92) 0.010
South East 0.73 (0.56–0.95) 0.017
South West 1.09 (0.82–1.43) 0.557
Gender of smokers in household All female smokers 1  
All male smokers 1.43 (1.29–1.60) <0.001
Mixed smokers 1.18 (0.87–1.61) 0.276
Average age of smokers in household 18–24 1  
25–39 0.74 (0.62–0.87) <0.001
40–54 0.52 (0.43–0.62) <0.001
55+ 0.32 (0.26–0.39) <0.001
NS-SEC of head of household Managerial & professional 1  
Intermediate 0.79 (0.69–0.91) <0.001
Routine & manual 0.64 (0.57–0.72) <0.001
Other 0.58 (0.43–0.78) <0.001
Average level of dependence of smokers in household 0 (least addicted) 12.59 (6.72–23.61) <0.001
1 5.03 (2.67–9.48) <0.001
2 3.46 (1.84–6.51) <0.001
3 2.26 (1.20–4.25) <0.012
4 1.25 (0.66–2.37) 0.501
5 0.42 (0.19–0.94) 0.034
6 (most addicted) 1  
Age of youngest child in household No child 1  
0-5 2.59 (2.24–3.00) <0.001
6-15 1.34 (1.18–1.53) <0.001
Number of adult smokers Two or more smokers 1  
Lone smoker 2.83 (2.12–3.78) <0.001
Lone smoker (lives alone) 0.84 (0.63–1.11) 0.223
Index of Multiple deprivation 1 (least deprived) 1  
2 1.02 (0.86–1.21) 0.847
3 0.79 (0.66–0.93) 0.006
4 0.60 (0.50–0.71) <0.001
5 (most deprived) 0.41 (0.34–0.49) <0.001
  1. aTime and GRPs at different lags were initially considered as nonlinear smooth terms and as they were found to be linear (spline effective degrees of freedom = 1), replaced with linear terms. The table presents the ORs for having a smoke-free home associated with a 100 point increase in GRPs. Also included in the model is a covariate for number of addresses in each PSU. Likelihood ratio test p values are not shown for categorical variables as modelling was based on quasi-likelihood