Skip to main content

Table 3 Effects of predictor variables on intention to quit tobacco, represented by the total- direct- and indirect-standardized coefficients

From: Poor implementation of tobacco control measures and lack of education influences the intention to quit tobacco: a structural equation modelling approach

Pathway

(IV ➔ DV)

Total effect

Direct effect

Indirect effects (Mediation)

Tobacco Control Measures âž” Quit

0.176 ***

0.167***

006* (Frequency)

0.002 NS (Duration)

0.001 NS (Dependency)

Education âž” Quit

0.14***

0.13***

0.006* (Frequency)

0.005 NS (Duration)

0 NS (Dependency)

Frequency âž” Quit

-0.257***

-0.257***

Only direct effects are available

Duration âž” Quit

-0.028 NS

-0.028 NS

Dependency âž” Quit

-0.035 NS

0.035 NS

N Influencers âž” Quit

0.686***

0.686***

Only direct effects are available

HCP vs. None âž” Quit

0.425***

0.425***

Only direct effects are available

Rel vs. None âž” Quit

0.399***

0.399***

Friends vs. None âž” Quit

0.417***

0.417***

Parents vs. None âž” Quit

0.288***

0.288***

Bidis âž” Quit

-0.115***

Only total effects were of interest as these variables were included as controlling factors

Cig âž” Quit

-0.058**

Tambakoo âž” Quit

0.186***

Bidis âž” Frequency

0.142***

0.142***

Only direct effects are available

Cig âž” Frequency

-0.048*

-0.048*

Tambakoo âž” Frequency

-0.135***

-0.135***

Bidis âž” Duration

0.199***

0.199***

Only direct effects are available

Bidis âž” Dependency

0.078**

0.078**

Only direct effects are available

Betel âž” Dependency

0.07**

0.07**

Shisha âž” Dependency

0.103**

0.103**

  1. Results represent the standardized coefficients
  2. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, NS Non-significant (P > 0.05)
  3. N Influencers: Number of influencers