Table 2

Demographic characteristics in the cessation of betel quid chewing. (N = 3291)


Betel quid chewers





Former chewers (N = 251)
Current chewers (N = 3040)
ORb (95% CI)
aORc (95% CI)





N
(%)a
N
(%)a



Gender






     Male
167
(8.2)
1866
(91.8)
1.25(0.95–1.64)
-
     Female
84
(6.7)
1174
(93.3)
1.00

Age (yrs)*






     >=45
157
(9.9)
1425
(90.1)
1.89(1.45–2.47) †
1.84(1.40–2.42) †
     <45
94
(5.5)
1615
(94.5)
1.00
1.00
Obesity






     Yes
58
(7.3)
742
(92.8)
0.93(0.69–1.26)
-
     No
193
(7.8)
2298
(92.3)
1.00

Education (years)






     <=6
137
(8.0)
1572
(92.0)
1.12(0.87–1.45)
-
     >6
114
(7.2)
1468
(92.8)
1.00

Age commenced chewing (years)






     >=20
166
(8.0)
1923
(92.1)
1.13(0.87–1.49)
-
     <20
85
(7.1)
1117
(92.9)
1.00

Quids per day*






     <=10
134
(8.8)
1397
(91.3)
1.34(1.04–1.74) †
1.24(0.95–1.62)
     >10
117
(6.7)
1643
(93.4)
1.00
1.00
Marital status






     Married
213
(8.0)
2448
(92.0)
1.33(0.93–1.91)
-
     Single
37
(6.2)
565
(93.9)
1.00

Ethnicity*






     Taiwan aborigines
218
(7.2)
2800
(92.8)
0.36(0.21–0.60) †
0.40(0.24–0.68) †
     Mixed-Taiwan aborigines
9
(7.0)
119
(93.0)
0.35(0.15–0.80) †
0.47(0.20–1.11)
     Non-Taiwan aborigines
19
(17.9)
87
(82.1)
1.00
1.00
Alcohol consumption*






     No
91
(12.5)
640
(87.6)
2.10(1.60–2.76) †
1.89(1.43–2.50) †
     Yes
157
(6.3)
2323
(93.7)
1.00
1.00
Cigarette smoking






     No
97
(7.1)
1266
(92.9)
0.89(0.68–1.16)
-
     Yes
145
(8.0)
1676
(92.0)
1.00


* Significant difference in the prevalence of former and current chewers by Chi-square analysis (p < 0.05)

† Significant difference by logistic regression model (P < 0.05).

a May not total 100% due to rounding.

b Odds ratios (OR) refer to the risk of former chewers versus current chewers according to each variable. OR > 1 indicates a higher likelihood of being a former chewer (quit chewing).

c aOR: adjusted odds ratio for age (years), quids per day, ethnicity and alcohol consumption by logistic regression model; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.

Lin et al. BMC Public Health 2006 6:271   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-271