Table 1 Comparison of variables used in the latent class analysis of betel nut chewers, by chewing class
| Â | Class 1 n = 78 | Class 2 n = 222 | P value* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Â | n (%) | n (%) | Â |
Betel nut maturity** | Â | Â | <0.001* |
% that chew young betel nut | 3 (3.8) | 183 (82.4) | |
% that chew mature betel nut | 73 (93.6) | 18 (8.1) | |
% that chew both equally | 0 | 21 (9.5) | |
Betel nut variety | Â | Â | <0.001* |
% that chew red variety | 71 (91.0) | 118(53.2) | |
% that chew white variety | 3 (3.8) | 79 (35.6) | |
% that chew both equally | 4 (5.1) | 25 (11.3) | |
% that add betel leaf | 44 (56.4) | 172 (77.5) | <0.001* |
% that add calcium hydroxide (lime) | 3 (3.8) | 222 (100) | <0.001* |
% that add tobacco | 11 (14.3) | 194 (87.4) | <0.001* |
% that spike ingredients with alcohol | 6 (7.7) | 19 (8.6) | 0.81 |
% that swallow betel quid | 74 (96.1) | 71 (32.0) | <0.001* |
% that smoke | 46 (59.0) | 93 (42.1) | 0.01* |
% that consume alcohol | 45 (57.7) | 132 (59.5) | 0.79 |