This study was a between-subject online randomised experiment embedded within a nationally representative survey conducted in Great Britain in May 2026. The trial was delivered through the YouGov Social Omnibus platform and compared participant responses after viewing images of cigarettes either without filters (intervention) or with conventional filters (comparator).
A total of 3,961 adults aged 18 years and older participated. The authors prespecified subgroup analyses of people who currently smoke (n=499) and people who smoke daily (n=270). Sampling and recruitment details follow the YouGov Social Omnibus methodology as reported in the source.
Participants were randomised to view photographs of cigarettes presented in one of two conditions: cigarettes displayed without filters (intervention) or cigarettes displayed with filters (conventional comparator). The images were the only experimental manipulation reported.
The primary outcome was whether a participant selected one of the displayed cigarettes to smoke versus selecting none. Secondary outcomes were whether the participant perceived the displayed cigarette as extremely harmful to health and whether it was perceived as extremely harmful to the environment. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex and smoking status were used to estimate effects.
Analyses used logistic regression adjusting for age, sex and smoking status. Results are reported as percentages, adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values. Subgroup analyses were performed for people who currently smoke and people who smoke daily; where p-values did not meet conventional thresholds the authors reported evidence as insufficient to conclude a difference.
In the full sample, participants who viewed cigarettes without filters had substantially lower odds of choosing a cigarette to smoke than those who viewed filtered cigarettes. The observed selection rates were 19.1% for the unfiltered condition versus 28.1% for the filtered condition. The adjusted odds ratio was 0.46 (95% CI 0.38–0.55), p<.001, indicating markedly reduced appeal when filters were absent.
In the full sample, cigarettes without filters were more likely to be judged as extremely harmful to health than those with filters (65.2% vs. 59.9%). The adjusted odds ratio for this comparison was 1.26 (95% CI 1.10–1.45), p=.001, indicating increased perception of health harm in the unfiltered condition. Among people who currently smoke and among daily smokers, the evidence was insufficient to conclude a difference in perceived health harms between conditions (current smokers: 29.7% vs. 27.8%, p=.588; daily smokers: 32.2% vs. 28.6%, p=.324).
For perceptions of extreme environmental harm, the full-sample difference between unfiltered and filtered cigarettes was not statistically conclusive. Reported percentages were 41.8% for unfiltered versus 44.3% for filtered cigarettes, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.89 (95% CI 0.78–1.01), p=.074. The authors reported that evidence was insufficient to conclude a difference between conditions for environmental harm perceptions.
Subgroup analyses showed large differences in the primary outcome among people who currently smoke and those who smoke daily. Current smokers who viewed unfiltered cigarettes were less likely to select a cigarette (67.4%) than those who viewed filtered cigarettes (94.2%); AOR=0.12 (95% CI 0.06–0.22), p<.001. Among daily smokers, selection rates were 70.7% for unfiltered versus 94.8% for filtered cigarettes; AOR=0.14 (95% CI 0.06–0.36), p<.001. However, as noted above, differences in perceived health harms within these smoker subgroups did not reach evidence thresholds for a conclusion.
The authors reported that ethical approval was granted by the Ethics committee of the University of Sussex and that participant consent procedures were followed. The competing interest statement declared no competing interests. Data and analysis code are available at the specified OSF repository. Reported funders included the University of Sussex (Sussex Knowledge Exchange Fellowship/Policy Fellowship), the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the National Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation.
The authors conclude that removing cigarette filters reduced cigarette appeal in both the general population sample and among people who smoke, and that removing filters increased perceptions of health harm in the general population. Given that cigarette filters provide no health protection and contribute to environmental pollution, the authors suggest that policies regulating or prohibiting filters may support public health and environmental objectives.
Note: All results, figures and statistics above are taken from the reported trial summary. No additional analyses or external data were introduced beyond what the source reported.