---
title: "Cigarette Filters Reduce Appeal and Alter Harm Perceptions: Randomised Online Study in Great Brita"
id: "medrxiv-20-examining-the-appeal-of-cigarette-filters-an-online-randomised-experiment-among"
canonical_url: "https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-20-examining-the-appeal-of-cigarette-filters-an-online-randomised-experiment-among"
content_type: "clinical_feed_article"
specialty: "General"
source_name: "medRxiv (Clinical Preprints)"
source_url: "https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.17.26363313v1?rss=1"
published_at: "2026-09-20T12:00:00.000Z"
evidence_level: "Verified Feed"
license: "CC-BY-NC-4.0 / Informational Use"
---
# Cigarette Filters Reduce Appeal and Alter Harm Perceptions: Randomised Online Study in Great Brita
## Provenance & Clinical Metadata
- **Canonical URL:** https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-20-examining-the-appeal-of-cigarette-filters-an-online-randomised-experiment-among
- **Specialty:** [General](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/general.md)
- **Primary Source:** medRxiv (Clinical Preprints)
- **Source URL:** [Original Journal Publication](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.17.26363313v1?rss=1)
- **Published At:** 2026-09-20T12:00:00.000Z
- **Evidence Rating:** Verified Feed
## Executive GIST (TL;DR)
- This online between-subject randomised experiment embedded in a nationally representative Great Britain survey tested whether **cigarette filters** affect appeal and perceived harms. - Participants (n=3,961 adults ≥18) were recruited via the YouGov Social Omnibus in May 2026; subgroup analyses included current smokers (n=499) and daily smokers (n=270). - Participants were randomised to view images of cigarettes either **without filters** (intervention) or **with filters** (conventional comparator). - Primary outcome: choosing one of the displayed cigarettes to smoke versus selecting none. Secondary outcomes: perceiving the cigarette as extremely harmful to health and extremely harmful to the environment. - Main finding: viewing cigarettes without filters substantially reduced the likelihood of choosing a cigarette (19.1% vs. 28.1%); adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=0.46, 95% CI=0.38–0.55, p<.001. - Viewing cigarettes without filters increased odds of being rated extremely harmful to health in the full sample (65.2% vs. 59.9%; AOR=1.26, 95% CI=1.10–1.45, p=.001). - No clear difference was found in perceiving environmental harm in the full sample (41.8% vs. 44.3%; AOR=0.89, 95% CI=0.78–1.01, p=.074). - Among people who currently smoked, those viewing unfiltered cigarettes were much less likely to choose a cigarette (67.4% vs. 94.2%; AOR=0.12, 95% CI=0.06–0.22, p<.001); similar results were seen in daily smokers (70.7% vs. 94.8%; AOR=0.14, 95% CI=0.06–0.36, p<.001). - Evidence was insufficient to conclude differences in perceived health harms between conditions within current or daily smokers (p-values .588 and .324 respectively). - Authors conclude that removing filters could reduce cigarette appeal and raise health-harm perceptions in the general population; policy regulation or prohibition of filters may advance public health and environmental goals. - Ethics approval and participant consent were reported; data and code are available at the provided OSF link. Funders included University of Sussex, NIHR, National Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK, and British Heart Foundation.
## Clinical Analysis & Structured Key Points
Examining the Appeal of Cigarette Filters: An Online Randomised Experiment Among Adults in Great Britain | medRxiv Skip to main content Examining the Appeal of Cigarette Filters: An Online Randomised Experiment Among Adults in Great Britain Katherine East , Hazel Cheeseman , Eve V Taylor doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.17.26363313 Katherine East 1 Brighton and Sussex Medical School; Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site For correspondence: k.east{at}bsms.ac.uk Hazel Cheeseman 2 Action on Smoking and Health; Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Eve V Taylor 3 Brighton and Sussex Medical School; King's College London Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Abstract Info/History Metrics Supplementary material Data/Code Preview PDF Abstract Background and aims. Cigarette filters are present in almost all cigarettes sold globally, despite providing no health protection and contributing substantially to environmental pollution. Filters may also increase cigarette appeal and reinforce misperceptions of reduced harm. This study aimed to examine the impact of cigarette filters on cigarette appeal and perceptions of health and environmental harms among adults in Great Britain. Design. Online between-subject randomised experiment embedded within a nationally representative survey. Setting. Great Britain, May 2026. Participants. Adults aged 18+ years, recruited through the YouGov Social Omnibus survey (n=3961). Subgroup analyses were conducted among people who currently smoked (n=499) and people who smoked daily (n=270). Intervention and comparator. Participants were randomised to view images of cigarettes either without filters (intervention) or with filters (conventional cigarettes; comparator). Measurements. The primary outcome was selecting one of the displayed cigarettes to smoke vs. selecting none. Secondary outcomes were perceptions that the cigarette was extremely harmful to health and extremely harmful to the environment. Logistic regression models were used, adjusting for age, sex and smoking status. Results. There was strong evidence to suggest that participants who viewed cigarettes without filters had markedly lower odds of choosing a cigarette to smoke than those who viewed cigarettes with filters (19.1% vs. 28.1%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=0.46 [95% confidence interval [CI]=0.38-0.55], p<.001). Cigarettes without filters also had higher odds of being perceived as extremely harmful to health (65.2% vs. 59.9%; AOR=1.26 [1.10-1.45], p=.001). Evidence was insufficient to conclude a difference between conditions in perceiving cigarettes as extremely harmful to the environment (41.8% vs. 44.3%; AOR=0.89 [0.78-1.01], p=.074). Findings were similar among people who currently smoke, with participants who viewed cigarettes without (vs. with) filters having markedly lower odds of choosing a cigarette (67.4% vs. 94.2%; AOR=0.12 [0.06-0.22], p<.001). These findings were also similar among people who smoke daily (70.7% vs. 94.8%; AOR=0.14, 95% CI=0.06-0.36, p<0.001). However, evidence was insufficient to conclude differences in perceived health harms between conditions among people who smoke currently (29.7% vs. 27.8%; p=.588) or daily (32.2% vs. 28.6%; p=.324). Summary. Removing cigarette filters reduced the appeal of cigarettes among the general population and people who smoke. Removing filters also increased perceptions of health harms in the general population. Given that cigarette filters provide no health protection and contribute to environmental pollution, policies that regulate or prohibit filters may support public health and environmental goals. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Ethics committee of the University of Sussex gave ethical approval for this work. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Data Availability The data and code behind this work are available online at https://osf.io/8hk2j/files/osfstorage. https://osf.io/8hk2j/files/osfstorage Funder Information Declared University of Sussex, https://ror.org/00ayhx656 , Sussex Knowledge Exchange Fellowship (Policy Fellowship) National Institute for Health and Care Research , NIHR 206123 National Cancer Institute, https://ror.org/040gcmg81 , 1P01CA200512 Cancer Research UK, https://ror.org/054225q67 British Heart Foundation, https://ror.org/02wdwnk04 Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license . Back to top Previous Next Posted September 20, 2026. Download PDF Supplementary Material Data/Code Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Examining the Appeal of Cigarette Filters: An Online Randomised Experiment Among Adults in Great Britain Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Examining the Appeal of Cigarette Filters: An Online Randomised Experiment Among Adults in Great Britain Katherine East , Hazel Cheeseman , Eve V Taylor medRxiv 2026.09.17.26363313; doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.17.26363313 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Examining the Appeal of Cigarette Filters: An Online Randomised Experiment Among Adults in Great Britain Katherine East , Hazel Cheeseman , Eve V Taylor medRxiv 2026.09.17.26363313; doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.17.26363313 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Areas All Articles Addiction Medicine (619) Allergy and Immunology (903) Anesthesia (334) Cardiovascular Medicine (4828) Dentistry and Oral Medicine (479) Dermatology (419) Emergency Medicine (651) Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1633) Epidemiology (15974) Forensic Medicine (33) Gastroenterology (1206) Genetic and Genomic Medicine (7065) Geriatric Medicine (734) Health Economics (1066) Health Informatics (5060) Health Policy (1437) Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1775) Hematology (587) HIV/AIDS (1347) Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (16307) Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1174) Medical Education (671) Medical Ethics (155) Nephrology (727) Neurology (7291) Nursing (368) Nutrition (1084) Obstetrics and Gynecology (1243) Occupational and Environmental Health (1005) Oncology (3614) Ophthalmology (1055) Orthopedics (398) Otolaryngology (457) Pain Medicine (472) Palliative Medicine (139) Pathology (709) Pediatrics (1805) Pharmacology and Therapeutics (739) Primary Care Research (768) Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5919) Public and Global Health (9770) Radiology and Imaging (2432) Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1456) Respiratory Medicine (1250) Rheumatology (642) Sexual and Reproductive Health (773) Sports Medicine (579) Surgery (782) Toxicology (107) Transplantation (305) Urology (293)
## Related Clinical Research

- [Barriers to Primary Healthcare for the Rural Bangladeshi Elderly: A Social Ecological Model Review](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-19-using-the-social-ecological-model-to-identify-barriers-to-accessing-and-using.md)
- [Using Open-Source LLMs to Extract Natural History Study Data for Rare Disease Research](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-21-llm-enabled-natural-history-study-analysis-to-support-rare-disease-research.md)
- [STRAVIX vs Acellular Matrix Products for Diabetic Lower Extremity Ulcers: Comparative Hospital Out](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-1-effectiveness-of-human-cellular-umbilical-tissue-allograft-compared-to.md)
- [Jehovah’s Witnesses permit blood-derived products but keep ban on whole-blood transfusions](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/stat-news-0-jehovah-s-witnesses-allow-blood-derived-products-but-keep-ban-on-whole-blood.md)
- [8-hour time-restricted eating yields greater weight loss but not consistent blood pressure benefits](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medical-news-today-0-16-8-intermittent-fasting-best-for-weight-loss-but-not-for-blood-pressure.md)

## Navigation
- [← Back to General Feed](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/general.md)
- [← All Clinical Specialties](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed.md)
## Medical & Regulatory Disclaimer

> [!CAUTION]
> MedicHelpline content is structured for research, educational, and professional discovery purposes. It does not constitute individual medical advice, clinical diagnosis, or treatment recommendations.
> Always verify dosing, contraindications, and regulatory alerts against official product labeling and primary regulatory sources before clinical decision-making.