---
title: "Effect of Cigarette Filters on Appeal and Harm Perceptions: Randomised Online Experiment in Great"
id: "medrxiv-22-examining-the-appeal-of-cigarette-filters-an-online-randomised-experiment-among"
canonical_url: "https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-22-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"
---
# Effect of Cigarette Filters on Appeal and Harm Perceptions: Randomised Online Experiment in Great
## Provenance & Clinical Metadata
- **Canonical URL:** https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medrxiv-22-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 preprint reports an online between-subject randomized experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey of adults (n=3961) in Great Britain, conducted May 2026, on how **cigarette filters** affect appeal and perceived harms. - Participants were randomized to view images of cigarettes either **without filters** (intervention) or **with filters** (comparator). The primary outcome was choosing one of the displayed cigarettes to smoke versus selecting none. - Overall, fewer participants who viewed unfiltered cigarettes chose a cigarette to smoke compared with those who viewed filtered cigarettes (19.1% vs 28.1%). Adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=0.46, 95% CI 0.38–0.55, p<.001. - Viewing unfiltered cigarettes increased the odds of rating the cigarette as extremely harmful to health (65.2% vs 59.9%; AOR=1.26, 95% CI 1.10–1.45, p=.001). - There was insufficient evidence of a difference between conditions for rating cigarettes as extremely harmful to the environment (41.8% vs 44.3%; AOR=0.89, 95% CI 0.78–1.01, p=.074). - Among people who currently smoked (n=499) and those who smoked daily (n=270), viewing unfiltered (vs filtered) cigarettes was associated with markedly lower odds of choosing a cigarette: current smokers 67.4% vs 94.2% (AOR=0.12, 95% CI 0.06–0.22, p<.001); daily smokers 70.7% vs 94.8% (AOR=0.14, 95% CI 0.06–0.36, p<.001). - For smokers, evidence was insufficient to conclude differences in perceived health harms between conditions (current smokers p=.588; daily smokers p=.324). - The authors note that filters provide no health protection and contribute to environmental pollution; they suggest that policies regulating or prohibiting filters could support public health and environmental goals. - The study is a preprint (posted September 20, 2026) and had ethical approval from the University of Sussex; data and code are available via OSF. Funding sources are reported in the manuscript.
## Clinical Analysis & Structured Key Points
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.
## Related Clinical Research

- [Torpor-Induced Reversible Immune Suppression in Thirteen-Lined Ground Squirrels: Mechanisms and Ce](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/biorxiv-1-mechanistic-investigation-of-reversible-hibernation-driven-immune-suppression.md)
- [Rapid standardized soil-based protocol for seedling drought tolerance screening in small grain cer](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/biorxiv-6-standardized-and-rapid-protocol-for-drought-tolerance-screening-at-seedling.md)
- [Reduce Gun Access to Prevent Suicide: Evidence and Policy Options](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/kff-health-news-0-it-s-hard-to-predict-who-will-be-suicidal-it-s-easier-to-ensure-people-can-t.md)
- [Kratom and 7‑OH dependence drives surge in addiction clinic visits](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/stat-news-6-addiction-clinics-see-rising-cases-of-kratom-and-7-oh-withdrawal.md)
- [Add a pregnancy and lactation checkbox to ClinicalTrials.gov](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/stat-news-7-opinion-clinicaltrials-gov-needs-a-pregnancy-and-lactation-checkbox.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.