Opposition to Banning Cigarette Filters and the Belief That Removing Filters Makes Cigarettes Much More Harmful Among Adults Who Smoke: Findings From the 2022 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In line with historical tobacco industry marketing claims, many consumers perceive cigarettes with filters as less harmful than cigarettes without filters. However, scientific evidence indicates that cigarette filters do not reduce the risks associated with smoking. We examined opposition to banning the sale of cigarettes with filters, beliefs about whether removing filters makes cigarettes much more harmful, and whether this belief is associated with opposition to banning filters among adults who smoke cigarettes from four high-income countries. AIMS AND METHODS: Data are from 2980 adults who smoke cigarettes and participated in the 2022 ITC Smoking and Vaping Survey in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States. Weighted descriptives estimated opposition to a cigarette filter ban and the belief that removing filters makes cigarettes "much more," "a little more," "not more" harmful, or "don't know." Adjusted regression analyses examined the association between opposition to banning filters (vs. support/don't know) and the belief that removing filters would make cigarettes much more harmful (vs. otherwise). RESULTS: Across all countries, 69.3% opposed banning filters, 11.5% of respondents supported banning filters, and 19.1% did not know (main effect for country differences: p = .001). Country differences remained significant after adjusting for covariates (p = .047), with adults who smoke in Australia and the United States being significantly more likely to oppose a filter ban than those in England. Canada did not differ significantly from any of the countries. Nearly half (45.9%) believe that removing filters would make cigarettes much more harmful, 28.6% reported a little more harmful, 15.3% were unsure, and 10.2% reported not more harmful (country differences: p = .002). Country differences were no longer significant after adjustment (p = .18). Believing that removing filters makes cigarettes much more harmful was strongly associated with opposing a filter ban (78.5%) (vs. otherwise: 62.1%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Across all four countries, three-quarters of adults who smoke erroneously believe that removing filters would make cigarettes more harmful, and believing that doing so would make cigarettes much more harmful was the strongest predictor of opposing a filter ban. IMPLICATIONS: More than 90% of manufactured cigarettes worldwide contain filters. Contrary to marketing claims by the tobacco industry, cigarette filters do not offer any health protection from cigarette smoke; however, three-quarters of adults who smoke erroneously believe that cigarettes with filters are much less harmful than cigarettes without filters. To protect public health and the environment, the World Health Organization has recommended that policy-makers consider banning cigarette filters as they are unnecessary single-use plastics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".