ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences2026
Experience-based ambivalence toward medical opioid use among Japanese adults: a nationwide cross-sectional survey using the barriers questionnaire II.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain is one of the most distressing symptoms in patients with cancer. Although established guidelines now recommend appropriate opioid use, even for mild-to-moderate pain, Japan's prescription volume remains markedly lower than that of Western countries. Public ambivalence, recognizing opioids as effective yet fearing dependence and adverse effects, may contribute to this underuse. However, little is known about how indirect exposure to opioids through family members' cancer treatments shapes such attitudes. This study examined the perceived barriers to and willingness to use medical opioids among cancer-free adults, focusing on the influence of family experiences with opioid use.
methodsA cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted on July 30, 2025, among 618 Japanese adults aged 20-49 years without a history of cancer. Participants were categorized into three groups: Opioid+ (family with cancer and opioid use), Opioid- (family with cancer but no opioid use), and None (no family history of cancer). Psychological barriers were assessed using the Japanese version of the Barriers Questionnaire II (JBQ-II), comprising an overall score and five subscales. Willingness to use opioids in a hypothetical mild-to-moderate cancer pain scenario was rated on a 10-point Likert scale. Group differences were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Steel-Dwass tests (two-tailed p < 0.05).
resultsCompared with the None group, the Opioid + group showed significantly higher scores for overall JBQ-II (3.23 vs. 3.11, p < 0.01), Physiological Effects (3.47 vs. 3.32, p < 0.05), Harmful Effects (3.32 vs. 3.12, p < 0.001), and Disease Progression (3.65 vs. 3.39, p < 0.01), but lower Fatalism scores (2.25 vs. 2.46, p < 0.05). Willingness to use medical opioids was also higher in the Opioid + group (7.43) than in the Opioid- (6.55, p < 0.01) and None groups (6.59, p < 0.01).
conclusionsIndirect exposure to opioids through family members' cancer treatment was associated with ambivalent attitudes, characterized by greater recognition of barriers alongside increased willingness to use medical opioids. Addressing this experience-based ambivalence through evidence-based education, individualized counseling using the JBQ-II, and family-involved communication support may help promote the safe and appropriate use of medical opioids in Japan's cultural and public health contexts. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.