ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
A comparative network analysis to explore cancer patient experiences with cannabis.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Approximately 20% of cancer patients report cannabis use, yet only 30% of oncologists feel sufficiently informed to make recommendations on its use. This study aimed to visualize the network of themes that arise within cancer patients' reported experiences with cannabis. Materials and methods: Data was collected via an online survey of 65 patients who self-reported the use of cannabis in their treatment for cancer, details about the cannabis product(s) being used, their perceived benefits and problems associated with cannabis use, their reasons for starting cannabis use, and any reasons for stopping cannabis use. Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) was used to compare two groups of cancer patients: 1) those who only used CBD-dominant products (CBD-only group) versus 2) those who used cannabidiol (CBD)- and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products (either CBD-dominant and THC-dominant cannabis products or cannabis products containing a balanced ratio of both CBD and THC; CBD+THC group). Results: Cannabis use conferred therapeutic benefits for several health issues commonly encountered by cancer patients. Common benefits reported across the cohort of patients included pain relief, improved sleep, physical relaxation, emotional regulation, and reduction of concomitant medication. The most frequently reported barriers to cannabis use were the stigma associated with THC use and the high cost of CBD-dominant and THC-dominant products. Pain relief emerged as the most prominent, interconnected theme reported by the CBD+THC group, whereas emotional regulation was the most prominent theme for the CBD-only group. Conclusion: Symptom relief differed based on the cannabinoid composition of the cannabis products. The following trends emerged, which must be confirmed with larger samples: pain relief was more prominent in responses from users of CBD+THC, whereas emotional regulation was more prominent in only the users of CBD-only products. These findings are a step toward assisting cancer patients and providers with clinical decision-making on cannabis use. This study highlights the continued perception of stigma associated with THC use and the need for insurance coverage of medicinal cannabis to reduce the financial burden for this patient population. Finally, this study exemplifies the value of ENA in studying the therapeutic utility of cannabis with qualitative data.
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.