Characteristics of Online Crowdfunding Campaigns for Urological Cancers in the United States

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: We examined the characteristics and financial outcomes of online crowdfunding campaigns for patients with major urological cancers in the U.S. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed publicly available data from GoFundMe, the largest online medical crowdfunding service, via automated web scraping. Online campaigns from 2010 to 2018 with the following primary cancer types were included: kidney, prostate, bladder and testicular. Financial outcomes were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Multivariable analyses were utilized to identify predictors of campaign financial outcomes. RESULTS: Kidney cancers were the most frequent online campaign type (478), followed by prostate (379), bladder (202) and testicular (175) malignancies. Urological cancer campaign recipients frequently requested funding for medical expenses (71%) during active treatment (57%). After adjustment, testicular cancer and children's cancer campaigns generated more donations than other urological and adult cancer campaigns (p <0.05). Family and friend-authored campaigns generated more donations and average donation amounts than self-authored campaigns (p <0.05). Campaign narratives focused on disheartening circumstances received fewer donations than narratives focused on the recipient's high moral character or contributions to society (p <0.05), and unclear narratives received the smallest donation amounts (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Urological cancer crowdfunding in the U.S. is primarily used to finance uncovered costs associated with medical care during active treatment. Crowdfunding financial outcomes are likely related to the campaign recipient's age, malignancy type, social network and primary appeal of the narrative. Urologists should be aware of trends in medical crowdfunding in order to better understand the financial burden this patient population faces.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.