Online Crowdfunding for Urologic Cancer Care

Abstract

Background: we aimed to characterize the financial needs expressed through online crowdfunding for urologic cancers. Methods: the data used in this study came from the online crowdfunding platform GoFundMe.com. Using an automated software method, we extracted data for campaigns related to urologic cancers. Subsequently, four independent investigators reviewed all extracted data on prostate, bladder, kidney and testicular cancer. We analyzed campaigns’ basic characteristics, goals, fundraising, type of treatment and factors associated with successful campaigns. Results: in total, we identified 2126 individual campaigns, which were related to direct treatment costs (34%), living expenses (17%) or both (48%). Median fundraising amounts were greatest for testicular cancer. Campaigns for both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) (median $11,000) or CAM alone (median $8527) achieved higher fundraising totals compared with those for conventional treatments alone (median $5362) (p < 0.01). The number of social media shares was independently associated with campaign success and highest quartile of fundraising. Conclusions: using an automated web-based approach, we identified and characterized online crowdfunding for urologic cancer care. These findings indicated a diverse range of patient needs related to urologic care and factors related to campaigns’ success.

The Impact on Urology Residents’ Learning of Social Media and Web Technologies after the Pandemic: A Step Forward through the Sharing of Knowledge

“…Crowdfunding campaigns were reported for urologic cancer care, impacting patients and their community, and lowering the financial burden of treatment. Testicular cancer initiatives were most successful and the number of SoMe shares was associated with financing [ 11 ]. One of the first validated urine biomarker assays for interstitial cystitis was developed using crowdsourcing by doctors [ 12 ].…”

“…Furthermore, the possibility to track vaccinated patients allowed the increase in urological activities, decreasing waiting lists. As reported in our Results section, telemedicine and telehealth could be the safest way to deliver urological care for a large percentage of patients [ 11 ], even if the main challenges for a real transition to telemedicine in the daily clinical practice are represented by healthcare digital infrastructures that remain inadequate, and the low access of patients to computers. In fact, health practitioners should become increasingly familiar with telemedicine and initiatives to improve patients’ digital “literacy” should be implemented [ 12 ].…”