Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33270122›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Association of Neighborhood Deprivation Index With Success in Cancer Care Crowdfunding.

Elisabeth R Silver, Han Q Truong, Sassan Ostvar, Chin Hur, Nicholas P Tatonetti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Health inequities in medical crowdfunding: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Sources of informal financial support among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: a mixed methods analysis from the HIAYA CHAT study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The ethics of crowdfunding in paediatric neurology.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Elisabeth R SilverDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Han Q TruongDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Sassan OstvarDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Chin HurDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Nicholas P TatonettiDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.

Funding

Precision Pharmacology and Pharmacovigilance: Leveraging AI to address drug safety knowledge gapsR35GM131905 · NIGMS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Nicholas P Tatonetti · 2019 to 2026
$3.3M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Financial toxicity resulting from cancer care poses a substantial public health concern, leading some patients to turn to online crowdfunding. However, the practice may exacerbate existing socioeconomic cancer disparities by privileging those with access to interpersonal wealth and digital media literacy. Objective: To test the hypotheses that higher county-level socioeconomic status and the presence (vs absence) of text indicators of beneficiary worth in campaign descriptions are associated with amount raised from cancer crowdfunding. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis examined US cancer crowdfunding campaigns conducted between 2010 and 2019 and data from the American Community Survey (2013-2017). Data analysis was performed from December 2019 to March 2020. Exposures: Neighborhood deprivation index of campaign location and campaign text features indicating the beneficiary's worth. Main Outcomes and Measures: Amount of money raised. Results: This study analyzed 144 061 US cancer crowdfunding campaigns. Campaigns in counties with higher neighborhood deprivation raised less (-26.07%; 95% CI, -27.46% to -24.65%; P < .001) than those in counties with less neighborhood deprivation. Campaigns raised more funds when legitimizing details were provided, including clinical details about the cancer type (9.58%; 95% CI, 8.00% to 11.18%; P < .001) and treatment type (6.58%; 95% CI, 5.44% to 7.79%; P < .001) and financial details, such as insurance status (1.39%; 95% CI, 0.20% to 2.63%; P = .02) and out-of-pocket costs (7.36%; 95% CI, 6.18% to 8.55%; P < .001). Campaigns raised more money when beneficiaries were described as warm (13.80%; 95% CI, 12.30% to 15.26%; P < .001), brave (15.40%; 95% CI, 14.11% to 16.65%; P < .001), or self-reliant (5.23%; 95% CI, 3.77% to 6.72%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that cancer crowdfunding success ay disproportionately benefit those in high-socioeconomic status areas and those with the internet literacy necessary to portray beneficiaries as worthy. By rewarding those with existing socioeconomic advantage, cancer crowdfunding may perpetuate socioeconomic disparities in cancer care access. The findings also underscore the widespread nature of financial toxicity resulting from cancer care.

Indexed as

Healthcare FinancingCross-Sectional StudiesCrowdsourcingFinancing, PersonalHealth Care CostsHumansNeoplasmsResidence CharacteristicsSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33270122
PMCPMC7716189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.