ArticleF&S reports2025
Medical crowdfunding for cancer patients seeking fertility treatments: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in F&S reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the use of crowdfunding among patients with cancer seeking funding to offset the cost of fertility treatments. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of campaigns initiated on a single popular crowdfunding website, GoFundMe, for the purpose of subsidizing fertility treatments in patients with cancer from April to May 2022. Subjects: Patients utilizing crowdfunding campaigns to subsidize fertility treatments for either themselves or a partner with a cancer diagnosis. Campaigns unrelated to both cancer and fertility treatment coverage were excluded. Exposure: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Dollar amount requested; amount and percent of goal obtained; top donation amount; number of donors or comments; geographic location; and cancer diagnosis. Chi-squared analyses and ANOVA statistics were used to characterize prevalence of geographic locations represented and differences in amount of financial support, respectively. A Results: A total of 1,195 campaigns were collected, spanning all regions of the United States and reflecting 23 different cancer diagnoses. The majority of campaigns resulted from breast (36.0%), lymphoma (10.6%), ovarian (7.1%), testicular (6.0%), or cervical (5.4%) cancer diagnoses. The average amount of funding requested across all campaigns was $31,390, with an average of $12,317 raised per campaign. More campaigns were initiated in Southern and Western regions of the United States compared with Northeastern and Midwestern ( Conclusion: Patients with cancer who desire or require fertility treatments often face tremendous financial and social difficulties. Our results suggest a higher financial burden on patients with cancer in Southern and Western states, despite being less likely to reach financial goals or obtain as much social support as Northeastern counterparts. Overall, the majority of campaigns did not meet their financial goals.
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.