Evidence mapPaperPMID 38048149Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

The Use of Medical Crowdfunding to Mitigate the Personal Costs of Serious Chronic Illness: Scoping Review.

Mary Killela, Caitlin Biddell, Jessica Keim-Malpass, Todd A Schwartz, Sandra Soto, Jessica Williams, Sheila Santacroce

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Health inequities in medical crowdfunding: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Differences in cancer-related crowdfunding between transgender or gender diverse and cisgender LGBTQ+ cancer campaigns: a mixed-methods analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mary KillelaSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8826-673X
Caitlin BiddellDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1644-7187
Jessica Keim-MalpassSchool of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7035-8556
Todd A SchwartzSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0232-2543
Sandra SotoSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6423-9473
Jessica WilliamsSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6105-0296
Sheila SantacroceSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8713-8069
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

INTERVENTIONS FOR PREVENTING &MANAGING CHRONIC ILLNESST32NR007091 · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · 1996 to 2025
$3.1M
Cancer Care Quality Training ProgramT32CA116339 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · 2023 to 2025
$800k
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA116339NINR NIH HHS T32 NR007091
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersons diagnosed with serious chronic illnesses and their caretakers experience multiple types of financial costs that strain their income and generate financial distress. Many turn to medical crowdfunding (MCF) to mitigate the harms of these costs on their health and quality of life.

objectiveThis scoping review aims to summarize the research on MCF for persons diagnosed with serious chronic illness regarding study designs and methods; the responsible conduct of research practices; and study foci as they relate to stress, stress appraisals, and the coping processes.

methodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Eligible studies were conducted in countries designated as high income by the World Bank and focused on beneficiaries diagnosed with serious chronic illness. The findings of the included studies were summarized as they related to the key concepts in a conceptual framework derived from an established stress, appraisal, and coping framework and a conceptual model of financial toxicity in pediatric oncology.

resultsOverall, 26 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. The main findings included a lack of integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches and the inconsistent reporting of the responsible conduct of research practices. The included studies focused on financial stressors that contributed to financial burden, such as out-of-pocket payments of medical bills, basic living expenses, medical travel expenses, and lost income owing to illness-related work disruptions. Few studies addressed stress appraisals as threatening or the adequacy of available financial resources. When mentioned, appraisals related to the global financial struggle during the COVID-19 pandemic or the capacity of social network members to donate funds. The consequences of MCF included the receipt of 3 forms of social support (tangible, informational, and emotional), privacy loss, embarrassment, and the propagation of scientifically unsupported information. Studies found that friends and family tended to manage MCF campaigns. Although most of the studies (21/26, 81%) focused on monetary outcomes, a few (5/26, 19%) concentrated on peoples' experiences with MCF.

conclusionsThe identified methodological gaps highlight the need for more robust and reproducible approaches to using the copious data available on public MCF platforms. The integration of quantitative and qualitative methods will allow for nuanced explorations of the MCF experience. A more consistent elaboration of strategies to promote the responsible conduct of research is warranted to minimize risk to populations that are vulnerable and express concerns regarding the loss of privacy. Finally, an examination of the unanticipated consequences of MCF is critical for the development of future interventions to optimize existing supports while providing needed supports, financial and nonfinancial, that are lacking.

Indexed as

Medical TourismChildChronic DiseaseHealth ExpendituresHumansPandemicsQuality of Lifeappraisalcaregiverchronic illnesscopingcoping behaviorcostsCOVID-19crowdfundingfinancialmedical crowdfundingsocial networksocial supportstresssystematic scoping review

Identifiers

PMID38048149
PMCPMC10697184
OpenAlexW4389305256

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.