Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41525507›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2026

Crowdsourcing Cancer Survivors' Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Financial Hardship Interventions.

Austin R Waters, Camille R Murray, Echo L Warner, Mary K Killela, Stephanie B Wheeler, Jennifer W Mack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Austin R WatersDivision of Population Sciences, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-9947-8535
Camille R MurrayDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0002-2481-4485
Echo L WarnerDivision of Acute and Chronic Care, College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.ORCID 0000-0002-5998-9744
Mary K KillelaDivision of Acute and Chronic Care, College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.ORCID 0000-0002-8826-673X
Stephanie B WheelerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0002-3399-9047
Jennifer W MackDivision of Population Sciences, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0001-5791-4178

Funding

Training in Oncology Population Sciences (TOPS)T32CA092203 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI Nancy L Keating, JENNIFER W MACK · 2018 to 2026
$3.7M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA092203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) or automation in financial hardship (FH) interventions has the potential to increase reach and address implementation challenges. However, cancer survivor perceptions of how AI or automation could be used in FH interventions are understudied.

methodsEligibility for an online crowdsourcing study included being ≥18 years of age, a cancer survivor, and living in the United States. The survey asked open-ended crowdsourcing questions about how survivors thought AI/automation could have improved their experience with financial assistance and health insurance. A qualitative content analysis was conducted that consisted of two cycles of coding including the use of ChatGPT-5 to generate the preliminary codebook.

resultsA total of N = 198 cancer survivors participated and were on average age 50.3 years (standard deviation [SD], 14.3) and age 40.1 years at diagnosis (SD, 16.2), most commonly non-Hispanic/Latine (89.9%), White (86.9%), cisgender women (69.2%), and heterosexual (70.2%). Qualitative analysis revealed seven subcategories within the financial assistance category: (1) efficient search and personalized resource matching, (2) application support and process navigation, (3) insurance and billing support, (4) conversational and interactive tools, (5) connecting to human support, (6) emotional support, and (7) concerns and lack of applicability. Furthermore, five subcategories were identified within the health insurance support category: (1) health insurance education tools and decision support, (2) health insurance navigation, (3) system simplification or automation, (4) connecting to resources and human support, and (5) concerns and lack of applicability.

conclusionOverall, cancer survivors generated a variety of ideas focused on reducing the administrative burden of seeking out financial assistance and dealing with health insurance. Findings demonstrate that cancer survivors could imagine AI or automation being used in FH interventions.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAutomationCancer SurvivorsCrowdsourcingNeoplasmsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41525507
PMCPMC12798695

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.