Using Crowdfunding Campaigns to Examine Financial Toxicity and Logistical Burdens Facing Families of Children With Wilms Tumor
Harold Leraas,Mary Moya-Mendez,Victoria Donohue,Brad Kawano,Lindsay Olson,Akshaya Sekar,Joanna Robles,Lars Wagner,Rachel Greenup,Krista L Haines,Elisabeth Tracy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2023.07.005
Abstract:Introduction: Treatment for pediatric solid tumors is often intense and multidisciplinary and can create a substantial financial burden for families. Assessing these burdens, termed the financial toxicity of treatment, can be difficult. Using Wilms tumor as an example, we evaluated crowdfunding campaigns in an attempt to better understand the impact of economic and logistic challenges associated with pediatric solid tumor care and identify features associated with successful fundraising with this method. Methods: We used a webscraping algorithm to identify crowdfunding campaigns on GoFundMe.com for pediatric patients with Wilms tumor in the United States. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to describe the patients and families seeking crowdfunding support for cancer care. After fundraizing information was extracted using the webscraping algorithm, each fundraiser was verified and examined by two independent reviewers to assess demographic, qualitative, disease, and treatment variables. Successful fundraisers, defined as those meeting stated financial goals, were compared to unsuccessful campaigns to identify variables associated with successful crowdfunding campaigns. Results: We identified 603 children with Wilms tumor and an associated crowdfunding campaign. The median age was 4 y. The majority lived in two-parent households (68.5%). Patients mentioned siblings in 35.5% of fundraisers. While motivations for crowdfunding varied, hardships endured by families included loss of employment (52.2%), need for childcare for other children (9.8%), direct costs of care [co-payments, insurance, pharmaceuticals, out-of-pocket care costs, etc.] (80.9%), indirect costs associated with seeking care [transportation, parking, lodging, lost opportunity cost, etc.] (56.2%), and need for relocation to pursue complex cancer care (6.8%). Disease characteristics in this cohort were limited to self-reports by families. However, fundraisers mentioned disease characteristics, including tumor stage (47.6%), size (11.4%), positive nodal status (9.6%), metastatic disease (3.6%), pathology (11.8%), upstaging (4.6%), and disease recurrence (8.6%). No individually examined demographic, support, disease, or hardship-related factors varied significantly between successful and unsuccessful crowdfunding campaigns (all P > 0.05). However, successful campaigns requested less money ($11,783.25 successful versus $22,442.2 unsuccessful, <0.001), received more money ($16,409.5 successful vs 7427.4 unsuccessful, P < 0.001), and solicited larger donor numbers (170.3 successful versus 86.3 unsuccessful, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Families whose children undergo multimodal cancer care have significant expenses and burdens and can use crowdfunding to support their costs. Careful consideration of the financial and logistic strains associated with pediatric solid tumor treatment, including thorough analysis of crowdfunding sites, may support better understanding of nonclinical burdens, supporting therapeutic relationships and patient outcomes.