JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Crowdfunding is increasingly used to offset the financial burdens of illness and healthcare.

Objective:

We sought to examine COVID-related crowdfunding focusing on the funding of alternative treatments not endorsed by major medical entities, including campaigns with an explicit anti-vaccine, anti-mask, or anti-healthcare stances.

Methods:

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of GoFundMe campaigns for individuals requesting donations for COVID-19 relief. Campaigns were identified by keyword and manual review to categorize campaigns into “Traditional treatments”, “Alternative treatments”, “Business-related”, “Mandate”, “First Response”, and “General”. For each campaign, we extracted basic narrative, engagement, and financial variables. Among those that were manually reviewed the additional variables of “mandate type”, “mandate stance” and presence of COVID-19 misinformation within the campaign narrative were also included. COVID-19 misinformation was defined as “false or misleading statements” where cited evidence could be provided to refute the claim. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study cohort.

Results:

A total of 30,368 campaigns met criteria for final analysis. After manual review, we identified 53 campaigns (0.17%) seeking funding for unproven alternative medical treatment for COVID-19 including popularized treatments: ivermectin (14), hydroxychloroquine (6), and Vitamin D (4). Twenty-three (43%) of the campaigns seeking support for alternative treatments contained COVID-19 misinformation. There were 80 campaigns that opposed mandating masks/vaccination, 48 (60%) of which contained COVID-19 misinformation. Alternative treatment campaigns had a lower median amount raised ($1,135) compared to traditional ($2,828) treatments (p<0.0001) and a lower median percentile of target achieved (11.9% vs 31.1%; p=0.0027). Campaigns for alternative treatments raised substantially lower amounts ($115,000 vs $52,715,000, respectively) and lower proportions of fundraising goals (2.1% vs 12.5%) for alternative versus conventional campaigns. The median goal for campaigns was significantly higher ($25,000 vs $10,000) for campaigns opposing mask/vaccine mandates relative to those in support of upholding mandates (p=0.042). Campaigns seeking funding to lift mandates on health care workers reached $622 out of a $410,000 goal (0.15%). Conversely, funding campaigns seeking assistance for front-line health workers reached goal funding in 13.5% of cases.

Conclusions:

A small minority of online crowdfunding for COVID-19 were directed at unproven COVID-19 treatments and support for campaigns aimed against masking or vaccine mandates. Approximately half of these campaigns contained verifiably false or misleading information and had limited fundraising success. Clinical Trial: N/A