众筹越来越多地用于抵消疾病和医疗保健的经济负担。在COVID-19大流行和相关信息流行的时代,众筹支持有争议的COVID-19立场的作用尚不清楚。
我们试图研究与COVID-19相关的众筹,重点是为未得到主要医疗实体认可的替代治疗提供资金,包括带有明确的抗疫苗的运动,抗素,或者反医疗保健的立场。
我们对GoFundMe活动进行了横断面分析,对象是要求为COVID-19救济捐款的个人。通过关键词和人工审查确定活动,将活动分类为“传统治疗”,“”替代疗法,\"\"与业务相关,\"\"授权,\"\"第一反应,“和”将军。“对于每个运动,我们提取了基本的叙述,订婚,和财务变量。在那些手动审查的人中,\"任务类型的附加变量,\"\"任务立场,“以及在竞选叙述中存在的COVID-19错误信息也被包括在内。COVID-19错误信息被定义为“虚假或误导性陈述,“可以提供引用的证据来驳斥这一说法。使用描述性统计来表征研究队列。
共有30,368个广告系列达到了最终分析的标准。手动审核后,我们确定了53个(0.17%)为COVID-19的替代药物治疗寻求资金,包括伊维菌素等普及治疗(n=14,26%),羟氯喹(n=6,11%),和维生素D(n=4,7.5%)。此外,在寻求替代治疗支持的53项运动中,有23项(43%)包含COVID-19错误信息。有80个运动反对强制戴口罩或接种疫苗,其中48人(60%)含有COVID-19错误信息。与传统治疗(2828美元)相比,替代治疗活动的中位金额(1135美元)较低(P<.001),目标实现的中位百分位数较低(11.9%vs31.1%;P=.003)。替代治疗的运动筹集的金额大大降低(分别为115,000美元和52,715,000美元),而替代运动的筹款目标比例较低(2.1%和12.5%)。与支持维持授权的运动相比,反对口罩或疫苗授权的运动的中位目标明显更高(25,000美元对10,000美元)(P=.04)。在41万美元的目标中,寻求资金以解除对医护人员的授权的运动达到了622美元(0.15%)。
一小部分基于网络的COVID-19众筹活动是针对未经证实的COVID-19治疗方法,并支持针对掩蔽或疫苗授权的活动。这些活动中约有一半(71/133,53%)包含可验证的虚假或误导性信息,并且筹款成功有限。
RR2-10.1001/jamainterned.2019.3330。
Crowdfunding is increasingly used to offset the financial burdens of illness and health care. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated infodemic, the role of crowdfunding to support controversial COVID-19 stances is unknown.
We sought to examine COVID-19-related crowdfunding focusing on the funding of alternative treatments not endorsed by major medical entities, including campaigns with an explicit antivaccine, antimask, or antihealth care stances.
We performed a cross-sectional analysis of
GoFundMe campaigns for individuals requesting donations for COVID-19 relief. Campaigns were identified by key word 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.
A total of 30,368 campaigns met the criteria for final analysis. After manual review, we identified 53 campaigns (0.17%) seeking funding for alternative medical treatment for COVID-19, including popularized treatments such as ivermectin (n=14, 26%), hydroxychloroquine (n=6, 11%), and vitamin D (n=4, 7.5%). Moreover, 23 (43%) of the 53 campaigns seeking support for alternative treatments contained COVID-19 misinformation. There were 80 campaigns that opposed mandating masks or vaccination, 48 (60%) of which contained COVID-19 misinformation. Alternative treatment campaigns had a lower median amount raised (US $1135) compared to traditional (US $2828) treatments (P<.001) and a lower median percentile of target achieved (11.9% vs 31.1%; P=.003). Campaigns for alternative treatments raised substantially lower amounts (US $115,000 vs US $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 (US $25,000 vs US $10,000) for campaigns opposing mask or vaccine mandates relative to those in support of upholding mandates (P=.04). Campaigns seeking funding to lift mandates on health care workers reached US $622 (0.15%) out of a US $410,000 goal.
A small minority of web-based crowdfunding campaigns for COVID-19 were directed at unproven COVID-19 treatments and support for campaigns aimed against masking or vaccine mandates. Approximately half (71/133, 53%) of these campaigns contained verifiably false or misleading information and had limited fundraising success.
RR2-10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3330.