@Article{info:doi/10.2196/38395,
author="Shaw, Nathan M
and Hakam, Nizar
and Lui, Jason
and Abbasi, Behzad
and Sudhakar, Architha
and Leapman, Michael S
and Breyer, Benjamin N",
title="COVID-19 Misinformation and Social Network Crowdfunding: Cross-sectional Study of Alternative Treatments and Antivaccine Mandates",
journal="J Med Internet Res",
year="2022",
month="Jul",
day="27",
volume="24",
number="7",
pages="e38395",
keywords="COVID-19; misinformation; infodemic; social media; GoFundMe; vaccine hesitancy; vaccination; infodemiology; campaign; treatment; vaccine mandate; health care; online health information",
abstract="Background: 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. Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3330 ",
issn="1438-8871",
doi="10.2196/38395",
url="https://www.jmir.org/2022/7/e38395",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/38395",
url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35820053"
}