{"title":"Health inequities in medical crowdfunding: a systematic review.","authors":"Yingying Cai, Syafila Kamarudin, Xiaoyu Jiang, Baiyu Zhou","doi":"10.1186/s12939-025-02543-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical crowdfunding has emerged as a popular strategy to offset healthcare expenses in contexts of limited insurance coverage. While often framed as a democratizing and accessible financial tool, growing evidence indicates that success is unevenly distributed, raising concerns about its role in exacerbating health inequities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, drawing from PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Of 1,462 screened records, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Guided by the PROGRESS framework, we extracted data on socioeconomic determinants of health disparities. An inductive content analysis was employed to identify how equity was assessed across studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified three key categories of metrics used to assess equity in medical crowdfunding: funding outcomes, campaign visibility, and donor participation. Across these domains, substantial disparities were observed. Campaigns in rural or economically disadvantaged areas tended to have lower success rates. Racial and ethnic inequities were consistently documented, with non-white individuals receiving fewer and smaller donations than white counterparts. Gender disparities were complex, especially in transgender-related campaigns. Socioeconomic status and educational attainment were significantly associated with outcomes, accompanied by differences in access to social capital and the ability to craft persuasive narratives. In regions with high medical debt or limited insurance coverage, more crowdfunding campaigns appeared, but with lower overall success. These inequities were shaped and reinforced by platform algorithms and design features that privileged users with preexisting advantages.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Rather than serving as a corrective to healthcare access gaps, medical crowdfunding often reflects and reinforces structural inequities. These findings challenge its portrayal as an equitable financing solution and highlight the need for policy interventions to ensure fairer access to healthcare resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":13745,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Equity in Health","volume":"24 1","pages":"166"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153085/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Equity in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02543-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Medical crowdfunding has emerged as a popular strategy to offset healthcare expenses in contexts of limited insurance coverage. While often framed as a democratizing and accessible financial tool, growing evidence indicates that success is unevenly distributed, raising concerns about its role in exacerbating health inequities.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, drawing from PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Of 1,462 screened records, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Guided by the PROGRESS framework, we extracted data on socioeconomic determinants of health disparities. An inductive content analysis was employed to identify how equity was assessed across studies.
Results: We identified three key categories of metrics used to assess equity in medical crowdfunding: funding outcomes, campaign visibility, and donor participation. Across these domains, substantial disparities were observed. Campaigns in rural or economically disadvantaged areas tended to have lower success rates. Racial and ethnic inequities were consistently documented, with non-white individuals receiving fewer and smaller donations than white counterparts. Gender disparities were complex, especially in transgender-related campaigns. Socioeconomic status and educational attainment were significantly associated with outcomes, accompanied by differences in access to social capital and the ability to craft persuasive narratives. In regions with high medical debt or limited insurance coverage, more crowdfunding campaigns appeared, but with lower overall success. These inequities were shaped and reinforced by platform algorithms and design features that privileged users with preexisting advantages.
Conclusions: Rather than serving as a corrective to healthcare access gaps, medical crowdfunding often reflects and reinforces structural inequities. These findings challenge its portrayal as an equitable financing solution and highlight the need for policy interventions to ensure fairer access to healthcare resources.
背景:医疗众筹已成为一种流行的策略,以抵消医疗费用在有限的保险范围。虽然常常被描述为一种民主化和可获得的金融工具,但越来越多的证据表明,成功的分配不均匀,令人担忧其在加剧卫生不平等方面的作用。方法:根据PRISMA指南,从PubMed、CINAHL、Embase、Web of Science和Scopus中提取资料,进行系统评价。在1462份筛选记录中,33项研究符合纳入标准。在PROGRESS框架的指导下,我们提取了有关健康差异的社会经济决定因素的数据。采用归纳内容分析来确定如何在研究中评估公平性。结果:我们确定了用于评估医疗众筹公平性的三个关键指标类别:筹资结果、活动可见度和捐助者参与。在这些领域中,观察到巨大的差异。在农村或经济落后地区开展的运动往往成功率较低。种族和民族不平等一直被记录在案,非白人收到的捐款比白人少,数额也小。性别差异很复杂,特别是在与跨性别有关的运动中。社会经济地位和受教育程度与结果显著相关,同时还伴随着获得社会资本和编写有说服力的叙述能力的差异。在医疗债务高或保险覆盖面有限的地区,出现了更多的众筹活动,但总体成功率较低。这些不平等是由平台算法和设计特征塑造和强化的,这些算法和设计特征使用户享有预先存在的优势。结论:医疗众筹不仅不能弥补医疗服务获取差距,而且往往反映并加剧了结构性不平等。这些发现对其作为公平融资解决方案的描述提出了挑战,并强调需要采取政策干预措施,以确保更公平地获得医疗保健资源。
期刊介绍:
International Journal for Equity in Health is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal presenting evidence relevant to the search for, and attainment of, equity in health across and within countries. International Journal for Equity in Health aims to improve the understanding of issues that influence the health of populations. This includes the discussion of political, policy-related, economic, social and health services-related influences, particularly with regard to systematic differences in distributions of one or more aspects of health in population groups defined demographically, geographically, or socially.