Financial hardship differences by LGBTQ+ status among assigned female at birth adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: a mixed methods analysis

Material, Psychological, and Behavioral Financial Hardship Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Cancer Survivors in the United States

PURPOSE

Driven by anti-LGBTQ+ stigma, emerging literature suggests that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) cancer survivors experience financial hardship (FH) more frequently than heterosexual survivors. However, few studies have used nationally representative samples to estimate this inequity.

METHODS

National Health Interview Survey data from 2019 to 2022 were pooled and weighted. Outcomes included material, psychological, and behavioral FH. The behavioral domain was further broken down into subdomains including medical care, prescription medications, and mental health care. Multivariable logit models controlling for a variety of factors were used to generate LGB and heterosexual predicted probabilities and differential effects for each FH outcome. Stratified estimates were generated by sex and age groups.

RESULTS

A total of N = 374 LGB and N = 12,757 heterosexual cancer survivors were included in this analysis. In adjusted analyses, LGB cancer survivors had significantly higher material (19%, 95% CI, 15 to 24 v 12%, 95% CI, 11 to 13; P = .004), psychological (44%, 95% CI, 38 to 51 v 37%, 95% CI, 36 to 38; P = .035), and behavioral (23%, 95% CI, 18 to 28 v 13%, 95% CI, 13 to 14; P < .0001) FH than heterosexual survivors. LGB cancer survivors also had higher medical behavioral (11%, 95% CI, 7 to 15 v 7%, 95% CI, 6 to 7; P = .030), prescription medication behavioral (14%, 95% CI, 10 to 19 v 10%, 95% CI, 9 to 10; P = .032), and mental health behavioral (9%, 95% CI, 6 to 13 v 3%, 95% CI, 3 to 4; P < .0001) FH than heterosexual survivors. Stratified estimates revealed young LGB cancer survivors had the highest probability of each outcome (material: 31%, 95% CI, 23 to 40; psychological: 58%, 95% CI, 50 to 66; behavioral: 45%, 95% CI, 36 to 53).

CONCLUSION

In this nationally representative analysis, LGB cancer survivors experience substantial inequities in all FH outcomes. It is crucial that future FH interventional work should prioritize populations at the highest risk of FH, such as LGB cancer survivors.

LGBTQ+ inequity in crowdfunding cancer costs: The influence of online reach and LGBTQ+ state policy

BACKGROUND

Emerging literature suggests that LGBTQ+ cancer survivors are more likely to experience financial burden than non-LGBTQ+ survivors. However, LGBTQ+ cancer survivors experience with cost-coping behaviors such as crowdfunding is understudied.

METHODS

We aimed to assess LGBTQ+ inequity in cancer crowdfunding by combining community-engaged and technology-based methods. Crowdfunding campaigns were web-scraped from GoFundMe and classified as cancer-related and LGBTQ+ or non-LGBTQ+ using term dictionaries. Bivariate analyses and generalized linear models were used to assess differential effects in total goal amount raised by LGBTQ+ status. Stratified models were run by online reach and LGBTQ+ inclusivity of state policy.

RESULTS

A total of N = 188,342 active cancer-related crowdfunding campaigns were web-scraped from GoFundMe in November 2022, of which N = 535 were LGBTQ+ and ranged from 2014 to 2022. In multivariable models of recent campaigns (2019-2022), LGBTQ+ campaigns raised $1608 (95% CI: -2139, -1077) less than non-LGBTQ+ campaigns. LGBTQ+ campaigns with low (26-45 donors), moderate (46-87 donors), and high (88-240 donors) online reach raised on average $1152 (95% CI: -$1589, -$716), $1050 (95% CI: -$1737, -$364), and $2655 (95% CI: -$4312, -$998) less than non-LGBTQ+ campaigns respectively. When stratified by LGBTQ+ inclusivity of state level policy states with anti-LGBTQ+ policy/lacking equitable policy raised on average $1910 (95% CI: -2640, -1182) less than non-LGBTQ+ campaigns from the same states.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Our findings revealed LGBTQ+ inequity in cancer-related crowdfunding, suggesting that LGBTQ+ cancer survivors may be less able to address financial burden via crowdfunding in comparison to non-LGBTQ+ cancer survivors-potentially widening existing economic inequities.

Exploring Online Crowdfunding for Cancer-Related Costs Among LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Plus) Cancer Survivors: Integration of Community-Engaged and Technology-Based Methodologies

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors frequently experience cancer-related financial burdens. The extent to which Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Plus (LGBTQ+) populations experience cancer-related cost-coping behaviors such as crowdfunding is largely unknown, owing to a lack of sexual orientation and gender identity data collection and social stigma. Web-scraping has previously been used to evaluate inequities in online crowdfunding, but these methods alone do not adequately engage populations facing inequities.

OBJECTIVE

We describe the methodological process of integrating technology-based and community-engaged methods to explore the financial burden of cancer among LGBTQ+ individuals via online crowdfunding.

METHODS

To center the LGBTQ+ community, we followed community engagement guidelines by forming a study advisory board (SAB) of LGBTQ+ cancer survivors, caregivers, and professionals who were involved in every step of the research. SAB member engagement was tracked through quarterly SAB meeting attendance and an engagement survey. We then used web-scraping methods to extract a data set of online crowdfunding campaigns. The study team followed an integrated technology-based and community-engaged process to develop and refine term dictionaries for analyses. Term dictionaries were developed and refined in order to identify crowdfunding campaigns that were cancer- and LGBTQ+-related.

RESULTS

Advisory board engagement was high according to metrics of meeting attendance, meeting participation, and anonymous board feedback. In collaboration with the SAB, the term dictionaries were iteratively edited and refined. The LGBTQ+ term dictionary was developed by the study team, while the cancer term dictionary was refined from an existing dictionary. The advisory board and analytic team members manually coded against the term dictionary and performed quality checks until high confidence in correct classification was achieved using pairwise agreement. Through each phase of manual coding and quality checks, the advisory board identified more misclassified campaigns than the analytic team alone. When refining the LGBTQ+ term dictionary, the analytic team identified 11.8% misclassification while the SAB identified 20.7% misclassification. Once each term dictionary was finalized, the LGBTQ+ term dictionary resulted in a 95% pairwise agreement, while the cancer term dictionary resulted in an 89.2% pairwise agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The classification tools developed by integrating community-engaged and technology-based methods were more accurate because of the equity-based approach of centering LGBTQ+ voices and their lived experiences. This exemplar suggests integrating community-engaged and technology-based methods to study inequities is highly feasible and has applications beyond LGBTQ+ financial burden research.