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.