Julia Kaletka
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Julia Kaletka has a total of 16 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Andrzej Paradysz
Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, 41-800 Zabrze, Poland
1 shared publication - Bartosz Małkiewicz
Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
1 shared publication - Benjamin N. Breyer
Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA
1 shared publication - Benjamin Pradere
Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
1 shared publication - David D’ Andrea
Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
1 shared publication - Guillaume Ploussard
Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, 31130 Touoluse, France
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
Online Crowdfunding for Urologic Cancer Care
Background: we aimed to characterize the financial needs expressed through online crowdfunding for urologic cancers. Methods: the data used in this study came from the online crowdfunding platform GoFundMe.com. Using an automated software method, we extracted data for campaigns related to urologic cancers. Subsequently, four independent investigators reviewed all extracted data on prostate, bladder, kidney and testicular cancer. We analyzed campaigns’ basic characteristics, goals, fundraising, type of treatment and factors associated with successful campaigns. Results: in total, we identified 2126 individual campaigns, which were related to direct treatment costs (34%), living expenses (17%) or both (48%). Median fundraising amounts were greatest for testicular cancer. Campaigns for both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) (median $11,000) or CAM alone (median $8527) achieved higher fundraising totals compared with those for conventional treatments alone (median $5362) (p < 0.01). The number of social media shares was independently associated with campaign success and highest quartile of fundraising. Conclusions: using an automated web-based approach, we identified and characterized online crowdfunding for urologic cancer care. These findings indicated a diverse range of patient needs related to urologic care and factors related to campaigns’ success.
Open AccessOnline Crowdfunding for Urologic Cancer Care
Background: we aimed to characterize the financial needs expressed through online crowdfunding for urologic cancers. Methods: the data used in this study came from the online crowdfunding platform GoFundMe.com. Using an automated software method, we extracted data for campaigns related to urologic cancers. Subsequently, four independent investigators reviewed all extracted data on prostate, bladder, kidney and testicular cancer. We analyzed campaigns’ basic characteristics, goals, fundraising, type of treatment and factors associated with successful campaigns. Results: in total, we identified 2126 individual campaigns, which were related to direct treatment costs (34%), living expenses (17%) or both (48%). Median fundraising amounts were greatest for testicular cancer. Campaigns for both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) (median $11,000) or CAM alone (median $8527) achieved higher fundraising totals compared with those for conventional treatments alone (median $5362) (p < 0.01). The number of social media shares was independently associated with campaign success and highest quartile of fundraising. Conclusions: using an automated web-based approach, we identified and characterized online crowdfunding for urologic cancer care. These findings indicated a diverse range of patient needs related to urologic care and factors related to campaigns’ success.