Caroline Dorfman

Overview:

Caroline Dorfman, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University. Dr. Dorfman is a member of the Duke Pain Prevention and Treatment Research Program and the Duke Cancer Institute. Dr. Dorfman completed her graduate training in clinical psychology at the Ohio State University and her clinical internship at Duke University Medical Center. Her research focuses on developing, implementing, and evaluating psychosocial and behavioral interventions designed to meet the needs of cancer survivors and their partners/families.

Positions:

Assistant Professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Behavioral Medicine
School of Medicine

Member of the Duke Cancer Institute

Duke Cancer Institute
School of Medicine

Education:

Ph.D. 2015

Ohio State University

Grants:

Publications:

QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK ON A PSYCHOSOCIAL PAIN MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION FOR PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED CANCER

Authors
MLA Citation
Winger, Joseph G., et al. “QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK ON A PSYCHOSOCIAL PAIN MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION FOR PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED CANCER.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine, vol. 53, OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC, 2019, pp. S264–S264.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1397866
Source
wos
Published In
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Volume
53
Published Date
Start Page
S264
End Page
S264

WEIGHT-RELATED BEHAVIORS OF CANCER SURVIVORS & PARTNERS: INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS OF A PILOT DYADIC INTERVENTION

Authors
Dorfman, CS; Winger, JG; Somers, T; Shelby, RA; Kimmick, G; Craighead, L; Patel, ML; Keefe, FJ
MLA Citation
Dorfman, Caroline S., et al. “WEIGHT-RELATED BEHAVIORS OF CANCER SURVIVORS & PARTNERS: INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS OF A PILOT DYADIC INTERVENTION.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine, vol. 53, OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC, 2019, pp. S709–S709.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1398066
Source
wos
Published In
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Volume
53
Published Date
Start Page
S709
End Page
S709

Positive and negative mood following imaging-guided core needle breast biopsy and receipt of biopsy results.

Positive and negative mood are independent psychological responses to stressful events. Negative mood negatively impacts well-being and co-occurring positive mood leads to improved adjustment. Women undergoing core needle breast biopsies (CNB) experience distress during CNB and awaiting results; however, influences of mood are not well known. This longitudinal study examines psychosocial and biopsy- and spirituality-related factors associated with mood in patients day of CNB and one week after receiving results. Ninety women undergoing CNB completed questionnaires on psychosocial factors (chronic stress, social support), biopsy experiences (pain, radiologist communication), and spirituality (peace, meaning, faith) day of CNB. Measures of positive and negative mood were completed day of CNB and one week after receiving results (benign n = 50; abnormal n = 25). Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. Greater positive mood correlated with greater peace (β = .25, p = .02) day of CNB. Lower negative mood correlated with greater peace (β = -.29, p = .004) and there was a trend for a relationship with less pain during CNB (β = .19, p = .07). For patients with benign results, day of CNB positive mood predicted positive mood post-results (β = .31, p = .03) and only chronic stress predicted negative mood (β = .33, p = .03). For women with abnormal results, greater meaning day of CNB predicted lower negative mood post-results (β = -.45, p = .03). Meaning and peace may be important for women undergoing CNB and receiving abnormal results.
Authors
Perlman, KL; Shelby, RA; Wren, AA; Kelleher, SA; Dorfman, CS; O'Connor, E; Kim, C; Johnson, KS; Soo, MS
MLA Citation
Perlman, Katherine L., et al. “Positive and negative mood following imaging-guided core needle breast biopsy and receipt of biopsy results..” Psychol Health Med, vol. 22, no. 10, Dec. 2017, pp. 1149–62. Pubmed, doi:10.1080/13548506.2016.1271438.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1162773
PMID
28007008
Source
pubmed
Published In
Psychol Health Med
Volume
22
Published Date
Start Page
1149
End Page
1162
DOI
10.1080/13548506.2016.1271438

Predictors of adverse smoking outcomes in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of lung cancer screening on smoking behavior is unclear. The aims of this ancillary study of the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial were to produce risk prediction models to identify individuals at risk of relapse or continued smoking and to evaluate whether cancer-screening variables affect long-term smoking outcomes. METHODS: Participants completed a baseline questionnaire at trial enrollment and a supplemental questionnaire 4-14 years after enrollment, which assessed several cancer-related variables, including family history of cancer, comorbidities, and tobacco use. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to predict smoking status at completion of the supplemental questionnaire. The models' predictive performances were evaluated by assessing discrimination via the receiver operator characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) and calibration. Models were internally validated using bootstrap methods. RESULTS: Of the 31 694 former smokers on the baseline questionnaire, 1042 (3.3%) had relapsed (ie, reported being a current smoker on the supplemental questionnaire). Of the 6807 current smokers on the baseline questionnaire, 4439 (65.2%) reported continued smoking on the supplemental questionnaire. Relapse was associated with multiple demographic, medical, and tobacco-related characteristics. This model had a bootstrap median ROC AUC of 0.862 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.858 to 0.866) and a calibration slope of 1.004 (95% CI = 0.978 to 1.029), indicating excellent discrimination and calibration. Predictors of continued smoking also included multiple demographic, medical, and tobacco-related characteristics. This model had an ROC AUC of 0.611 (95% CI = 0.605 to 0.614) and a slope of 1.006 (95% CI = 0.962 to 1.041), indicating modest discrimination. Neither the trial arm nor the lung-screening result was statistically significantly associated with smoking outcomes. CONCLUSION: These models, if validated externally, may have public health utility in identifying individuals at risk for adverse smoking outcomes, who may benefit from relapse prevention and smoking cessation interventions.
Authors
Barry, SA; Tammemagi, MC; Penek, S; Kassan, EC; Dorfman, CS; Riley, TL; Commin, J; Taylor, KL
MLA Citation
Barry, Samantha A., et al. “Predictors of adverse smoking outcomes in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial..” J Natl Cancer Inst, vol. 104, no. 21, Nov. 2012, pp. 1647–59. Pubmed, doi:10.1093/jnci/djs398.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1170231
PMID
23104210
Source
pubmed
Published In
J Natl Cancer Inst
Volume
104
Published Date
Start Page
1647
End Page
1659
DOI
10.1093/jnci/djs398

Optimizing delivery of a behavioral pain intervention in cancer patients using a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial SMART.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Pain is common in cancer patients and results in lower quality of life, depression, poor physical functioning, financial difficulty, and decreased survival time. Behavioral pain interventions are effective and nonpharmacologic. Traditional randomized controlled trials (RCT) test interventions of fixed time and dose, which poorly represent successive treatment decisions in clinical practice. We utilize a novel approach to conduct a RCT, the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design, to provide comparative evidence of: 1) response to differing initial doses of a pain coping skills training (PCST) intervention and 2) intervention dose sequences adjusted based on patient response. We also examine: 3) participant characteristics moderating intervention responses and 4) cost-effectiveness and practicality. METHODS/DESIGN: Breast cancer patients (N=327) having pain (ratings≥5) are recruited and randomly assigned to: 1) PCST-Full or 2) PCST-Brief. PCST-Full consists of 5 PCST sessions. PCST-Brief consists of one 60-min PCST session. Five weeks post-randomization, participants re-rate their pain and are re-randomized, based on intervention response, to receive additional PCST sessions, maintenance calls, or no further intervention. Participants complete measures of pain intensity, interference and catastrophizing. CONCLUSIONS: Novel RCT designs may provide information that can be used to optimize behavioral pain interventions to be adaptive, better meet patients' needs, reduce barriers, and match with clinical practice. This is one of the first trials to use a novel design to evaluate symptom management in cancer patients and in chronic illness; if successful, it could serve as a model for future work with a wide range of chronic illnesses.
Authors
Kelleher, SA; Dorfman, CS; Plumb Vilardaga, JC; Majestic, C; Winger, J; Gandhi, V; Nunez, C; Van Denburg, A; Shelby, RA; Reed, SD; Murphy, S; Davidian, M; Laber, EB; Kimmick, GG; Westbrook, KW; Abernethy, AP; Somers, TJ
MLA Citation
Kelleher, Sarah A., et al. “Optimizing delivery of a behavioral pain intervention in cancer patients using a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial SMART..” Contemp Clin Trials, vol. 57, June 2017, pp. 51–57. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.cct.2017.04.001.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1244148
PMID
28408335
Source
pubmed
Published In
Contemp Clin Trials
Volume
57
Published Date
Start Page
51
End Page
57
DOI
10.1016/j.cct.2017.04.001