Deborah Fisher

Overview:

1) Clinical interests and focus: I am a general gastroenterologist with a particular interest in colorectal cancer screening/surveillance and quality improvement.  I recently served on the ASGE Assessment of Quality in Endoscopy committee and currently serve on the AGA Clinical Practice Updates committee.

2) Research focus: Outcomes, big data, and health services research as applied to a variety of GI areas including weight-loss devices, NAFLD, colorectal cancer screening, choledocholithiasis.  I conduct clinical research (outcomes, clinical trials, diagnostic studies) in colorectal cancer screening and have collaborated with the School of Engineering on GI clinical applications of new technology.

3) Educational activities:  Clinical teaching in gastroenterology and endoscopy, directing the Department of Medicine MENTORS program for research fellows, mentoring trainees and junior faculty in research.  I am faculty of the GI T32 training grant and of the Duke Clinical Research Training Program. In my role as the GI Director of Social and Digital Media, I train and advise in using social media for medical education and professional development.

Positions:

Associate Professor of Medicine

Medicine, Gastroenterology
School of Medicine

Member of the Duke Cancer Institute

Duke Cancer Institute
School of Medicine

Member in the Duke Clinical Research Institute

Duke Clinical Research Institute
School of Medicine

Education:

M.D. 1996

Vanderbilt University

Medical Resident, Medicine

University of Virginia

Fellow in Gastroenterology, Medicine

Duke University

Grants:

H9X-MC-GBGL

Administered By
Duke Clinical Research Institute
Awarded By
Eli Lilly and Company
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Core variable Assessment Towards a NatIonal evaluation Program (CATNIP) - Subcontract with Weill Cornell

Administered By
Duke Clinical Research Institute
Awarded By
Weill Cornell Medicine
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Duke Training Grant in Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Administered By
Medicine, Gastroenterology
Awarded By
Boston Scientific Corporation
Role
Mentor
Start Date
End Date

Publications:

Colorectal Cancer Screening by Test Type Prior to and Following Mt-sDNA Market Entry Among Average Risk Patients: A Real World Analysis

Authors
Fisher, DA; Princic, N; Miller-Wilson, L-A; Wilson, K; Fendrick, M; Limburg, PJ
MLA Citation
Fisher, Deborah A., et al. “Colorectal Cancer Screening by Test Type Prior to and Following Mt-sDNA Market Entry Among Average Risk Patients: A Real World Analysis.” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 115, 2020, pp. S146–S146.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1474101
Source
wos-lite
Published In
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume
115
Published Date
Start Page
S146
End Page
S146

Real World Analysis of Adherence to Fecal Immunochemical Test and Fecal Occult Blood Test Among Patients at Average Risk for Colorectal Cancer

Authors
Fisher, DA; Princic, N; Miller-Wilson, L-A; Wilson, K; DeYoung, K; Ozbay, AB; Limburg, PJ
MLA Citation
Fisher, Deborah A., et al. “Real World Analysis of Adherence to Fecal Immunochemical Test and Fecal Occult Blood Test Among Patients at Average Risk for Colorectal Cancer.” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 115, 2020, pp. S146–47.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1474102
Source
wos-lite
Published In
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume
115
Published Date
Start Page
S146
End Page
S147

Healthcare Costs of Colonoscopy With and Without Complications Among Patients at Average Risk for Colorectal Cancer in the United States (US)

Authors
Fisher, DA; Princic, N; Miller-Wilson, L-A; Wilson, K; DeYoung, K; Fendrick, M; Limburg, PJ
MLA Citation
Fisher, Deborah A., et al. “Healthcare Costs of Colonoscopy With and Without Complications Among Patients at Average Risk for Colorectal Cancer in the United States (US).” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 115, 2020, pp. S287–S287.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1474103
Source
wos-lite
Published In
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume
115
Published Date
Start Page
S287
End Page
S287

Predicted Colorectal Cancer Outcomes With Reported Adherence to Follow-Up Colonoscopy After a Positive Stool-Based Test

Authors
Fendrick, M; Fisher, DA; Saoud, L; Ozbay, AB; Limburg, PJ
MLA Citation
Fendrick, Mark, et al. “Predicted Colorectal Cancer Outcomes With Reported Adherence to Follow-Up Colonoscopy After a Positive Stool-Based Test.” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 115, 2020, pp. S135–36.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1474104
Source
wos-lite
Published In
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume
115
Published Date
Start Page
S135
End Page
S136

A stepped randomized trial to promote colorectal cancer screening in a nationwide sample of U.S. Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (CRCS) facilitates early detection and lowers CRC mortality. OBJECTIVES: To increase CRCS in a randomized trial of stepped interventions. Step 1 compared three modes of delivery of theory-informed minimal cue interventions. Step 2 was designed to more intensively engage those not completing CRCS after Step 1. METHODS: Recruitment packets (60,332) were mailed to a random sample of individuals with a record of U.S. military service during the Vietnam-era. Respondents not up-to-date with CRCS were randomized to one of four Step 1 groups: automated telephone, telephone, letter, or survey-only control. Those not completing screening after Step 1 were randomized to one of three Step 2 groups: automated motivational interviewing (MI) call, counselor-delivered MI call, or Step 2 control. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses assessed CRCS on follow-up surveys mailed after each step. RESULTS: After Step 1 (n = 1784), CRCS was higher in the letter, telephone, and automated telephone groups (by 1%, 5%, 7%) than in survey-only controls (43%), although differences were not statistically significant. After Step 2 (n = 516), there were nonsignificant increases in CRCS in the two intervention groups compared with the controls. CRCS following any combination of stepped interventions overall was 7% higher (P = 0.024) than in survey-only controls (55.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In a nationwide study of Veterans, CRCS after each of two stepped interventions of varying modes of delivery did not differ significantly from that in controls. However, combined overall, the sequence of stepped interventions significantly increased CRCS.
Authors
Vernon, SW; Del Junco, DJ; Coan, SP; Murphy, CC; Walters, ST; Friedman, RH; Bastian, LA; Fisher, DA; Lairson, DR; Myers, RE
MLA Citation
Vernon, Sally W., et al. “A stepped randomized trial to promote colorectal cancer screening in a nationwide sample of U.S. Veterans.Contemp Clin Trials, vol. 105, Apr. 2021, p. 106392. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.cct.2021.106392.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1478235
PMID
33823295
Source
pubmed
Published In
Contemp Clin Trials
Volume
105
Published Date
Start Page
106392
DOI
10.1016/j.cct.2021.106392

Research Areas:

Adult
Algorithms
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Attitude of Health Personnel
Barrett Esophagus
Chi-Square Distribution
Colonoscopy
Community Health Services
Continental Population Groups
Data Mining
Databases as Topic
Decision Support Techniques
Dilatation
Early Detection of Cancer
Early Diagnosis
Endoscopy, Digestive System
Epidemiologic Methods
Feces
Gastrointestinal Diseases
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage
Guideline Adherence
Health Behavior
Health Care Costs
Health Resources
Health Services Accessibility
Health Services Misuse
Health Services Research
Health Status
Healthcare Disparities
Hemostasis, Endoscopic
Humans
Intubation, Gastrointestinal
Liver
Lower Gastrointestinal Tract
Mass Screening
Melena
Needs Assessment
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
Neoplasm Staging
Occult Blood
Odds Ratio
Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care)
Patient Selection
Physical Examination
Preventive Health Services
Prognosis
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Quality Indicators, Health Care
Quality of Health Care
Quality of Life
Questionnaires
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design
Risk Reduction Behavior
Sensitivity and Specificity
Social Class
Socioeconomic Factors
Standard of Care
Stents
Surveys and Questionnaires
Survivors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Upper Gastrointestinal Tract
Veterans