Sarah Kelleher

Overview:

Sarah A. Kelleher, PhD is a Clinical Psychologist and Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University Medical Center. Dr. Kelleher is a member of the Duke Pain Prevention and Treatment Research Program and the Duke Cancer Control and Population Sciences Program. Dr. Kelleher completed her graduate training in clinical psychology at Virginia Tech and her clinical internship and postdoctoral fellowship at Duke University Medical Center. Her research focuses on developing, testing, and implementing behavioral symptom management interventions for patients with chronic disease.

Positions:

Assistant Professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Behavioral Medicine
School of Medicine

Member of the

Duke Cancer Institute
School of Medicine

Education:

Ph.D. 2014

Virginia Polytech Institute and State University

Grants:

Publications:

Resist diabetes: A randomized clinical trial for resistance training maintenance in adults with prediabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a social cognitive theory (SCT)-based intervention improves resistance training (RT) maintenance and strength, and reduces prediabetes prevalence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sedentary, overweight/obese (BMI: 25-39.9 kg/m2) adults aged 50-69 (N = 170) with prediabetes participated in the 15-month trial. Participants completed a supervised 3-month RT (2×/wk) phase and were randomly assigned (N = 159) to one of two 6-month maintenance conditions: SCT or standard care. Participants continued RT at a self-selected facility. The final 6-month period involved no contact. Assessments occurred at baseline and months 3, 9, and 15. The SCT faded-contact intervention consisted of nine tailored transition (i.e., supervised training to training alone) and nine follow-up sessions. Standard care involved six generic follow-up sessions. Primary outcomes were prevalence of normoglycemia and muscular strength. RESULTS: The retention rate was 76%. Four serious adverse events were reported. After 3 months of RT, 34% of participants were no longer prediabetic. This prevalence of normoglycemia was maintained through month 15 (30%), with no group difference. There was an 18% increase in the odds of being normoglycemic for each % increase in fat-free mass. Increases in muscular strength were evident at month 3 and maintained through month 15 (P<0.001), which represented improvements of 21% and 14% for chest and leg press, respectively. Results did not demonstrate a greater reduction in prediabetes prevalence in the SCT condition. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance training is an effective, maintainable strategy for reducing prediabetes prevalence and increasing muscular strength. Future research which promotes RT initiation and maintenance in clinical and community settings is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01112709.
Authors
Davy, BM; Winett, RA; Savla, J; Marinik, EL; Baugh, ME; Flack, KD; Halliday, TM; Kelleher, SA; Winett, SG; Williams, DM; Boshra, S
MLA Citation
Davy, Brenda M., et al. “Resist diabetes: A randomized clinical trial for resistance training maintenance in adults with prediabetes..” Plos One, vol. 12, no. 2, 2017. Pubmed, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172610.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1227965
PMID
28231265
Source
pubmed
Published In
Plos One
Volume
12
Published Date
Start Page
e0172610
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0172610

Using Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being implemented into the care of patients with cancer. The use of a standard set of PROs (e.g., pain) in cancer is becoming established and there is interest in what additional PROs might provide valuable information. The goal of this observational study was to examine how the PROs of self-efficacy for pain and other symptoms assessed at the point of service were associated with pain, symptom severity and distress, and physical and psychosocial functioning in a sample of breast and gastrointestinal patients. We also sought to examine differences in these relationships by cancer type (breast and gastrointestinal) as well as understand differences in self-assessment mode (paper/pencil or electronic tablet). METHODS: 178 patients with breast (n=65) and gastrointestinal cancer (n = 113) completed the Chronic Pain Self Efficacy Scale, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaires. Measures were completed with paper and pencil and electronically using a tablet computer while patients waited for their clinical appointment. Responses from the initial completed questionnaires on both the paper and electronic instruments were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients' self-efficacy scores for pain and other symptoms correlated positively with pain, symptom severity and distress, and physical and psychosocial functioning; patients with lower levels of self-efficacy reported poorer outcomes and functioning overall. The results were independent of cancer type and mode of assessment. No statistically significant differences were found in the PROs when collected by electronic technology versus paper-pencil mode; patients were very satisfied with using the tablet computer to complete the PRO measures. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results suggest that self-efficacy for pain and symptom management may be a beneficial addition to clinic-based PRO assessment batteries for patients with cancer and other chronic diseases. Existing short, validated symptom self-efficacy scales could easily be integrated into clinical practice to help healthcare providers identify patients that might benefit from intervention. Study results also support existing research that suggests electronic approaches are a practical way to collect PRO data, including self-efficacy data, in the clinic. Overall, our data suggest that patients who have particularly low levels of self-efficacy for pain and symptom management may be at risk for higher levels of pain and disability. Thus, if self-efficacy for pain and symptom management were routinely collected at the time of clinical service, psychosocial interventions to improve self-efficacy for pain and symptom management, and in turn overall quality of life, could be implemented in a timely fashion.
Authors
Kelleher, SA; Somers, TJ; Locklear, T; Crosswell, AD; Abernethy, AP
MLA Citation
Kelleher, Sarah A., et al. “Using Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Practice..” Scand J Pain, vol. 13, Oct. 2016, pp. 6–11. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.05.035.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1134801
PMID
27818717
Source
pubmed
Published In
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Volume
13
Published Date
Start Page
6
End Page
11
DOI
10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.05.035

A Small Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial Comparing Mobile and Traditional Pain Coping Skills Training Protocols for Cancer Patients with Pain.

Psychosocial pain management interventions are efficacious for cancer pain but are underutilized. Recent advances in mobile health (mHealth) technologies provide new opportunities to decrease barriers to access psychosocial pain management interventions. The objective of this study was to gain information about the accessibility and efficacy of mobile pain coping skills training (mPCST) intervention delivered to cancer patients with pain compared to traditional in-person pain coping skills training intervention. This study randomly assigned participants (N = 30) to receive either mobile health pain coping skills training intervention delivered via Skype or traditional pain coping skills training delivered face-to-face (PCST-trad). This pilot trial suggests that mPCST is feasible, presents low burden to patients, may lead to high patient engagement, and appears to be acceptable to patients. Cancer patients with pain in the mPCST group reported decreases in pain severity and physical symptoms as well as increases in self-efficacy for pain management that were comparable to changes in the PCST-trad group (p's < 0.05). These findings suggest that mPCST, which is a highly accessible intervention, may provide benefits similar to an in-person intervention and shows promise for being feasible, acceptable, and engaging to cancer patients with pain.
MLA Citation
Somers, Tamara J., et al. “A Small Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial Comparing Mobile and Traditional Pain Coping Skills Training Protocols for Cancer Patients with Pain..” Pain Res Treat, vol. 2016, 2016. Pubmed, doi:10.1155/2016/2473629.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1159213
PMID
27891252
Source
pubmed
Published In
Pain Research and Treatment
Volume
2016
Published Date
Start Page
2473629
DOI
10.1155/2016/2473629

A Pilot Study of a Mobile Health Pain Coping Skills Training Protocol for Patients With Persistent Cancer Pain.

CONTEXT: Pain coping skills training (PCST) interventions have shown efficacy for reducing pain and providing other benefits in patients with cancer. However, their reach is often limited because of a variety of barriers (e.g., travel, physical burden, cost, time). OBJECTIVES: This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a brief PCST intervention delivered to patients in their homes using mobile health (mHealth) technology. Pre-to-post intervention changes in pain, physical functioning, physical symptoms, psychological distress, self-efficacy for pain management, and pain catastrophizing also were examined. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of breast, lung, prostate, or colorectal cancer who reported persistent pain (N = 25) participated in a four-session intervention delivered using mHealth technology (videoconferencing on a tablet computer). Participants completed measures of pain, physical functioning, physical symptoms, psychological distress, self-efficacy for pain management, and pain catastrophizing. We also assessed patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Participants completed an average of 3.36 (SD = 1.11) of the four intervention sessions for an overall session completion rate of 84%. Participants reported that the program was of excellent quality and met their needs. Significant preintervention to postintervention differences were found in pain, physical symptoms, psychological distress, and pain catastrophizing. CONCLUSION: The use of mHealth technology is a feasible and acceptable option for delivery of PCST for patients with cancer. This delivery mode is likely to dramatically increase intervention access for cancer patients with pain compared to traditional in-person delivery. Preliminary data also suggest that the program is likely to produce pretreatment to post-treatment decreases in pain and other important outcomes.
Authors
Somers, TJ; Abernethy, AP; Edmond, SN; Kelleher, SA; Wren, AA; Samsa, GP; Keefe, FJ
MLA Citation
Somers, Tamara J., et al. “A Pilot Study of a Mobile Health Pain Coping Skills Training Protocol for Patients With Persistent Cancer Pain..” J Pain Symptom Manage, vol. 50, no. 4, Oct. 2015, pp. 553–58. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.04.013.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1073757
PMID
26025279
Source
pubmed
Published In
J Pain Symptom Manage
Volume
50
Published Date
Start Page
553
End Page
558
DOI
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.04.013

TWO PHASES OF PILOTING A MHEALTH BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION FOR CANCER PAIN

Authors
Somers, TJ; Kelleher, SA; Edmond, SN; Wren, AA; Fisher, HM; Abernethy, AP; Keefe, FJ
MLA Citation
Somers, Tamara J., et al. “TWO PHASES OF PILOTING A MHEALTH BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION FOR CANCER PAIN.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine, vol. 49, SPRINGER, Apr. 2015, pp. S217–S217.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1125819
Source
wos
Published In
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Volume
49
Published Date
Start Page
S217
End Page
S217