Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where James F. Cleary is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by James F. Cleary.


JAMA Internal Medicine | 2015

Safety and benefit of discontinuing statin therapy in the setting of advanced, life-limiting illness: a randomized clinical trial.

Jean S. Kutner; Patrick J. Blatchford; Donald H. Taylor; Christine S. Ritchie; Janet Bull; Diane L. Fairclough; Laura C. Hanson; Thomas W. LeBlanc; Greg Samsa; Steven Wolf; Noreen M. Aziz; Betty Ferrell; Nina D. Wagner-Johnston; S. Yousuf Zafar; James F. Cleary; Sandesh Dev; Patricia S. Goode; Arif H. Kamal; Cordt T. Kassner; Elizabeth Kvale; Janelle G. McCallum; Adeboye Ogunseitan; Steven Z. Pantilat; Russell K. Portenoy; Maryjo Prince-Paul; Jeff A. Sloan; Keith M. Swetz; Charles F. von Gunten; Amy P. Abernethy

IMPORTANCE For patients with limited prognosis, some medication risks may outweigh the benefits, particularly when benefits take years to accrue; statins are one example. Data are lacking regarding the risks and benefits of discontinuing statin therapy for patients with limited life expectancy. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety, clinical, and cost impact of discontinuing statin medications for patients in the palliative care setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a multicenter, parallel-group, unblinded, pragmatic clinical trial. Eligibility included adults with an estimated life expectancy of between 1 month and 1 year, statin therapy for 3 months or more for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, recent deterioration in functional status, and no recent active cardiovascular disease. Participants were randomized to either discontinue or continue statin therapy and were monitored monthly for up to 1 year. The study was conducted from June 3, 2011, to May 2, 2013. All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat approach. INTERVENTIONS Statin therapy was withdrawn from eligible patients who were randomized to the discontinuation group. Patients in the continuation group continued to receive statins. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcomes included death within 60 days (primary outcome), survival, cardiovascular events, performance status, quality of life (QOL), symptoms, number of nonstatin medications, and cost savings. RESULTS A total of 381 patients were enrolled; 189 of these were randomized to discontinue statins, and 192 were randomized to continue therapy. Mean (SD) age was 74.1 (11.6) years, 22.0% of the participants were cognitively impaired, and 48.8% had cancer. The proportion of participants in the discontinuation vs continuation groups who died within 60 days was not significantly different (23.8% vs 20.3%; 90% CI, -3.5% to 10.5%; P=.36) and did not meet the noninferiority end point. Total QOL was better for the group discontinuing statin therapy (mean McGill QOL score, 7.11 vs 6.85; P=.04). Few participants experienced cardiovascular events (13 in the discontinuation group vs 11 in the continuation group). Mean cost savings were


Cancer | 1997

Palliative medicine in the elderly.

James F. Cleary; Paul P. Carbone

3.37 per day and


Medical Decision Making | 2010

Web-based cancer communication and decision making systems: connecting patients, caregivers, and clinicians for improved health outcomes.

Lori L. DuBenske; David H. Gustafson; Bret R. Shaw; James F. Cleary

716 per patient. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This pragmatic trial suggests that stopping statin medication therapy is safe and may be associated with benefits including improved QOL, use of fewer nonstatin medications, and a corresponding reduction in medication costs. Thoughtful patient-provider discussions regarding the uncertain benefit and potential decrement in QOL associated with statin continuation in this setting are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01415934.


Journal of Health Communication | 2010

Cancer Information Sources Used by Patients to Inform and Influence Treatment Decisions

Matthew C. Walsh; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Tracy Schroepfer; Douglas J. Reding; Bruce H. Campbell; Mary L. Foote; Stephanie Kaufman; Morgan Barrett; Patrick L. Remington; James F. Cleary

Cancer is primarily a disease of the elderly and the palliation of both disease‐ and treatment‐related symptoms is of importance in the practice of cancer medicine in all patients. Many older patients are treated within community hospitals, in which anticancer therapies are less likely to be given and in which the palliation of symptoms should be of primary importance. Many oncologists struggle with the palliation of symptoms in patients who are near the end of life. This is despite the considerable energies that are spent in palliating symptoms in patients who are receiving anticancer therapies at all disease stages. The management of pain has advanced considerably recently with improvements in pain assessment and pharmacologic interventions. However, elderly patients are less likely than younger patients to receive proper pain management. Elderly patients also are less likely to take opioids for pain because of their attitudes and beliefs. Fatigue, dyspnea, and psychologic issues also are of importance in the management of elderly cancer patients both during anticancer therapy and near the time of death. Some elderly cancer patients die in the care of a hospice, although many are not referred to this service. There are many barriers to the provision of palliative medicine and these may be related to health practitioners, to the patients themselves, or to the health care system of which they are part. The increased educational efforts of health professionals are needed to ensure that all patients, including the elderly, have adequate palliation of their cancer‐related symptoms. Cancer 1997; 80:1335‐47.


Journal of Oncology Practice | 2013

Inpatient Hospitalization of Oncology Patients: Are We Missing an Opportunity for End-of-Life Care?

Gabrielle B. Rocque; Anne Elizabeth Barnett; Lisa Illig; Jens C. Eickhoff; Howard H. Bailey; Toby C. Campbell; James A. Stewart; James F. Cleary

Over the cancer disease trajectory, from diagnosis and treatment to remission or end of life, patients and their families face difficult decisions. The provision of information and support when most relevant can optimize cancer decision making and coping. An interactive health communication system (IHCS) offers the potential to bridge the communication gaps that occur among patients, family, and clinicians and to empower each to actively engage in cancer care and shared decision making. This is a report of the authors’ experience (with a discussion of relevant literature) in developing and testing a Web-based IHCS—the Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System (CHESS)—for patients with advanced lung cancer and their family caregivers. CHESS provides information, communication, and coaching resources as well as a symptom tracking system that reports health status to the clinical team. Development of an IHCS includes a needs assessment of the target audience and applied theory informed by continued stakeholder involvement in early testing. Critical issues of IHCS implementation include 1) need for interventions that accommodate a variety of format preferences and technology comfort ranges; 2) IHCS user training, 3) clinician investment in IHCS promotion, and 4) IHCS integration with existing medical systems. In creating such comprehensive systems, development strategies need to be grounded in population needs with appropriate use of technology that serves the target users, including the patient/family, clinical team, and health care organization. Implementation strategies should address timing, personnel, and environmental factors to facilitate continued use and benefit from IHCS.


Head and Neck-journal for The Sciences and Specialties of The Head and Neck | 2009

Comprehensive IMRT Plus Weekly Cisplatin for Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: The University of Wisconsin Experience

Anne M. Traynor; Gregory M. Richards; Gregory K. Hartig; Deepak Khuntia; James F. Cleary; Peggy Wiederholt; Søren M. Bentzen; Paul M. Harari

Previous research has indicated that treatment staff often underestimate the informational needs of cancer patients. In this study, the authors determined the total number of information sources obtained and used to influence treatment decisions, and the clinical and demographic factors associated with the use of specific sources of information in cancer patients. Participants were identified by the statewide cancer registry and diagnosed in 2004 with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. A self-administered mailed questionnaire elicited cancer treatments, demographics, and information sources used to make treatment decisions. Of those surveyed, 1,784 (66%) participated and responded to all questions regarding information use. Over 69% of study participants reported obtaining information from a source other than the treatment staff. Significant predictors of using additional information sources included younger age, higher income, higher education, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, and reporting shared decision making (all p values <.01). Participants with a college degree were more likely to use the Internet (OR 3.7; 95% CI 1.5–9.0) and scientific research reports (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.6–6.9) to influence treatment decisions compared with those without a high school degree. Support group use to influence treatment decisions was not associated with socioeconomic variables but did vary by cancer type and CAM use. The sources of information study participants obtained and used to influence treatment decisions varied strongly by socioeconomic and demographic variables. These findings provide a deeper understanding of the information needs of cancer patients and have implications for dissemination strategies that can minimize disparities in access to cancer information.


The Lancet | 2017

Alleviating the access abyss in palliative care and pain relief—an imperative of universal health coverage: the Lancet Commission report

Felicia Marie Knaul; Paul Farmer; Eric L. Krakauer; Liliana De Lima; Afsan Bhadelia; Xiaoxiao Jiang Kwete; Héctor Arreola-Ornelas; Octavio Gómez-Dantés; Natalia M. Rodriguez; George Alleyne; Stephen R Connor; David J. Hunter; Diederik Lohman; Lukas Radbruch; María del Rocío Sáenz Madrigal; Rifat Atun; Kathleen M. Foley; Julio Frenk; Dean T. Jamison; M R Rajagopal; Huda Abu-Saad Huijer; Agnes Binagwaho; Snežana M Bošnjak; David M. Clark; James F. Cleary; José R Cossío Díaz; Cynthia Goh; Pascal J. Goldschmidt-Clermont; Mary Gospodarowicz; Liz Gwyther

INTRODUCTION Despite advances in the care of patients with cancer over the last 10 years, cancer remains the second leading cause of death in the United States. Many patients receive aggressive, in-hospital end-of-life care at high cost. There are few data on outcomes after unplanned hospitalization of patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS In 2000 and 2010, data were collected on admissions, interventions, and survival for patients admitted to an academic inpatient medical oncology service. RESULTS The 2000 survey included 191 admissions of 151 unique patients. The 2010 survey assessed 149 admissions of 119 patients. Lung, GI, and breast cancers were the most common cancer diagnoses. In the 2010 assessment, pain was the most common chief complaint, accounting for 28%. Although symptoms were the dominant reason for admission in 2010, procedures and imaging were common in both surveys. The median survival of patients after discharge was 4.7 months in 2000 and 3.4 months in 2010. Despite poor survival in this patient population, hospice was recommended in only 23% and 24% of patients in 2000 and 2010, respectively. Seventy percent of patients were discharged home without additional services. CONCLUSION On the basis of our data, an unscheduled hospitalization for a patient with advanced cancer strongly predicts a median survival of fewer than 6 months. We believe that hospital admission represents an opportunity to commence and/or consolidate appropriate palliative care services and end-of-life care.


Cancer | 2013

An eHealth system supporting palliative care for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized trial

David H. Gustafson; Lori L. DuBenske; Kang Namkoong; Robert P. Hawkins; Ming-Yuan Chih; Amy K. Atwood; Roberta A. Johnson; Abhik Bhattacharya; Cindy L. Carmack; Anne M. Traynor; Toby C. Campbell; Mary K. Buss; Ramaswamy Govindan; Joan H. Schiller; James F. Cleary

We retrospectively examined the treatment efficacy and toxicity profile of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus concurrent weekly cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).


Palliative Medicine | 2013

Communicating advanced cancer patients’ symptoms via the Internet: A pooled analysis of two randomized trials examining caregiver preparedness, physical burden and negative mood

Ming-Yuan Chih; Lori L. DuBenske; Robert P. Hawkins; Roger L. Brown; Susan Dinauer; James F. Cleary; David H. Gustafson

Felicia Marie Knaul, Paul E Farmer*, Eric L Krakauer*, Liliana De Lima, Afsan Bhadelia, Xiaoxiao Jiang Kwete, Héctor Arreola-Ornelas, Octavio Gómez-Dantés, Natalia M Rodriguez, George A O Alleyne, Stephen R Connor, David J Hunter, Diederik Lohman, Lukas Radbruch, María del Rocío Sáenz Madrigal, Rifat Atun†, Kathleen M Foley†, Julio Frenk†, Dean T Jamison†, M R Rajagopal†, on behalf of the Lancet Commission on Palliative Care and Pain Relief Study Group‡


Journal of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy | 2014

An examination of global and regional opioid consumption trends 1980-2011.

Barbara A. Hastie; Aaron M. Gilson; Martha A. Maurer; James F. Cleary

In this study, the authors examined the effectiveness of an online support system (Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System [CHESS]) versus the Internet in relieving physical symptom distress in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Collaboration


Dive into the James F. Cleary's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Martha A. Maurer

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Toby C. Campbell

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Lori L. DuBenske

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David H. Gustafson

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Aaron M. Gilson

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jens C. Eickhoff

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Anne M. Traynor

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Fiona McTavish

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Gabrielle B. Rocque

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

George Wilding

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge