Lisa Di Prospero

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Are you Lisa Di Prospero?

Claim your profile

Publications (30)8.11 Total impact

  • Lisa Di Prospero
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 09/2014; 45(3):195.
  • Lisa Di Prospero
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 09/2014; 45(3):196.
  • Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 06/2014; 45(2):168–169.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Providing cancer patients with more information regarding their treatments allows them to feel more in control, increases self efficacy, and can decrease anxiety. The aims of the present study were to develop an interprofessional group education session and to evaluate the usefulness and acceptability of this session. In addition, informational distress levels pre- and post-education were evaluated. A prostate radiation therapy (RT) education session was developed and facilitated by an interprofessional team. Topics discussed included how RT works, side effects and management, and support services available. Prior to the education session, participants reported their informational RT distress levels using the validated Distress Thermometer (DT). Post-education session, the DT was readministered. In addition, participants completed an acceptability survey to assess format, structure, and usefulness of the education session. Participants agreed that the session contained valuable and useful information helping them understand expectations during treatment, including resource availability, side effects and management, as well as procedural expectation during treatment. All stated they would recommend the session to other patients. The interprofessional nature of the sessions was deemed useful. Suggested areas for improvement included addition of a dietitian, information on long-term side effects, statistics of radiotherapy side effects, impact of radiotherapy on sexual function, and overall quality of life. The group education session significantly improved informational distress levels (p = 0.04). Educating prostate cancer patients utilizing an interprofessional group format can decrease anxiety and stress related to their RT treatment. Future development of group education sessions for other disease site groups may be valuable.
    Journal of Cancer Education 02/2014; · 0.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purposes of this exploratory study were to investigate the attitudes of radiation oncology professionals regarding interprofessional (IP) teaching and interprofessional education (IPE), to identify the challenges faced by radiation oncologists who teach within an IP context, and to discover new strategies to aid professionals teaching IP students. A questionnaire was developed through the review of existing literature on IPE using Medline. The proposed group of questions was selected by educators from different professions actively involved in IPE. The final revised questionnaire consisted of three main domains assessing the understanding of IP concepts, attitudes toward IP teaching and learning environments, and attitudes toward health-care teams. An open-ended comment section was included. The questionnaire was administered to health-care professionals (physicists, radiation oncologists, and radiation therapists) nationally through SurveyMonkey® (electronic survey). A total of 220 respondents provided demographic information. Half of these respondents indicated that they previously received education relating to IPE. A high level of agreement was received for nearly all the questions. There were no significant statistical differences among the three different professional respondent groups for any question. Overall, most of the respondents demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of IP concepts and advocated IP training and collaboration.
    Journal of Cancer Education 02/2014; · 0.88 Impact Factor
  • Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 01/2014; 45(2):164–165.
  • Lori Holden, Lisa Sonia Di Prospero
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 01/2014; 45(2):165.
  • Lisa Di Prospero
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 01/2014; 45(2):68.
  • Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 01/2014; 45(2):168.
  • Lisa Di Prospero
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 01/2014; 45(1):6.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Contexte L’évaluation par les pairs est utilisée au sein des programmes de professionnels de la santé pour offrir un certain degré de jugement du comportement professionnel et favoriser la rétroaction entre les pairs. Dans une tentative de soutenir davantage l’apprentissage clinique de nos étudiants, l’équipe de formation clinique du centre de cancérologie Odette a lancé un projet pilote visant à introduire l’évaluation par les pairs dans les stratégies d’apprentissage et d’engagement dans les séances en laboratoire. Le but de notre travail était d’examiner rétroactivement les évaluations par les pairs remplies durant ces séances dans un objectif de recensement des comportements professionnels, tant négatifs que positifs, et d’établir ensuite une corrélation entre les évaluations et les comportements observés, de façon tant formelle qu’anecdotique, dans le cadre des évaluations cliniques. Par la suite, notre équipe a tenté d’explorer les perceptions des étudiants sur l’incidence des évaluations par les pairs sur leur propre apprentissage. Méthodes Les étudiants de dernière année d'un programme de formation de premier cycle de trois ans en sciences de la radiation médicale ont été invités à évaluer leurs pairs durant les séances de laboratoire au moyen d'une version modifiée d'un outil d'évaluation déjà connu des étudiants, l'Assessment of Readiness for Clinical. Chaque étudiant (N = 14) devait évaluer chacun de ses pairs ayant participé à la même séance et formuler des commentaires à l’appui de sa notation. Pour chaque étudiant, les réponses des pairs évaluateurs ont été rendues anonymes et regroupées. Les commentaires et les notes numériques des évaluations par les pairs ont été comparés. Les évaluations ont ensuite été comparées à des mesures similaires tirées des évaluations faites par les enseignants. Les étudiants ont également participé à des séances de compte rendu afin de fournir des commentaires sur l’intégration de ces évaluations aux séances d’apprentissage et leur effet potentiel sur leurs propres comportements professionnels. Résultats La majorité des étudiants ont accordé à leurs pairs, sous tous les critères, une note de 2 (atteint ou dépasse les attentes). Il existe une certaine corrélation entre les évaluations numériques et les commentaires accompagnant l’évaluation. Les commentaires des évaluations par les pairs correspondaient aux observations tirées des évaluations précédentes par les superviseurs cliniques et les enseignants pour 71 p. 100 des étudiants. Les étudiants se sont dits favorables à l’utilisation de l’évaluation par les pairs mais n’ont pas jugé utile la cote numérique, lui préférant les commentaires constructifs donnant des exemples précis d'éléments à améliorer. Conclusions Il a été jugé que l’évaluation par les pairs présentait certains avantages pour l’apprentissage de nos étudiants, notamment les commentaires de soutien qui accompagnent les notes. Cependant, leur utilisation doit s’accompagner d’une formation structurée et de directives aux enseignants et aux apprenants et d’un examen attentif de l’outil retenu, afin d’assurer les répercussions les plus significatives sur les changements de comportement.
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 01/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine if older women with early stage breast cancer have sufficient decisional support during their breast cancer journey, a questionnaire-based study was conducted at the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Women with stages I and II breast cancer, ≥60 years, were contacted upon completion of their adjuvant treatment. A questionnaire was developed based on focus groups, the literature, and consultation with patients and a multidisciplinary team of experts. The questionnaire was divided into six domains as follows: (1) information support surrounding diagnosis, (2) impact of cancer diagnosis on the patient, (3) quality of interaction with healthcare team, (4) decisional support from the healthcare team, (5) additional information needs surrounding treatment decision, and (6) information support during radiation treatment. Ninety-two of 137 patients approached were included in the analysis. Ninety percent were > 60 years at the time of diagnosis and 65 % had stage I invasive breast cancer. The majority of women received adequate decisional support during their cancer journey. Approximately 90 % of women indicated that they received a high level of support during their cancer diagnosis. We found no significant differences in overall decisional support based on age at diagnosis, education level, ethnicity, or the presence of co-morbidities. However, participants desired additional educational resources such as a worksheet, consultation summary, or workbook to assist in making a treatment decision. The majority of participants felt that they had sufficient support while making a treatment decision for breast cancer.
    Journal of Cancer Education 10/2013; · 0.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study investigated health professionals' opinions about important questions that should be discussed with patients who may require post-prostatectomy radiotherapy. A 74-question survey was conducted among radiation oncologists, urologists, nurses, and radiation therapists involved in the care of prostate cancer patients. Survey questions covered six domains: understanding my situation and prostate cancer diagnosis, making a decision, radiotherapy: procedures involved, potential benefits, side effects, and my support network during radiation treatment. Respondents rated the importance of addressing these questions as either essential, important, no opinion, or avoid with a hypothetical post-prostatectomy case. The majority of questions were rated as either essential or important. There was disagreement between professions on essential questions, mostly between nurses and urologists in the side-effects domain. There was agreement between all professions regarding which questions should be avoided.
    Journal of Cancer Education 06/2013; · 0.88 Impact Factor
  • Kieng Tan, Krista Dawdy, Lisa Di Prospero
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Within the academic clinical setting, radiation therapists are required to assess students' performance and competence as part of their clinical practice portfolio. Anecdotal feedback from the clinical setting identified challenges in assessment that emerged as a result of variation in who, how, and the context in which the assessment was being completed. A survey was distributed to gain insight into the current state of clinical competency assessment.MethodologyRadiation therapists (n = 75) from two affiliated clinical sites within an undergraduate program were surveyed. The online survey consisted of open and closed questions. The survey was divided into three principal themes on the assessment of clinical competence: (1) who completes the assessment, (2) how clinical competence is assessed, and (3) what measures are utilized in the assessment. The survey also captured the clinical experience and formal training in education and assessment of respondents.ResultsAll respondents were aware that clinical teaching was part of their portfolio, but only 45 (60.0%) enjoyed teaching students, 41 (55.4%) rated themselves as very comfortable assessing competence, and 69 (93.2%) were aware of documentation and support on how to evaluate. All collaborate with team members and slightly less with the clinical educators. Sixty-four (86.5%) defined successful competence as sustainability over a defined period of time, measuring both clinical knowledge and application.ConclusionsProcesses surrounding the assessment of clinical competence are congruent among all clinical teachers, supporting their reliability. Enhanced collaboration with clinical educators in both support and training will increase the validity of clinical assessment. In addition, to minimize variability in clinical assessment, the focus should be placed on training the assessors and not controlling the assessment process.RésuméContexteDans le milieu clinique universitaire, les radiothérapeutes doivent évaluer le rendement et les compétences des étudiants dans le cadre de leur portefeuille de pratique clinique. Le feedback anecdotique provenant du milieu clinique recense des défis d’évaluation qui ressortent de variations découlant de la personne qui effectue l’évaluation, de quelle façon et dans quel contexte. Un questionnaire a été distribué afin d’obtenir un aperçu de l’état actuel de l’évaluation des compétences cliniques.MéthodologieLes radiothérapeutes (n = 75) de deux sites cliniques affiliés à un programme d’étude de premier cycle ont fait l’objet du sondage, qui prenait la forme de questions ouvertes et fermées. Le sondage était divisé en trois thèmes principaux couvrant l’évaluation des compétences cliniques: 1) qui a effectué l’évaluation; 2) la façon dont la compétence clinique est évaluée; 3) quelles sont les mesures utilisées pour l’évaluation. Le questionnaire porte également sur l’expérience clinique et la formation structurée des répondants en enseignement ou en évaluation.RésultatsTous les répondants savaient que l’enseignement clinique faisait partie de leur portefeuille mais 45 seulement (60,0%) apprécient enseigner aux étudiants. Quarante-et-un répondants (55,4%) se disent très à l’aise pour évaluer les compétences, 69 (93,2%) savaient qu’il existe de la documentation et du soutien en matière d’évaluation. Tous collaborent avec les membres de leur équipe, et un peu moins avec les éducateurs cliniciens. Soixante-quatre (86,5%) définissent la compétence comme la durabilité sur une période de temps définie, mesurant à la fois les connaissances cliniques et leur application.Conclusions Les processus entourant l’évaluation de la compétence clinique sont congruents entre tous les enseignants cliniciens, ce qui en appuie la fiabilité. Une meilleure collaboration avec les éducateurs cliniciens en matière de soutien et de formation permettrait d’améliorer la validité de l’évaluation clinique. De plus, afin de minimiser la variabilité de l’évaluation clinique, l’accent devrait être mis sur la formation des évaluateurs et non sur le contrôle du processus d’évaluation.
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 06/2013; 44(2):100–105.
  • Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 03/2013; 44(1):48.
  • Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 03/2013; 44(1):14–22.
  • Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 03/2013; 44(1):54.
  • Lisa Di Prospero
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 01/2013; 44(3):121–122.
  • Lisa Di Prospero
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 01/2013; 44(4):172.
  • Lisa Di Prospero
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 01/2013; 44(4):169–170.

Publication Stats

3 Citations
8.11 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2013–2014
    • University of Toronto
      • Department of Radiation Oncology
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 2011–2014
    • Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
      • Department of Radiation Oncology
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • The Michener Institute
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada