Knowledge translation (KT) is the science and practice of dissemination and implementation of evidence. We describe how research funders operationalize and evaluate KT initiatives, identify challenges and opportunities, and suggest strategic considerations for KT support. We conducted an environmental scan, which included a systematic search of published and grey literature and a focus group with Canadian funders. A total of 130 published articles and 2415 grey literature sources were screened; 212 unique data sources were included. Published literature commonly described KT initiatives related to “KT practice and science funding.” These initiatives commonly provided funds for infrastructure development (e.g., clinical technologies, database subscriptions) to facilitate translational or applied research to address regional health priorities. Of the articles, 44% outlined an evaluation plan; few provided validated KT metrics. In the grey literature, 364 initiatives were described; the most commonly described initiatives related to “exchange and integrated KT.” Focus group participants hoped to see increased resources to support KT, exchange opportunities with policy/decision-makers, and evaluate KT initiatives. Funders completed various KT initiatives, which tended to engage stakeholders to set research priorities, collaborate with a range of stakeholders, build KT capacity, and mandate KT requirements. We provide six considerations for funders to support KT.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to stigmatization of individuals based on race/ethnicity, age, gender, and occupation, among other factors. We canvassed Canadian residents to explore perceptions of and experiences with stigma during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted an online survey between June 10 and December 31 2020. The survey was rooted in the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework and included multiple choice, Likert and open-ended questions related to perceived and experienced stigma. Residents of Ontario, Canada were eligible to participate and we aimed to recruit a sample that was diverse by race/ethnicity and age.ResultsA total of 1,823 individuals participated in the survey (54% women, 39% men; 54% 18–40 years old, 28% 41–60 years old, 12% 61+ years old; 33% White, 26% East/SouthEast Asian, 14% Black, 12% South Asian). Fifty-one percent of participants agreed/strongly agreed that racist views had increased toward certain racial/ethnic groups in Canada during the pandemic. Participants perceived that people in Canada were stigmatized during the pandemic because of race/ethnicity (37%), political beliefs (26%), older age (24%), being a healthcare worker (23%), younger age (22%), being an essential worker (21%), and gender (11%). Thirty-nine percent of respondents feared experiencing and 37% experienced stigmatization during the pandemic. Men, individuals aged 18–40, and racialized participants were more likely to fear or experience stigma. With respect to health behaviors, 74, 68, and 59% of respondents were comfortable masking in public, seeking medical care if they became ill, and getting tested for COVID-19, respectively. Men were less likely to indicate comfort with mask wearing or seeking medical care. Participants aged 18–40 and Black participants were less likely to indicate comfort with all three behaviors compared to those over age 41 and White participants, respectively. South Asian participants were less likely to be comfortable seeking medical care compared to White Participants.DiscussionParticipants feared or experienced stigmatization towards various demographic characteristics during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is critical that the factors driving stigma during health emergencies in Canada be better understood in order to develop effective public health messaging and interventions.

BACKGROUND Clear, accurate and transparent risk communication is critical to providing policy makers and the public with direction to reduce transmission and implement effective preparedness strategies during a health emergency. OBJECTIVE For those living in Canada, we aimed to explore preferred sources of obtaining COVID-19 information, perceptions on the prevalence and drivers of misinformation during the pandemic, and suggestions to optimize health communications during future public health emergencies. METHODS We administered an online survey to residents of Ontario, Canada and aimed to recruit a sample that reflected population diversity with respect to age and gender. Data were collected between June 10, 2020 – December 31, 2020. RESULTS A total of 1823 individuals participated in the survey (54% women, 39% men; 54% aged 18-40; 28% aged 41-60, 12% aged 61+). Participants most commonly obtained COVID-19 information from local television news (61%) followed by social media (51%), national/international television news (49%) and friends and family (46%). Approximately 55% of participants encountered misinformation. Participants reported high levels of trust in health authority websites and in healthcare providers; less trustworthy sources included friends and family, talk radio, social media, and blogs/opinion websites. Men were more likely to report encountering misinformation and to trust friends or family and blogs/opinion websites, compared to women. Compared to those aged 18-40 years, participants aged 41+ were more likely to trust all assessed information sources, with the exception of online media sources, and less likely to report encountering misinformation. Of those surveyed, 58% had challenges identifying or appraising COVID-19 information. CONCLUSIONS Over half of our participants encountered misinformation while seeking COVID-19 information and 58% had challenges identifying or appraising COVID-19 information. Gender and age differences in perceptions of misinformation and trust in information sources were observed. Future research on patterns of information seeking by age and gender may provide useful insights on optimizing health communication during public health emergencies.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the spread of misinformation worldwide. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of misinformation and preferred sources of obtaining COVID-19 information from those living in Canada. In particular, we sought to explore the perceptions of East Asian individuals in Canada, who experienced stigma related to COVID-19 messaging. Methods We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis study. Interviews were offered in English, Mandarin and Cantonese. Interviewers probed for domains related to knowledge about COVID-19, preferred sources of information, perceived barriers and facilitators of misinformation, and preferences for communication during a health emergency. Interviews were recorded, translated, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a framework approach. Transcripts were independently double-coded until > 60% agreement was reached. This study received research ethics approval. Results Fifty-five interviews were conducted. The majority of participants were women (67%); median age was 52 years. 55% of participants were of East-Asian descent. Participants obtained information about COVID-19 from diverse English and non-English sources including news media, government agencies or representatives, social media, and personal networks. Challenges to seeking and understanding information included: encountering misinformation, making sense of evolving or conflicting public health guidance, and limited information on topics of interest. 65% of participants reported encountering COVID-19  misinformation. East Asian participants called on government officials to champion messaging to reduce stigmatizing and racist rhetoric and highlighted the importance of having accessible, non-English language information sources. Participants provided recommendations for future public health communications guidance during health emergencies, including preferences for message content, information messengers, dissemination platforms and format of messages. Almost all participants preferred receiving information from the Canadian government and found it helpful to utilize various mediums and platforms such as social media and news media for future risk communication, urging for consistency across all platforms. Conclusions We provide insights on Canadian experiences navigating COVID-19 information, where more than half perceived encountering misinformation on platforms when seeking COVID-19 information . We provide recommendations to inform public health communications during future health emergencies.

Context: The objective of CHOICES (Community Heart Outcomes Improvement and Cholesterol Education Study) is to understand how evidence-informed cholesterol management can prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 14 health regions at higher risk in Ontario, Canada using a suite of educational interventions. An integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach was used to co-create an educational tool on CVD risk, behaviour modifications for cholesterol management, and cholesterollowering medications. In order to further understand the needs of Ontario residents related to CVD prevention, a process evaluation was conducted through engagement with the public. Objective: To evaluate implementation quality including reach, responsiveness and usability of the patient-targeted educational tool for cholesterol management. Study Design: A 10-minute online survey was administered to users of the tool. Population: Adults aged 40-75 years who reside in one of the 14 identified regions in Ontario with higher-than-average CVD risk. The tool and survey were shared broadly in the targeted regions and participants were recruited through social media, stakeholder involvement, and market research organizations. Outcome Measures: Reach was measured by the number of participants who received the tool and completed the survey. The survey measured perceived usability of organization, layout and applicability of the tool (6-items). Responsiveness was measured by the level of receptivity and interest in sharing the tool (4-items). Respondents ranked their level of agreement to each question on a likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Results: 230 users of the tool were recruited to participate, of which 104 completed the survey (response rate= 45.2%). Respondents indicated that the tool's content was clear (M = 6.00, SD = 1.05) and would support them as a patient seeking cholesterol related information (M = 6.00, SD = 0.99). Respondents indicated their high likelihood to recommend the tool to their personal networks (M = 5.37, SD = 1.19) and preference to receive similar information from their family physician (M = 5.92, SD = 1.15). Conclusion: Overall, participant responsiveness and receptivity to the co-created patient educational tool was high. This work enhances understanding of the benefits of co-created patient-targeted interventions to improve cholesterol management and ultimately inform the implementation of similar scalable strategies across Ontario.