Background: Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences (MCCs) are prospective meetings involving cancer specialists to discuss treatment plans for patients with cancer. Despite reported gaps in MCC quality, there have been few efforts to improve its functioning. The purpose of this study was to use theoretically-rooted knowledge translation (KT) theories and frameworks to inform the development of a strategy to improve MCC decision-making quality. Methods: A multi-phased approach was used to design an intervention titled the KT-MCC Strategy. First, key informant interviews framed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) were conducted with MCC participants to identify barriers and facilitators to optimal MCC decision-making. Second, identified TDF domains were mapped to corresponding strategies using the COM-B Behavior Change Wheel to develop the KT-MCC Strategy. Finally, focus groups with MCC participants were held to confirm acceptability of the proposed KT-MCC Strategy. Results: Data saturation was reached at n = 21 interviews. Twenty-seven barrier themes and 13 facilitator themes were ascribed to 11 and 10 TDF domains, respectively. Differences in reported barriers by physician specialty were observed. The resulting KT-MCC Strategy included workshops, chair training, team training, standardized intake forms and a synoptic discussion checklist, and, audit and feedback. Focus groups (n = 3, participants 18) confirmed the acceptability of the identified interventions. Conclusion: Myriad factors were found to influence MCC decision making. We present a novel application of the TDF and COM-B to the context of MCCs. We comprehensively describe the barriers and facilitators that impact MCC decision making and propose strategies that may positively impact the quality of MCC decision making.

Background: The concept of intersectionality proposes that demographic and social constructs intersect with larger social structures of oppression and privilege to shape experiences. While intersectionality is a widely accepted concept in feminist and gender studies, there has been little attempt to use this lens in implementation science. We aimed to supplement the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a commonly used framework in implementation science, to support the incorporation of intersectionality in implementation science projects by (1) integrating an intersectional lens to the CFIR; and (2) developing a tool for researchers to be used alongside the updated framework. Methods: Using a nominal group technique, an interdisciplinary framework committee (n = 17) prioritized the CFIR as one of three implementation science models, theories, and frameworks to supplement with intersectionality considerations; the modification of the other two frameworks are described in other papers. The CFIR subgroup (n = 7) reviewed the five domains and 26 constructs in the CFIR and prioritized domains and constructs for supplementation with intersectional considerations. The subgroup then iteratively developed recommendations and prompts for incorporating an intersectional approach within the prioritized domains and constructs. We developed recommendations and prompts to help researchers consider how personal identities and power structures may affect the facilitators and inhibitors of behavior change and the implementation of subsequent interventions. Results: We achieved consensus on how to apply an intersectional lens to CFIR after six rounds of meetings. The final intersectionality supplemented CFIR includes the five original domains, and 28 constructs; the outer systems and structures and the outer cultures constructs were added to the outer setting domain. Intersectionality prompts were added to 13 of the 28 constructs. Conclusion: Through an expert-consensus approach, we modified the CFIR to include intersectionality considerations and developed a tool with prompts to help implementation users apply an intersectional lens using the updated framework.

Background: In the past decade, patient-oriented research (POR) has been at the forefront of healthcare research in Canada because it has the potential to make research more meaningful and relevant to patient needs. Despite this growing emphasis on and expectation to conduct POR, there is limited guidance about how to apply POR in practice. To address this capacity building need, the Knowledge Translation (KT) Program and patient partners co-designed, delivered, and evaluated Partners in Research (PiR), a 2-month online course for patients and researchers to collectively learn how to conduct and engage in POR. Methods: PiR was delivered to 4 cohorts of patients and researchers between 2017 and 2018. For each cohort, we evaluated the impact of the course on participants’ knowledge, self-efficacy, intentions, and use of POR using surveys at 3 time points: baseline, post-course and 6-months post-course. We also monitored the process of course design and delivery by assessing implementation quality of the PiR course. Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with course format, course materials, quality of delivery and their level of engagement via a 7-point Likert scale in the post-course survey. Results: A total of 151 participants enrolled in the PiR course throughout the 4 cohorts. Of these, 49 patients and 33 researchers (n = 82 participants) consented to participate in the course evaluation. Process and outcome evaluations collected over a 9-month period indicated that participation in the PiR course increased knowledge of POR concepts for patients (p < .001) and for researchers (p < .001) from pre-course to post-course timepoints. Likewise, self-efficacy to engage in POR increased from baseline to post-course for both patients (p < .001) and researchers (p < .001). Moreover, participants reported high levels of satisfaction with content, delivery and interactive components of the course. Conclusions: The PiR course increased capacity in POR for both researchers and patients. This work enhances our understanding of how to design useful and engaging education opportunities to increase patient and researcher capacity in POR.

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.

Person-level surveillance (N = 14 million) and neighborhood-level income data were used to explore magnitude of inequalities in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths over 5 waves in Ontario, Canada. Despite attempts at equity-informed policies alongside fluctuating levels of public health measures, the magnitude of inequalities in hospitalizations and deaths remained unchanged across waves.

Background: Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. Methods: Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. Eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). Information sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database’s inception to March 2020. Outcome measures: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. Data synthesis: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. Results: We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [− 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I² = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [− 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I² = 25%; St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire: MD − 2.12, 95% CI [− 3.72, − 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I² = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I² = 21%). Conclusions: KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018084810.