June 13, 2019 NAACCR/IACR Conference, Vancouver, Canada

1. Maximizing research impacts on cancer prevention: An integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach used by the ComPARe study Prithwish De,* Zeinab El-Masri, Leah Smith, Elizabeth Holmes, Robert Nuttall, Darren Brenner, Christine Friedenreich on behalf of the ComPARe Study Team *Director, Surveillance & Cancer Registry Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada June 13, 2019 NAACCR/IACR Conference, Vancouver, Canada

2. No conflicts of interest

3. Objective Objective: To describe the integrated knowledge translation approach (iKT) taken by the Canadian Population Attributable Risk of Cancer (ComPARe) study, including governance,outputs and reflections.

4. Knowledge Translation vs integrated Knowledge Translation?

5. Knowledge Translation (KT) Various definitions and synonyms for KT • A set of activities and processes aimed at closing the gap between what is known from evidence and what is applied in practice and policy • “Know-do” gap Graham et al., 2006; Straus et al., 2009

6. KT “A dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products and strengthen the health care system” Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2017

7. Dissemination to knowledge users at the completion of study iKT End-of-Grant KT Two Approaches Engagement of knowledge users as equal partners throughout Integrated KT (iKT) Knowledge User Engagement *Key benefit*: findings that are more directly relevant and useful! Knowledge user: the anticipated end user of a research study who is likely to use the findings to make informed decisions about health policies, programs and/or practices Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2017

8. Canadian Population Attributable Risk of Cancer (ComPARe) study

9. ComPARe study Future Burden (objective 2) Current Burden (objective 1) Burden related to past exposure How many cancer cases will be caused by modifiable risk factors in 2042? Avoidable Burden (objective 3) Cancer Incidence Prevention Strategies If we act now to reduce exposure to risk factors, how many cancer cases could we prevent by 2042? 2042 2015 1995 Year How many cancer cases are caused by modifiable risk factors?

10. ComPARe Study • Aims • Inform program development • Influence behaviour change • Support for new policies and interventions • Guide prevention research • Target audiences (knowledge users) • Government (e.g. policy makers) • Healthcare and public health professionals • Advocates • Researchers • Secondary audience: General public • Funded by Canadian Cancer Society (CCS) through CCS-Partner Prevention Research grant • Requirements: • 1) include at least 1 CCS partner (i.e. an integrated knowledge user); • 2) focus on CCS priority area in cancer prevention

11. Governance ComPARe study Knowledge users: Integrated and Advisory • Canadian Partnership Against Cancer • Canadian Cancer Society • Colorectal Cancer Canada • National Collaborating Centre for Infectious Diseases • CAREX Canada • Propel Centre for Population Health Impact • Dietitians of Canada • Lung Association of Canada • Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada • Public Health Ontario • Cancer Care Ontario • Ontario Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care Fig. 1. Organizational and functional model for the ComPARe study El-Masri Z et al Prev Med 2019

12. KT Blueprint Fig. 2. ComPARe Knowledge Translation (KT) Blueprint El-Masri Z et al Prev Med 2019

13. Knowledge product examples Website prevent.cancer.ca (English) prevenir.cancer.ca (French) Interactive data dashboard Infographics

14. iKT Approach: Reflections • a strong collaboration between knowledge producers and knowledge users • capitalized on each other’s expertise as well as leveraged both groups’ resources and networksto enhance the relevance and uptake of the study findings

15. What enabled our iKT? • Commitment to iKT from the funding agency • Early established partnership as co-applicants and study planners • Co-investigators' commitment & attitude • Understanding of/experience in other’s area of expertise inspired an environment of trust in allowing the integrated knowledge users to lead the KT activities • Dedicated and independent budget for KT activities permitted autonomy for KT decisions • Advisory committee buy-in and connection with iKT • Integrated knowledge users served as trusted brokers with the study team, which allowed for broadest KU perspective to inform research activities

16. Challenges faced with our iKT • Inability to anticipate all costs • Evolving list of KT products and dissemination activities to support integrated knowledge users’ organizational needs • Competing priorities • Balancing commitment to the study with integrated knowledge users’ organizational roles • Turnover of iKT members

17. More Information El-Masri Z et al Prev Med 2019

18. Acknowledgements Canadian Cancer Society Dr. Leah Smith Elizabeth Holmes Apiramy Jeyapalan Health Quality Ontario Dr. Robert K Nuttall (formerly CCS) Queen’s University, Department of Public Health Sciences Dr. Will D. King Dylan E. O’Sullivan Tasha Narain Priyanka Gogna Carleton University, Department of Health Sciences Dr. Paul J. Villeneuve McMaster University, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact Dr. Stephen D. Walter Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Alberta Health Services Dr. Christine M. Friedenreich (Co-PI) Dr. Darren R. Brenner (Co-PI) Abbey E. Poirier Dr. Yibing Ruan Dr. Farah Khandwala Surveillance & Cancer Registry, CCO Zeinab El-Masri Dr. Prithwish De Robert D’Addazio Occupational Cancer Research Centre, Toronto Dr. Paul A. Demers Kate Jardine McGill University, Gerald Bronfman Department of Oncology, Division of Cancer Epidemiology Dr. Eduardo Franco Karena D. Volesky Dr. Mariam El-Zein

19. Discussion & Questions Email: theComPAReStudy@gmail.comWebsite: prevent.cancer.ca prevenir.cancer.caTwitter: #ComPAReStudy