Evaluating the Usability of Co-Created Public-Facing Knowledge Mobilization Resources for the Canadian Guidelines for Post COVID-19 Condition

Abstract Background The Canadian Guidelines for Post COVID-19 Condition (CAN-PCC), along with related knowledge mobilization (KM) resources, have been developed to support key interest-holders (e.g., public, healthcare providers, and policymakers) to make informed health decisions related to post COVID-19 condition (PCC). The purpose of this report is to describe the process and findings of our usability testing with members of the public on eight public-facing KM resources to support the CAN-PCC guidelines. These KM resources consist of an online resource sheet and an interactive infographic on four of the PCC guideline topics (1. prevention of PCC; 2. testing, identification and diagnosis; 3. pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions; and 4. pediatric and adolescent health) that have been co-developed with interest-holders to enhance accessibility and understanding of the recommendations. Methods A convenience sample of members of the public were recruited online through our organizations’ pre-established networks. Each participant was randomly assigned to review one of eight resources before completing a questionnaire, developed by the research team and pilot-tested by a national Public Advisory Group that was formed to inform this work. The questionnaire contained 24 usability questions (5-point Likert scale, multiple response questions, open-text) that assessed: (1) purpose and organization, (2) credibility, (3) usefulness, (4) desirability, (5) value, and (6) accessibility. Demographic information was also collected. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were calculated to summarize usability and demographic data. Independent t-tests were used to evaluate differences in mean scores between resource formats for each guideline topic. Open-ended responses were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results We completed usability testing with 64 participants (n=8 assessments per resource) between March and April 2025. All eight resources were highly rated with average mean scores ranging from 3.8 to 4.6 on the 5-point scale, where five indicated ‘Strongly Agree’. No statistically significant differences were observed between total scores for the different resources, however, differences across some domains (e.g., credibility, desirability, value, accessibility; p