Documents 

Background
The conventional methods and strategies used for knowledge translation (KT) in academic research often fall short in effectively reaching stakeholders, such as citizens, practitioners, and decision makers, especially concerning complex healthcare issues. In response, a growing number of scholars have been embracing arts-based knowledge translation (ABKT) to target a more diverse audience with varying backgrounds and expectations. Despite the increased interest, utilization, and literature on arts-based knowledge translation over the past three decades, no studies have directly compared traditional knowledge translation with arts-based knowledge translation methods. Thus, our study aimed to evaluate and compare the impact of an arts-based knowledge translation intervention–a circus show–with two traditional knowledge translation interventions (webinar and research report) in terms of awareness, accessibility, engagement, advocacy/policy influence, and enjoyment.

Methods
To conduct this exploratory convergent mixed method study, we randomly assigned 162 participants to one of the three interventions. All three knowledge translation methods were used to translate the same research project: "Rural Emergency 360: Mobilization of decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and citizens to improve healthcare and services in Quebec’s rural emergency departments (UR360)."

Results
The findings revealed that the circus show outperformed the webinar and research report in terms of accessibility and enjoyment, while being equally effective in raising awareness, increasing engagement, and influencing advocacy/policy. Each intervention strategy demonstrates its unique array of strengths and weaknesses, with the circus show catering to a diverse audience, while the webinar and research report target more informed participants. These outcomes underscore the innovative and inclusive attributes of Arts-Based Knowledge translation, showcasing its capacity to facilitate researchers’ engagement with a wider array of stakeholders across diverse contexts.

Conclusion
As a relevant first step and a complementary asset, arts-based knowledge translation holds immense potential in increasing awareness and mobilization around crucial health issues.

Creativity is not linear, but writing about it often is. Creativity is messy; writing about it is not. Creativity lives in the in-between; writing about it points to the space within. Creativity involves movement—it is, in fact, a form of movement—while writing—and reading—about it makes us stand still. Creativity is represented by ideas on the move, messy, nonlinear, embodied, and in-between. And so, if ideas could describe this movement, what would they say?

Knowledge about embodied creativity is in its infancy. In circus arts, performers are nowadays ‘owning’ their creativity making this performance domain fruitful to study embodied creativity. Building on socio-cultural creativity perspectives and radical embodied cognitive sciences, the current study aimed at exploring movement creativity by tracking the journey of embodied ideas in a Circus School. Specifically, this research questioned how the interactions between actors, audiences, affordances, and actions support the emergence and evolution of movement ideas. A narrative ethnographic research design, gathering process observations in situ, was used to scrutinize the movement ideas generated by student-artists, teachers, and artistic advisors over a 4-month period. Reflexive thematic analysis led to the design of an exhaustive mapping which illustrates the key findings. Namely, the journey of an embodied idea is influenced by stimulating spaces and collaborative socio-cultural environment which ignite the actors' desire to create. This desire, in turn, unfolds into multiple ideational pathways paved with research strategies (e.g., improvisation, constraints, variability) and emotions (i.e., pleasant and unpleasant). Embodied ideas then go through an assessment process leading (or not) to its growth. Results are discussed in light of embodied, pedagogical, and emotional considerations offering an alternative to the conceptualization of idea.

Objective To synthesize the available evidence on playground-related injuries and to determine the prevalence of these injuries in pediatric populations. Data sources A rapid systematic review was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, as well as the gray literature. Study selection The search was limited to studies published between 2012 and 2016 and identified a total of 858 articles, of which 22 met our inclusion criteria: original quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the past 5 years, concerning unintentional injuries in playgrounds in children aged 0 to 18 years.

Synthesis Information was collected on study and injury characteristics, and the proportion of pediatric injuries related to playground activity was determined. Studies were performed in various countries and most were retrospective cohort studies. The prevalence of playground-related injury ranged from 2% to 34% (median 10%). Studies varied in the types of injuries investigated, including head injuries, genitourinary injuries, ocular and dental trauma, and various types of fractures. Most injuries were low severity.
Conclusion Although playgrounds are a common location where pediatric injuries occur, these injuries are relatively low in frequency and severity.