Evaluation of a Real‐Time Knowledge Exchange Network Supporting Syphilis Rapid Testing and Immediate Treatment in Seven Public Health Units in Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT

Introduction

The Syphilis Point of care Rapid testing and Immediate Treatment Evaluation (SPRITE) is a collaborative, community‐based initiative that strengthens syphilis prevention and control in Ontario, Canada through flexible outreach nursing and point‐of‐care testing (POCT) and immediate treatment. Seven public health units (PHUs) partnered with 86 community‐based organizations (CBOs) to deliver syphilis/HIV POCTs in underserved settings. This study evaluated a real‐time knowledge exchange network that supported syphilis POCT implementation and capacity‐building across PHUs and CBOs in Ontario.

Methods

The evaluation was a mixed‐methods case study using surveys and interviews focusing on the community of practice (CoP), community engagement, and knowledge mobilization. It considers SPRITE CoP activities from beginning of implementation (mid 2023) to the Fall of 2025.

Results

The CoP, consisting of public health nurses, researchers, and knowledge specialists, supported engagement, co‐development, and peer learning. Members shared lessons learned, built partnerships, and supported each other in navigating challenges. Flexibility in funding allowed innovation by CoP members in their CBO engagement efforts but also created some uncertainty and possible confusion. CoP members were overall satisfied with CoP functioning, and CBOs surveyed appeared knowledgeable and engaged in SPRITE.

Discussion

The CoP model, while distinct from traditional public health CoPs, proved effective in fostering engagement, resource development, and knowledge mobilization. Lessons learned and tools developed provide guidance for future POCT efforts. Improvements should include clearer goals, stronger facilitation, and structured engagement strategies. Addressing funding stability, particularly for POCT services and CoP management roles, is essential. Strengthening CBO partnerships through incentives and bi‐directional information sharing will further enhance POCT and syphilis prevention. This evaluation underscores the importance of flexible yet accountable approaches to knowledge mobilization and POCT implementation in diverse public health contexts. Continued investment in collaborative networks like SPRITE remains critical to advancing syphilis elimination efforts across Ontario.

Abbreviations

APH

Algoma Public Health

CBO

community‐based organization

CoP

community of practice

CQI

continuous quality improvement

HPEPH

Hastings Prince Edward Public Health

KFL&A PH

Kingston, Frontenac, and Lennox & Addington Public Health

LGLDHU

Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit

NEPH

Northeastern Public Health

PHU

public health unit

POCT

point of care test (for syphilis and HIV)

RCDHU

Renfrew County and District Health Unit

SPRITE

syphilis point of care rapid testing and immediate treatment evaluation

STBBI

sexually transmitted and blood‐borne infections

TBDHU

Thunder Bay District Health Unit

1. Introduction

Syphilis, a curable sexually transmitted infection, is increasing significantly in Ontario, Canada, especially in public health units (PHUs) serving smaller urban and rural areas [1, 2]. Underserved populations, including people who are un(der)housed, street‐involved, participate in sex work, or use substances, are known to be disproportionately affected by syphilis [3, 4]. Traditional methods to address infectious syphilis in underserved groups are inadequate. Instead, testing and treatment need to occur at the same visit, outside of the traditional clinic setting where underserved groups live, socialize, or access services.

In early 2023, five PHUs began collaborating on a regional implementation evaluation of outreach nursing models incorporating the POCT—INSTI® Multiplex HIV‐1/HIV‐2/Syphilis Antibody Test called the Syphilis Point of care Rapid Testing and Immediate Treatment Evaluation or SPRITE for short [5]. Each PHU tailored this intervention based on its capacity to test and treat syphilis cases with reliance on partnerships with community‐based organizations (CBOs). SPRITE aims to inform improvements for future implementation, build capacity for other PHUs wanting to implement POCTs, and provide information necessary for program decision‐making through implementation science research [6]. The study has since expanded to include seven PHUs total—Algoma Public Health (APH); Hastings Prince Edward Public Health (HPEPH); Kingston, Frontenac, and Lennox & Addington Public Health (KFL&A PH); Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit (LGLDHU); Northeastern Public Health (NEPH, formerly Porcupine Health Unit); Renfrew County and District Health Unit (RCDHU); and Thunder Bay District Health Unit (TBDHU) [7] (Figure 1). (As of January 1, 2025, Hastings Prince Edward Public Health; Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Public Health; and Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit merged to form Southeast Public Health (SEPH)—even though they are now one organization, they are considered three different entities in this report since they were separate at the time of participation. Ottawa Public Health is no longer participating.)

FIGURE 1.

SPRITE impact on syphilis infections (up until October 2025). Please note, these results are preliminary and for monitoring purposes. **Based on true positives.

A Community of Practice (CoP) was formed early in the study as a way for participating PHU nurses to share their experiences and lessons learned, exchange resources, and provide mutual support. A CoP is a social learning model that allows professionals with the same task, passion, or interest in a specific domain or field to collectively come together at regular intervals to share best practices, ideas, resources, tools, and other knowledge to solve similar problems [8].

The success of SPRITE is rooted in meaningful community partnerships and a multidisciplinary team that uses a decentralized, nurse‐led model of care. There now exists an opportunity to leverage these experiences and mobilize knowledge, particularly for PHUs in small‐urban and rural settings that may face resource and capacity limitations. By building and evaluating a real‐time knowledge exchange network between CBOs, PHUs, and other interested parties, CQI and evidence‐informed decision‐making can be supported and enhanced.

2. Research Goal

Through SPRITE, the overall aim of the present study was to evaluate a real‐time knowledge exchange network based on ongoing capacity‐building to support the ultimate end‐goal of syphilis elimination in Ontario.

The two evaluation objectives were to:

1. assess engagement of CBOs by PHUs and understand CBO perceptions of SPRITE/POCTs

2. determine the effectiveness of the CoP and areas for improvement

3. Methods

3.1. Study Design

The current study is intended to further knowledge gained throughout the established SPRITE study and follows the essence of community‐based participatory research. This approach involves developing meaningful partnerships that build trust and capacity, while empowering communities to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of research [9]. This includes collaboratively identifying research questions, refining protocols, collecting and interpreting data, better tailoring of interventions, and improving the dissemination and translation of findings to support evidence‐informed decision‐making [9].

This is a mixed methods case study [10] encompassing various activities. The functioning of the CoP internally, then within their organizations, the broader public health system and their communities was conceptualized in a model proposed by Richard et al. [11], Please see Figure 2 below. This study began in October 2024 and ended in Fall 2025; however, it considers previous SPRITE activities that occurred as far back as mid 2023 when SPRITE started.

FIGURE 2.

CoP evaluation model: Healthcare Policy. February 9, 2014 (3):26–39.

An evaluation framework and work plan were developed based on evaluation best practices and the model described previously [11]. Outcomes of interest were the model mediators (processes), individual/group level outcomes (learning, performance, satisfaction), organizational factors (support), and then knowledge exchange and engagement with external interest holders including CBOs, other community partners and researchers. A CQI lens was also used in the evaluation—to determine pathways for future improvements.

This received an ethics exemption from the Queen's Health Sciences Research Ethics Board as it was deemed to fall under the parameters of a quality improvement/quality assurance or program evaluation #6044072.

3.2. Community of Practice and Knowledge Mobilization

One PHU led CoP activities with dedicated staff and were linked with a local researcher and their trainees. From the lead agency, the knowledge mobilization specialist and at least one dedicated knowledge expert from each participating PHU nurtured a tri‐directional relationship between PHUs implementing the POCT, participating CBOs and other interested parties in each of the communities. The participating PHUs and research team comprised the CoP and met via Teams monthly or bi‐monthly depending on need.

The knowledge mobilization specialist supported and delivered knowledge mobilization activities with PHUs and their CBOs, including data collection, analyses and reporting. They supported knowledge experts through bi‐directional knowledge exchange, but also with knowledge experts' own knowledge exchange with CBOs and other community partners. Part of the knowledge mobilization specialist role was to understand and develop the resources needed by PHUs to engage CBOs in knowledge dissemination of SPRITE results and syphilis prevention as part of a CQI process. They encouraged and supported knowledge experts to disseminate SPRITE findings, experiences, and lessons learned with various audiences through presentations at relevant conferences.

Dedicated one‐time funding of $2000 was given to participating PHUs to engage their CBOs and target audiences around sharing of SPRITE results, POCT implementation and/or syphilis screening and treatment. Few parameters were given around using the money so the funds could be used in a way that fit each PHUs' unique contexts. Knowledge mobilization also entailed exploring readiness of CBOs to offer POCTs and even participate in SPRITE. In addition to those already developed by the core team, knowledge experts were encouraged to develop and offer training workshops, webinars, and other capacity‐building activities to empower CBOs.

A clinical nursing facilitator on the lead PHU team updated and maintained resources and provided capacity‐building support for interested PHUs or other public health organizations not currently involved in outreach and/or syphilis POCT delivery. A large part of this was around providing examples of clinical policies and procedures and medical directives, developing how‐to resources, and answering clinical implementation questions. However, it was up to each implementing organization to develop their own policies, procedures and medical directives (if needed).

3.3. Data Collection

Knowledge experts were asked to submit a tracking document describing the CBOs they have worked with to offer POCTs to date. Details collected and compiled on the CBO tracking document include name, type of location, services they provide, and frequency of involvement between PHU and CBO. These were submitted by knowledge experts in March 2025; they were then asked to update them in August 2025.

From July to August 2025, an anonymous online convenience survey of CBO staff members was conducted to gather quantitative and qualitative data on awareness of POCTs and the SPRITE study, perceptions of impact on organizational relationships and client experiences, and suggestions for implementation improvement. It included closed‐ended (e.g., Likert‐type scales) and open‐ended questions. Members of the CoP were asked to circulate the survey link to key contacts at their CBOs and they in turn were encouraged to forward the link on to anyone they thought would be relevant, either in their organization or in other organizations. This survey was collaboratively developed and tested with knowledge experts.

An anonymous online survey of CoP members (knowledge experts) was conducted to gather quantitative and qualitative data on experiences around CoP knowledge expert activities, impact on members, and suggestions for improvement. It included Likert agreement scales and open‐ended questions. Members were asked to complete the survey at the end of a scheduled virtual meeting in July 2025. The link was again shared via email for those unable to attend the meeting. No restrictions on the number of respondents per PHU were applied.

The knowledge mobilization specialist held two formal interviews with knowledge experts in February 2025 and August 2025. These interviews were semistructured and held virtually for approximately 60 min. Even though each interview had a specific set of questions, prompts were organic depending on the response. As interviews were being conducted, information was sometimes shared by the knowledge mobilization specialist with the knowledge expert about processes at other PHUs. For example, the knowledge experts were asked how they were incentivizing clients to receive POCT, treatment or serology. The knowledge mobilization specialist would share tactics that the other PHUs were doing to incentivize. This type of informal knowledge exchange happened between the knowledge mobilization specialist and the knowledge expert throughout the interviews.

3.4. Data Analysis

Quantitative analysis was conducted on the CBO August 2025 tracker to determine the total number of CBOs participating, the number of Indigenous‐led CBOs, the number of CBOs by PHU, the number of CBOs by type, and noting any changes from March 2025.

Close‐ended results from the surveys were analyzed quantitatively using the survey platform Medallia, tabulating frequencies and percentages. Open‐ended results were analyzed for themes and key quotes and are reported verbatim.

Key informant interviews were inductively analyzed for cross‐cutting themes. In February, themes emerging from the interviews were used by the knowledge mobilization specialist to better support knowledge experts in engagement and knowledge mobilization in their communities as part of a CQI process.

4. Results

4.1. Characteristics of Community‐Based Organizations

Based on aggregating the completed CBO tracking forms from all seven participating PHUs, there were 86 CBOs partnering to host POCT implementation in the seven PHU catchments from October 2024 to August 2025 (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Types of community‐based organizations involved in SPRITE October 2024 to August 2025.

Type of community‐based organization	Number
Community service hub	50
Congregate setting or shelter	23
Paramedic services	1
Primary care center	12
Total	86

Most of these CBOs (n = 50) are considered “hubs” that are frequented by individuals who are street‐involved in the community, providing at least one type of service or program, with about 50% providing at least two different types. Types of services or programming include drop‐ins, emergency assistance (e.g., providing clothes, food), food or meal programs like food banks or soup kitchens, mental health and addictions support, health or health promotion services, STBBI screening and treatment, libraries, religious services, social services/programming or referral, or harm reduction resources or programming.

Congregate settings or shelters are organizations whose primary responsibility is to provide shelter in an emergency or to those already unhoused to rest or get out of the elements. It also encompasses community/supportive housing, or transitional housing (e.g., Elizabeth Fry). Often included are other services like emergency assistance, meals, mental health and addictions support, and social services/programs or referral.

Primary care centers are organizations that provide primary care health services to community residents, with a specific mandate to serve equity‐deserving populations (e.g., community health centers). They also include clinics providing addictions treatment like opioid agonist therapy.

Seven out of the 86 CBOs were Indigenous led; four were community service hubs, two were primary care centers, and one was a congregate setting/shelter. Some CBOs are not included here even though they may be important partners around knowledge mobilization (e.g., sharing resources, tools, information about SPRITE with other partners or the target population).

4.2. Community‐Based Organization Survey

Twenty‐nine people staffed at CBOs initially responded to the CBO Survey. They were first asked a series of questions about their awareness and familiarity with the SPRITE study and syphilis POC testing in general (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3.

CBO awareness of SPRITE and syphilis point‐of‐care testing (N = 29).

4.2.1. Awareness, Knowledge and Perceptions of SPRITE and Knowledge Exchange

Most responded that syphilis POC testing had happened at their organization (93%); however, fewer had heard of the SPRITE study specifically (69%). Respondents were least familiar with POC testing happening outside of their organization (31%).

If respondents were aware of any of these three things, they were then asked more detailed questions about their knowledge and perceptions of the SPRITE initiative (N = 26), starting with whether their organization had received the following information or resources from their PHU/nurse (Figure 4).

FIGURE 4.

Information or resources on SPRITE/syphilis point‐of‐care testing that CBOs received from PHU/nurse (N = 26).

Respondents most often said (85%) that they received an explanation of what would be offered at the syphilis/HIV POCT clinics, followed by general information on resources for prevention and treatment (81%). Fewer respondents (73%) reported receiving information about SPRITE study specifically (Figure 4).

Of the 26 respondents, almost 77% knew the purpose of the SPRITE/syphilis point‐of‐care rapid testing and immediate treatment study, 4% didn't know if they knew, and 19% did not know the purpose. About 23% (of the 26) said that they had received incentives to host syphilis rapid testing and immediate treatment clinics—for example: in‐kind donations of supplies, gift cards, etc., —the same percentage said they didn't know, and 54% said no, their organization had not received any incentives. Of those that received incentives, three reported receiving gift cards.

When asked if anyone in their organization had attended knowledge exchange event(s) about syphilis prevention and the syphilis point‐of‐care rapid testing and immediate treatment study in the past 2 years (N = 25), overall, 36% said yes, they had:

• 16% Yes, one event

• 20% Yes, more than one event

• 48% No

• 16% Did not know

Respondents largely felt that the syphilis POCT initiative had a positive impact on their organization's clients and the relationship between their organization and the PHU (Figure 5). Their ratings were less positive for the impact on their organization as a whole.

FIGURE 5.

CBOs' perceived impact of syphilis rapid testing and immediate treatment (POCT) initiative on clients, the organization and relationship with public health (N = 26).

Most respondents (85%, 22/26) agreed or strongly agreed that the syphilis rapid testing and immediate treatment initiative aligned with the goals of their organization. Some (12%) had received feedback about the initiative from their clients. One person noted: “Many [clients] are grateful for this service, the team that comes have created a great relationship with our clients.”

In terms of continued involvement, 84% (21/25) of respondents said they would consider hosting a syphilis rapid testing and immediate treatment clinic in the future.

4.2.2. Suggestions for Improvement to SPRITE

Finally, respondents were asked for ways that the SPRITE initiative could improve. Five respondents provided input.

• Three of these responses highlighted the “good work” of public health. As an example, one respondent said, “service was provided with empathy and understanding of client's needs, especially those experiencing homelessness and addiction.”

• One respondent highlighted the lack of funding—“I wish this program was a staple funded program.”

• And the last respondent provided some constructive feedback—“It would be nice if public health staff consistently helped the agency in engaging clients about the testing and working to sign them up. Sometimes public health staff is happy to take a wait and see approach while others are much more motivated to engage and work with clients. From an organizational perspective, it works best when both my staff and public health staff are communicated [sic] and engaging with the clients.”

4.2.3. Respondent Demographics

Of the 25 that responded in this section, most respondents were from eastern Ontario [KFL&A PH (32%), RCDHU (24%), LGLDHU (24%), HPEPH (8%)] with the remainder in northern Ontario (APH and NEPH, 12%).

All but two respondents were full‐time staff—44% were front‐line staff, 32% were managers, and 16% were directors or executive directors.

4.3. Community of Practice Survey

Of the seven participating PHUs, 13 staff participating in the CoP responded to the survey.

4.3.1. Effectiveness and Improvement of the Community of Practice

Respondents were first asked to state whether they strongly disagreed, disagreed, neither agreed nor disagreed, agreed, or strongly agreed with several statements about CoP leadership, communication, engagement, and functioning. Figure 6 shows that CoP members mostly agreed to strongly agreed with these statements.

FIGURE 6.

SPRITE—member perceptions of CoP functioning (N = 13).

When asked about what could be improved in the CoP, 11 responded.

• The most frequently selected item was for the core team to create and share more handouts or other resources for CBOs and clients (n = 4). This was followed by:

• More meaningful member discussion about experiences (n = 2), improved clarity of the study details overall (n = 2), and more details on funding (n = 2).

• More opportunities to present, more communication from the SPRITE team outside of meetings, and a better understanding of how my work relates to the study were each selected by one member.

• One member provided some self‐reflection on their own CQI in relation to the CoP—“Perhaps more suggestions or feedback on how our health unit in particular can improve and better help the project/study.”

• Finally, one member suggested more formal sharing within the CoP: “I would love to see an opportunity for members to present more in‐depth about what they are doing for SPRITE events and knowledge translation events to inspire other members' activities.”

4.3.2. Knowledge Translation and Engagement

• 85% (11/13) of responding CoP members said they had connected with CoP members outside of CoP meetings to discuss elements of the SPRITE project.

• 91% (10/11) said that they had shared information on SPRITE with colleagues or partners outside of the CoP, such as presentations, resources, and informal meetings.

  • ○
    Eight said they had shared information on SPRITE internally either through board of health presentations, lunch and learns, in‐service/training, or formal presentations to different departments.
  • ○
    Four had formally shared externally with partners; examples include lunch and learns, media releases, meetings with local family health teams, and meetings to encourage community partners to start delivering POCTs themselves. One CoP member emphasized sharing externally to support referrals—“We have also shared information with other partners as a way [to] support referrals to our testing locations/events.”
  • ○
    One CoP member commented on presenting at conferences and meeting informally with organizations in Canada outside of Ontario.

4.4. Public Health Unit Key Informant Interviews

From the in‐depth interview with knowledge experts, it was evident that knowledge exchange can happen in many forms and with a variety of audiences. Each interaction with a client involved informal sharing of knowledge on the POCT, on syphilis and HIV, PHU services and many other topics that were relevant to the client. CBO partners were informed on syphilis and HIV, current syphilis rates, importance of testing, and services the local PHU can provide during a testing event. One PHU expressed that “part of the success with [their CBO], was that they were able to work with them regularly at monthly events. That consistency and opportunity to do knowledge translation in an informal way was more successful, than with the less common CBOs that attended their one event.”

The SPRITE lead team developed and provided print resources for PHUs to use when chatting with clients about syphilis and the POCT and for CBOs when describing the SPRITE project. At the time of the interviews, only a few PHUs had the opportunity to use the SPRITE resources; however, everyone expressed their interest in using the resources to support knowledge exchange with clients and CBOs.

To further support knowledge exchange with community partners, each participating PHU received $2000 with the intended purpose of engaging CBOs in knowledge exchange. The PHU was not given parameters on how they must engage CBOs in knowledge exchange—there was some confusion in how to spend the funds and by when. Three PHUs hosted a learning event for CBOs. Attendance levels varied; audiences included CBOs, health‐care providers, and local Indigenous Elders. Methods of engagement included a film screening and presentations on syphilis and HIV. One PHU used Continuing Professional Education credits as an incentive for health‐care providers to attend.

All health units were already receiving $5 gift cards to provide to clients as a participation incentive—a few PHUs spent the funds on additional incentives, such as snacks, gift cards, hand sanitizer, lip chap, and some provided cash as an incentive. Two PHUs allocated a portion of their funds to their local Indigenous primary care group to incentivize partnership. This Indigenous‐led CBO decided to begin on‐boarding to offer POCTs to their clients.

Overall, PHUs reported the uptake of the POCT was positive; however, most mentioned that it is difficult to know what drew the clients to receive POCT as incentives were always offered as well as other services. One PHU knowledge expert stated, “we were struggling to get people engaged and decided to use incentives to get people.”

When asked how the PHUs' relationships with CBOs were going, knowledge experts reported that most relationships were positive, but the engagement level varied depending on the CBO. One knowledge expert shared that they found the CBOs that have physicians on site were making more referrals for their services, “his level of understanding and support is high”. Also mentioned was the difficulty of meaningful engagement with CBOs, due to frequent staff turnover, variation in PHU capacity, and competing priorities between PHU and the CBO/clients.

Despite these challenges, knowledge experts felt that since they started the POCT for syphilis and HIV, relationships with their CBOs have gotten stronger and, in many instances, they have developed new relationships. A few found it difficult to speculate if the relationship was impacted by the POCT events, but they still reported strong relationships with CBOs. A few PHUs shared that, because of the POCT, they are finally getting out and connecting with the underserved community; one of these initiated their outreach program because of the SPRITE project. Most PHUs felt they could further expand their reach for the POCT and connect with new CBOs or community groups.

5. Discussion

The CoP developed for this case study differs from traditional public health CoPs described in the literature [11, 12, 13, 14]. Rather than being broad and multidisciplinary, this CoP was tightly linked to a specific research intervention and funding cycle, with membership primarily composed of public health nurses, researchers, and a knowledge mobilization specialist. Learning and engagement were focused on knowledge exchange within PHUs, with subsequent mobilization into their respective communities. While the CoP loosely aligns with the “Knowledge Mobilization” model described by Brooks et al. [12], it also shares characteristics of other models they describe.

Several areas for improvement were identified in CoP administration and functioning. At the start of the project (in 2023), some knowledge experts lacked a clear understanding of SPRITE's goals. Although the project charter for the 2023/2024 Locally Developed Collaborative Project grant cycle outlined these goals, future CoP management could benefit from incorporating a mission statement, values, membership guidelines, member benefits, and rules of engagement, as recommended by the National Network of Public Health Institutes' guidebook [13]. Facilitation could also be enhanced to better identify and deliver resources in a timely manner. Finally, meetings could periodically be structured to allow members to share detailed lessons learned or best practices, rather than asking for general updates, which may improve engagement and satisfaction.

Despite these areas for improvement, CoP knowledge expert members found overall that the network was effective and useful; they demonstrated high levels of participation and actively shared knowledge both within and beyond their PHUs, including with CBOs and external audiences. They co‐created many study processes, were proactive in seeking partnerships to host clinics and disseminate SPRITE‐related resources, and their feedback to the knowledge mobilization specialist contributed to resource development and CQI.

Funding provided to PHU knowledge experts for community engagement was intentionally flexible, allowing for innovation but also contributing to confusion and reduced accountability. Future initiatives should aim to strike a balance between flexibility and clear direction. CBOs reported a strong mission alignment with syphilis/HIV POCT and felt the partnership positively impacted their clients and relationships with PHUs. However, the perceived benefit to the organizations themselves was less clear. Offering additional incentives or in‐kind benefits may improve organizational buy‐in and trust.

The evaluation also highlighted the need for more bi‐directional information flow between CoP knowledge experts and CBOs, particularly if future efforts aim to incorporate community‐based research [9]. Notably, one CBO has begun offering POCT independently, and another Indigenous‐led CBO is being onboarded to implement POCTs. This presents an opportunity for future research to explore effective strategies for onboarding CBOs to independently offer syphilis/HIV POCT services.

The project documented numerous lessons learned, tools, and templates that can support other organizations in implementing syphilis/HIV POCT. Several challenges remain, however. Communication between CoP knowledge experts and CBOs was often difficult due to competing priorities, limited staff capacity, and funding constraints—issues common to both public health and community outreach settings. Sustained funding for POCT is a critical concern, as these services are not provincially covered. Dedicated, funded positions for CoP management (e.g., coordinator and manager roles) are essential for long‐term sustainability [11, 12, 13]. In this project, the knowledge mobilization specialist role was funded only briefly, and the manager role was provided in‐kind. Many of the challenges or barriers experienced, such as communication issues and funding constraints, were common across all participating PHUs.

This evaluation was based on a single case study and is not representative of all PHUs or CBOs. While the involvement of the core team in conducting the evaluation provided valuable insight and contextual understanding, it also introduces potential bias. Nevertheless, the primary goal was to inform ongoing network development and improvement rather than to assess causal relationships between interventions and outcomes.

The survey of CBOs was conducted using a convenience sample, which may have skewed responses toward more engaged or favorable participants. Despite this, respondents still identified areas for improvement. Additionally, the knowledge mobilization specialist interview process involved a bi‐directional flow of information, which may have influenced knowledge experts' responses. However, this approach was intentional, aiming to co‐create ideas and build knowledge exchange capacity.

Nonetheless, this CoP is considered useful by its members and has resulted in considerable outreach and testing across Ontario to combat the rising rate of syphilis. Despite significant funding challenges, this CoP will continue with existing members and will add several new PHU members over the coming months, thus establishing a learning system within the public health STBBI prevention sphere in Ontario.

Funding

This work was supported by the Public Health Ontario 2023‐2024 and 2024‐2025 and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (SR8 190795, AS1‐192619, EKS 193138).

Conflicts of Interest

S.S. received an honorarium from Novo Nordisk as an advisory board member (unrelated to this study). The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.