Introduction: Variation in image ordering exists across Alberta emergency departments (EDs). Evidence-based, pocket-sized knowledge dissemination tools were developed for two conditions (acute asthma [AA] and benign headache [BHA]) for which imaging (chest x-ray [CXR] and computed tomography [CT], respectively) has limited utility. This study explored tool acceptability among ED patients and emergency physicians (EPs). Methods: Tool feedback was provided by EPs, via online survey, and adult patients with AA and BHA via in-person survey. EPs qualitative interviews further explored communication tools. Preliminary descriptive analyses of survey responses and content analysis of interview data were conducted. Results: Overall, 55 EPs (55/192; 29%) and 38 consecutive patients participated in the AA study; 73 EPs (73/192; 38%) and 160 patients participated in the BHA study. In both studies, approximately 50% of EPs felt comfortable using the tool; however, they suggested including radiation risk details and imaging indications and removing references to imaging variation and health system cost. In the BHA study, EPs opposed the four Choosing Wisely® campaign questions fearing they would increase imaging expectations. In both conditions, most patients ( >90%) understood the content and 68% felt the information applied to them. Less than half (AA:45%; BHA: 38%) agreed that they now knew more about when a patient should have imaging workup done. Following tool review, 71% of AA and 50% of BHA patients stated they would discuss their imaging needs with their ED care provider today or during a future presentation. Both patient groups suggested including: additional imaging details (i.e., indications, risk, clinical utility), removing imaging overuse references, and including instructions that encourage patients to ask their EP questions. EP interviews (n = 12) identified preferences for personalized and interactive tools. Tensions were perceived around ED time pressure as well as remuneration schemes that fail to prioritize patient conversation. Tool centralization, easy access, and connection with outpatient support were also key themes. Conclusion: Both patients and EPs provided valuable information on how to improve ED knowledge dissemination tools, using two chronic conditions to demonstrate how these changes would improve tool utility. Implementing these recommendations, and considering preferences of EPs and patients, may improve future tool uptake and impact.