New technologies enable the opportunity to improve our monitoring and understanding of marine phytoplankton communities. However, careful consideration for how different methodological approaches, or 'lenses', influence our interpretation of phytoplankton ecology is important, particularly when drawing conclusions about change over time or space. Using both high-throughput 18S rRNA gene sequencing and microscopy, we explored how phytoplankton community structure varied over the course of a year within a nearshore semi-enclosed coastal embayment along the Central Coast of California. The seasonal shift in the relative community dominance (i.e., diatom vs. dinoflagellate dominance) was captured in the microscopy results but not effectively captured in the molecular-based findings. However, the molecular approach explained more of the variability in composition across seasons relative to the microscopy approach. Temporal dynamics of specific bloom-forming taxa also differed between the molecular and microscopy results. Overall, the observed differences between the molecular-and microscopy-derived characterization of phytoplankton dynamics suggest that the approaches are best suited to answer different research questions. Moreover, the approaches complement each other for a more comprehensive perspective of a coastal phytoplankton ecosystem. Therefore, identifying the biases of each approach within natural communities is necessary to effectively and accurately characterize phytoplankton communities.

Background Despite national guidelines on infectious disease testing and vaccination in prisons, there is heterogeneity on the implementation of these practices in jails. We sought to better understand perspectives on the implementation of opt-out vaccination for infectious diseases in jails by interviewing a broad group of stakeholders involved in infectious diseases vaccination, testing, and treatment in Massachusetts jails. Methods The research team conducted semi-structured interviews with people incarcerated in Hampden County Jail (Ludlow, MA), clinicians working in jail and community settings, corrections administrators, and representatives from public health, government, and industry between July 2021—March 2022. Results Forty-eight people were interviewed, including 13 people incarcerated at the time of interview. Themes that emerged included: misunderstandings of what opt-out means, indifference to the way vaccines are offered, belief that using the opt-out approach will increase the number of individuals who receive vaccination, and that opt-out provides an easy way for vaccine rejection and reluctance to accept vaccination. Conclusion There was a clear divide in stakeholders’ support of the opt-out approach, which was more universally supported by those who work outside of jails compared to those who work within or are incarcerated in jails. Compiling the perspectives of stakeholders inside and outside of jail settings on the opt-out approach to vaccination is the first step to develop feasible and effective strategies for implementing new health policies in jail settings.

Background: Compared to the general population, individuals incarcerated in jails and prisons are more vulnerable to infection and mortality from communicable diseases, such as COVID-19 and influenza. However, vaccination rates among incarcerated individuals as well as staff who work in jails and prisons remain disproportionately low. Healthcare administrators working in jails have first-hand experience about barriers to vaccine provision, but their perspectives are infrequently collected and analyzed. Methods:We reached out to Health Services Administrators (HSAs) from all 14 Massachusetts (MA) county jails for qualitative in-depth interviews to understand how their personal and professional feelings about vaccination relate to the barriers and facilitators that surround administration of vaccines in jail. Results:Eight people participated in the study (8/14= 57% response rate). Key themes emerged, including 1) HSAs expressed divergent opinions on incarceration as the correct opportunity to vaccinate individuals, 2) HSAs' personal views on vaccines influenced their operationalization of vaccination in jail and 3) opinions varied on whether their institutions' vaccine protocols needed modification. Conclusions:Our findings highlight the critical need to leverage the feedback and influence of stakeholders such as HSAs in efforts to improve preventative healthcare delivery in carceral health systems.

Background Despite national guidelines on infectious disease testing and vaccination in prisons, there is heterogeneity in operationalization. Previous literature has shown that using the “opt-out approach” to infectious diseases testing increases equitable access. Although opt-out testing is endorsed by national guidelines, there is little research on the acceptability from key stakeholders in jail healthcare. Additionally, perspectives on using the opt-out approach to vaccination are unknown. Interview Themes Themes and quotes that came out of semi-structured qualitative interviews. Methods We developed an interview guide based on the Theoretic Domains Framework. Guided by the 7Ps framework for stakeholder engagement, we conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in jail healthcare, including people incarcerated in Hampden County jail, clinicians working in jail and community settings, corrections officers, and representatives from public health, government, and industry. All persons eligible to receive a stipend were offered $50 for participation. Interviews were offered in the jail in English and in Spanish. Results Between July 2021—March 2022, 48/108 (44%) of people approached agreed to be interviewed including 13 incarcerated men. Most stakeholders agreed that infectious diseases testing and vaccination in jails are essential tools for mitigating the spread of disease. Major themes that emerged from stakeholder interviews included confusion about the wording of the “opt-out” approach, reluctance to operationalize “opt-out” testing because of concerns for coercion, and concern that it gives people any “easy out” from taking the test or vaccines. People who supported the operationalization of opt-out testing were more often stakeholders from the community, including public health experts, researchers, and clinicians. Conclusion Although “opt-out” testing is evidence-based, we found that key stakeholders who work and are incarcerated in jails did not understand the concept and did not support implementation. Our work is further evidence that successful implementation of public health strategies requires vetting from all key stakeholders in jail healthcare, especially people working and incarcerated in jail when developing strategies to improve healthcare. Disclosures Curt Beckwith, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc: Grant/Research Support.