Background Vaccines are a strong public health tool to protect against severe disease, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. Still, inequities in COVID-19 vaccination rates and health outcomes continue to exist among Black and Latino populations. Boston Medical Center (BMC) has played a significant role in vaccinating medically underserved populations, and organized a series of community-engaged conversations to better understand community concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. This paper describes the themes which resulted from these community-engaged conversations and proposes next steps for healthcare leaders. Methods We accessed nine publicly available recordings of the community-engaged conversations which were held between March 2021 and September 2021 and ranged from 8 to 122 attendees. Six conversations prioritized specific groups: the Haitian-Creole community, the Cape Verdean community, the Latino community, the Black Christian Faith community, guardians who care for children living with disabilities, and individuals affected by systemic lupus erythematosus. Remaining conversations targeted the general public of the Greater Boston Area. We employed a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-driven codebook to code our data. Our analysis utilized a modified version of qualitative rapid analysis methods. Results Five main themes emerged from these community-engaged conversations: (1) Structural factors are important barriers to COVID-19 vaccination; (2) Mistrust exists due to the negative impact of systemic oppression and perceived motivation of the government; (3) There is a desire to learn more about biological and clinical characteristics of the COVID-19 vaccine as well as the practical implications of being vaccinated; (4) Community leaders emphasize community engagement for delivering COVID-19 information and education and; (5) Community leaders believe that the COVID-19 vaccine is a solution to address the pandemic. Conclusion This study illustrates a need for community-engaged COVID-19 vaccine messaging which reflects the nuances of the COVID-19 vaccine and pandemic without oversimplifying information. In highlighting common concerns of the Greater Boston Area which contribute to a lack of confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine, we underscore important considerations for public health and healthcare leadership in the development of initiatives which work to advance health equity.

Objective: To examine the perspectives of caregivers that are not part of the antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) leadership team (eg, physicians, nurses, and clinical pharmacists), but who interact with ASPs in their role as frontline healthcare workers. Design: Qualitative semistructured interviews. Setting: The study was conducted in 2 large national healthcare systems including 7 hospitals in the Veterans’ Health Administration and 4 hospitals in Intermountain Healthcare. Participants: We interviewed 157 participants. The current analysis includes 123 nonsteward clinicians: 47 physicians, 26 pharmacists, 29 nurses, and 21 hospital leaders. Methods: Interviewers utilized a semistructured interview guide based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which was tailored to the participant’s role in the hospital as it related to ASPs. Qualitative analysis was conducted using a codebook based on the CFIR. Results: We identified 4 primary perspectives regarding ASPs. (1) Non-ASP pharmacists considered antibiotic stewardship activities to be a high priority despite the added burden to work duties: (2) Nurses acknowledged limited understanding of ASP activities or involvement with these programs; (3) Physicians criticized ASPs for their restrictions on clinical autonomy and questioned the ability of antibiotic stewards to make recommendations without the full clinical picture; And (4) hospital leaders expressed support for ASPs and recognized the unique challenges faced by non-ASP clinical staff. Conclusion: Further understanding these differing perspectives of ASP implementation will inform possible ways to improve ASP implementation across clinical roles.

Objective: To examine how individual steward characteristics (eg, steward role, sex, and specialized training) are associated with their views of antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) implementation at their institution. Design: Descriptive survey from a mixed-methods study. Setting: Two large national healthcare systems; the Veterans’ Health Administration (VA) (n = 134 hospitals) and Intermountain Healthcare (IHC; n = 20 hospitals). Participants: We sent the survey to 329 antibiotic stewards serving in 154 hospitals; 152 were physicians and 177 were pharmacists. In total, 118 pharmacists and 64 physicians from 126 hospitals responded. Methods: The survey was grounded in constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and it assessed stewards’ views on the development and implementation of antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) at their institutions We then examined differences in stewards’ views by demographic factors. Results: Regardless of individual factors, stewards agreed that the ASP added value to their institution and was advantageous to patient care. Stewards also reported high levels of collegiality and self-efficacy. Stewards who had specialized training or those volunteered for the role were less likely to think that the ASP was implemented due to a mandate. Similarly volunteers and those with specialized training felt that they had authority in the antibiotic decisions made in their facility. Conclusions: Given the importance of ASPs, it may be beneficial for healthcare institutions to recruit and train individuals with a true interest in stewardship.

Introduction The underrepresentation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) individuals in healthcare research limits generalizability and contributes to healthcare inequities. Existing barriers and attitudes toward research participation must be addressed to increase the representation of safety net and other underserved populations. Methods We conducted semi‐structured qualitative interviews with patients at an urban safety net hospital, focusing on facilitators, barriers, motivators, and preferences for research participation. We conducted direct content analysis guided by an implementation framework and used rapid analysis methods to generate final themes. Results We completed 38 interviews and identified six major themes related to preferences for engagement in research participation: (1) wide variation in research recruitment preferences; (2) logistical complexity negatively impacts willingness to participate; (3) risk contributes to hesitation toward research participation; (4) personal/community benefit, interest in study topic, and compensation serve as motivators for research participation; (5) continued participation despite reported shortcomings of informed consent process; and (6) mistrust could be overcome by relationship or credibility of information sources. Conclusion Despite barriers to participation in research studies among safety‐net populations, there are also facilitators that can be implemented to increase knowledge and comprehension, ease of participation, and willingness to join research studies. Study teams should vary recruitment and participation methods to ensure equal access to research opportunities. Patient/Public Contribution Our analysis methods and study progress were presented to individuals within the Boston Medical Center healthcare system. Through this process community engagement specialists, clinical experts, research directors, and others with significant experience working with safety‐net populations supported data interpretation and provided recommendations for action following the dissemination of data.