A collaboration team to build social service partnerships within a safety-net health system.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate safety-net healthcare system partnerships with community social service providers, the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC DHS) created a new collaboration team to spur cross-agency social and medical referral networks and engage communities affected by health disparities as part of a Sect. 1115 Medicaid waiver in Los Angeles County entitled Whole Person Care-Los Angeles (WPC-LA). METHODS: This observational research reviews three years of collaboration team implementation (2018-2020) through Medicaid-reportable engagement reports, a collaboration team qualitative survey on challenges, facilitators, and recommendations for community engagement. Member reflections for survey findings were conducted with the collaboration team and LAC DHS WPC-LA leadership. RESULTS: Collaboration team Medicaid engagement reports (n = 144) reported > 2,700 events, reaching > 70,000 individuals through cross-agency and community-partnered meetings. The collaboration team survey (n = 9) and member reflection sessions portrayed engagement processes through outreach, service assessments, and facilitation of service partnerships. The collaboration team facilitated community engagement processes through countywide workgroups on justice-system diversion and African American infant and maternal health. Recommendations for future safety net health system engagement processes included assessing health system readiness for community engagement and identifying strategies to build mutually beneficial social service partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated collaboration team allowed for bi-directional knowledge exchange between county services, populations with lived experience, and social services, identifying service gaps and recommendations. Engagement with communities affected by health disparities resulted in health system policy recommendations and changes.

Understanding the implementation and sustainability needs of evidence-based programs for racial and ethnic minoritized older adults in under-resourced communities with limited aging services.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based programs (EBPs) for older adults effectively improve health outcomes. However, there is a limited understanding of the unique needs of service providers as they consider adopting, implementing, and maintaining programs for older minority adults in low-income communities with limited aging services. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants of community-based organizations (CBOs) to understand implementation and sustainability needs of CBOs within four racial and ethnically diverse Los Angeles County geographic areas. We performed thematic analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with representatives from 25 senior-serving agencies providing aging-related EBPs. CBO representatives reported implementing EBPs in 8 domains: Falls Prevention (68%), Mental Health (64%), Caregiver Health (48%), Chronic Disease Management (48%), Diabetes Management (36%), Arthritis Management (28%), Physical Activity (24%), and Multiple Conditions Management (8%). Themes are presented using the six domains of the Bass and Judge framework for factors impacting successful and sustained EBP implementation. CBOs in low-income and diverse communities described unique challenges with tailoring interventions based on local community context (literacy, language), cultural context, and locally available resources (technology, safe community spaces, transportation) and faced resource-intensive administrative burdens through staff turnover, data collection, sustainable funding, and networking. CONCLUSIONS: Serving racial and ethnic communities has unique challenges that require tailored approaches and additional resources to ensure equitable access to EBPs for all communities. We describe suggestions for enhancing the effective adoption of EBPs among service agencies in under-resourced and diverse aging communities serving populations with aging-related health disparities.

Community-based organization perspectives on participating in state-wide community canvassing program aimed to reduce COVID-19 vaccine disparities in California.

BACKGROUND: Inequities in COVID-19 vaccine accessibility and reliable COVID-related information disproportionately affected marginalized racial and ethnic communities in the U.S. The Get Out the Vaccine (GOTVax) program, an innovative statewide government-funded COVID-19 vaccine canvassing program in California, aimed to reduce structural barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in high-risk communities with low vaccination rates. GOTVax consisted of a community-academic-government partnership with 34 local trusted community-based organizations' (CBOs) to conduct COVID-19 vaccine outreach, education, and vaccine registration. The purpose of this qualitative evaluation study was to explore the barriers and facilitators of using local CBOs to deploy a geographically, racially, and ethnically diverse state-wide COVID-19 vaccine outreach program. METHODS: Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with participating GOTVax CBO leaders from November 2021 to January 2022. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-one of 34 CBOs participated (91% response rate). Identified themes encompassed both facilitators and barriers to program participation. Key facilitators included leveraging trust through recognized entities; promoting empathetic, tailored outreach; and flexibility of milestone-based CBO funding contracts for rapid program implementation. Barriers included navigating community sociopolitical, geographic, and cultural factors; managing canvassers' safety; desiring metrics for self-evaluation of outreach success; mitigating canvassing technology challenges; and concerns of program infrastructure initially limiting outreach. CBOs problem-solved barriers with academic and government partners. CONCLUSIONS: Between May and December 2021, the GOTVax program reached over 2 million California residents and registered over 60,000 residents for COVID-19 vaccination. Public health campaigns may improve benefits from leveraging the expertise of community-trusted CBOs and universities by providing flexible infrastructure and funding, allowing CBOs to seamlessly tailor outreach most applicable to local minoritized communities.

Community-based organizations' perspectives on improving health and social service integration.

BACKGROUND: Collaborations between health systems and community-based organizations (CBOs) are increasingly common mechanisms to address the unmet health-related social needs of high-risk populations. However, there is limited evidence on how to develop, manage, and sustain these partnerships, and implementation rarely incorporates perspectives of community social service organizations. To address these gaps, we elicited CBOs' perspectives on service delivery for clients, the impact of the Whole Person Care-Los Angeles (WPC-LA) initiative to integrate health and social care, and their suggestions for improving health system partnerships. METHODS: Using stakeholder engaged principles and a qualitative Rapid Assessment Process, we conducted brief surveys and in-depth semi-structured interviews with 65 key informants from 36 CBOs working with WPC-LA. RESULTS: Major themes identified by CBOs included: 1) the importance of a holistic, client-centered, continuously engaged approach that is reliant on regional partnerships; 2) benefits of WPC-LA expanding capacity and networks; 3) concerns about communication and redundancy hindering WPC-LA; and 4) a need for more equitable partnerships incorporating their approaches. CONCLUSIONS: CBOs value opportunities for integration with health systems, bring critical expertise to these partnerships, and seek to strengthen cross-sector collaborations. Early, equitable, and inclusive participation in the development and implementation of these partnerships may enhance their effectiveness, but requires policy that prioritizes and incentivizes sustainable and mutually beneficial partnerships.

Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine implementation in a large safety net health system.

Objectives: To evaluate rapid COVID-19 vaccine clinic implementation from January-April 2021 in the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LACDHS), the second-largest US safety net health system. During initial vaccine clinic implementation, LACDHS vaccinated 59,898 outpatients, 69% of whom were Latinx (exceeding the LA County Latinx population of 46%). LACDHS is a unique safety net setting to evaluate rapid vaccine implementation due to system size, geographic breadth, language/racial/ethnic diversity, limited health staffing resources, and socioeconomic complexity of patients. Methods: Implementation factors were assessed through semi-structured interviews of staff from all twelve LACDHS vaccine clinics from August-November 2021 using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and themes analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis. Results: Of 40 potential participants, 25 health professionals completed an interview (27% clinical providers/medical directors, 23% pharmacist, 15% nursing staff, and 35% other). Qualitative analysis of participant interviews yielded ten narrative themes. Implementation facilitators included bidirectional communication between system leadership and clinics, multidisciplinary leadership and operations teams, expanded use of standing orders, teamwork culture, use of active and passive communication structures, and development of patient-centered engagement strategies. Barriers to implementation included vaccine scarcity, underestimation of resources needed for patient outreach, and numerous process challenges encountered. Conclusion: Previous studies focused on robust advance planning as a facilitator and understaffing and high staff turnover as barriers to implementation in safety net health systems. This study found facilitators that can mitigate lack of advance planning and staffing challenges present during public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The ten identified themes may inform future implementations in safety net health systems.

Community and Healthcare Perspectives on Implementing Hypertension Interventions for a Multiethnic Safety-Net Population.

Objective: To synthesize community and healthcare informants' perspectives on contextual considerations and tailoring recommendations for high-quality, sustainable implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for managing hypertension (HTN) in a multiethnic safety-net population. Design: Structured focus-group discussions and semistructured qualitative interviews. Background: High-quality, sustainable implementation of HTN-related EBPs can promote equitable care. Implementation challenges extend beyond individual patients to span multiple levels of context. Few studies have systematically engaged community and healthcare perspectives to inform the design of HTN intervention trials. Setting: A large safety-net healthcare system. Participants/Methods: We conducted four structured discussions with each of five race- or ethnicity-specific community action boards (CABs) to understand community members' HTN-related norms, assets, needs, and experiences across local healthcare systems. We interviewed 41 personnel with diverse roles in our partnered healthcare system to understand the system's HTN-related strengths and needs. We solicited EBP tailoring recommendations from both groups. We summarized the findings using rapid content analysis. Results: Participants identified contextual considerations spanning seven themes: social determinants, healthcare engagement, clinical interaction, system operations, standardization, patient education, and partnerships and funding. They offered tailoring recommendations spanning nine themes: addressing complex contexts, addressing social needs, system operations, healthcare system training and resources, linguistic and cultural tailoring, behavioral engagement, relational engagement, illness-course engagement, and community partnerships. Conclusions: Engaging community and healthcare informants can ground implementation in the policy, community, healthcare system, clinical, and interpersonal contexts surrounding diverse patients at risk for disparities. Such grounding can reframe inequitable implementation as a multilevel social problem facing communities and healthcare systems, rather than individuals.

Community Engagement in Implementation Science: the Impact of Community Engagement Activities in the DECIPHeR Alliance.

Background: The translation of evidence-based interventions into practice settings remains challenging. Implementation science aims to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap by understanding multilevel contexts and tailoring evidence-based interventions accordingly. Engaging community partners who possess timely, local knowledge is crucial for this process to be successful. The Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Risk (DECIPHeR) Alliance aims to address cardiopulmonary health disparities by engaging diverse community partners to improve the implementation of evidence-based interventions. The goal of the Community Engagement Subcommittee is to strengthen community engagement practice across DECIPHeR. This paper presents the subcommittee's "Why We Engage Communities" statement that outlines why community engagement is critical for implementation science. The paper also provides case examples of DECIPHeR community engagement activities. Methods: To develop the "Why We Engage Communities" statement, we conducted a literature review, surveyed subcommittee members to assess the importance of community engagement in their work, and integrated community partner feedback. We synthesize the findings into three key themes and present examples of community engagement activities and their impact across DECIPHeR projects. Results: The statement presents three themes that illustrate why community engagement increases the impact of implementation and health equity research. Community engagement (1) engages local knowledge and expertise, (2) promotes authentic relationships, and (3) builds community and researcher capacity. The statement provides a guiding framework for strengthening DECIPHeR research and enhancing community partnerships. Conclusion: Community engagement can improve the implementation of evidence-based interventions across diverse settings, improving intervention effectiveness in underserved communities and furthering health equity.

A qualitative study of COVID-19 vaccine decision making among urban Native Americans.

Background: Significant disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality exist for Native American (NA) people, the majority of whom live in urban areas. COVID-19 vaccination is a key strategy for mitigating these disparities; however, vaccination disparities affect NA communities. The current study investigated COVID-19 vaccine decision-making before widespread vaccine rollout occurred, among urban NA communities. We aimed to understand vaccine decision-making factors to develop recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine outreach. Methods: We conducted three in-depth virtual focus groups with 17 NA adults living in an urban community (Los Angeles County) between December 2020 and January 2021. Participants were recruited through NA community-based organizations and community stakeholders. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti. Findings: Participants in this study identified two overarching themes with implications for health vaccination campaigns. First, participants described a need for tailored information and outreach, including NA vaccine outreach that addresses misconceptions about vaccine development to calm fears of experimentation and support communication of vaccine evidence specific to NA people. Second, participants suggested strategies to improve public health resources in the urban NA community, such as the need for unified, proactive communication across trusted NA entities, navigation support to improve vaccine accessibility, and adequately resourcing health partnerships with and among trusted NA community agencies for improved reach. Conclusion: In this qualitative study, we found that urban NA participants reported several factors that affected their vaccine decision-making, including a lack of tailored information for their communities. Our findings also underscore the need to work with tribes, tribal leadership, and urban NA serving organizations to coordinate vaccine communication and distribution to urban communities where the majority of NAs now reside. Further, these findings have implications for COVID-19 vaccine outreach among urban NA communities and demonstrate the need for clear and tailored engagement about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Mechanisms for Community Health Worker Action on Patient-, Institutional-, and Community-Level Barriers to Primary Care in a Safety-Net Setting.

Medically and socially complex patients disproportionately face barriers to primary care, contributing to health inequities and higher health care costs. This study elicited perspectives on how community health workers (CHWs) act upon barriers to primary care in 5 patient (n = 25) and 3 CHW focus groups (n = 17). Participants described how CHWs acted on patient-level barriers through social support, empowerment, and linkages, and system-level barriers by enhancing care team awareness of patient circumstances, optimizing communication, and advocating for equitable treatment. Limitations existed for influencing entrenched community-level barriers. CHWs, focusing on patient preferences, motivators, and circumstances, intervened on multilevel barriers to primary care, including advocacy for equitable treatment. These mechanisms have implications for existing CHW conceptual models.

"The System Doesn't Let Us in"-A Call for Inclusive COVID-19 Vaccine Outreach Rooted in Los Angeles Latinos' Experience of Pandemic Hardships and Inequities.

OBJECTIVE: Latino adults in Los Angeles have experienced disproportionate cases, deaths, and socioeconomic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. This qualitative study aimed to explore community perspectives on readiness for COVID-19 vaccination and to identify culturally tailored vaccine outreach strategies. METHODS: We conducted virtual focus groups with Los Angeles County Latino/a residents via Zoom between December 2020 to January 2021, as the first COVID-19 vaccines were receiving Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Focus groups were facilitated in Spanish and English by bilingual members of the research team. Discussions were analyzed via Atlas.ti software using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three focus groups (n = 15; four to six people each; two Spanish focus groups; one English) were conducted. Thematic findings centered on Latino COVID-19 vaccine equity: (1) Disproportionate infection risk due to essential worker status and socioeconomic burdens, misinformation, and familial or cultural tensions (2) Concerns for inequitable vaccine access due to immigration fears and limited healthcare access, and (3) A need for community-centered COVID-19 vaccine outreach and access. CONCLUSIONS: Our study on early Latino adult reactions to vaccine roll-out suggests the need for outreach strategies centering on validating community hardships, combating dis-/misinformation through trusted sources, and addressing socio-economic needs impacted by the pandemic.

Exploring Perspectives on Establishing COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence in Black Communities.

Objective: To explore factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine decision-making among Black adults at high-risk for COVID-19 infection. Despite effective treatment and vaccination availability, Black Americans continue to be disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Design Setting and Participants: Using community-engaged qualitative methods, we conducted virtual, semi-structured focus groups with Black residents in Los Angeles County before widespread vaccine rollout. Recruitment occurred through local community partners. Main Outcome Measures: Themes and subthemes on factors for vaccine confidence and accessibility. Methods: As part of a larger study exploring COVID-19 vaccine decision-making factors among multiethnic groups, two-hour virtual focus groups were conducted between December 15, 2020 and January 27, 2021. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three focus groups were conducted with 17 Black participants, who were primarily female (n=15), residents of high-poverty zip codes (n=11) and employed full-time (n=6). Black-specific considerations for vaccine confidence and accessibility include: 1) reduced confidence in COVID-19 vaccines due to historical government inaction and racism (existing health inequities and disparities are rooted in racism; historical unethical research practices); 2) misunderstanding of Black communities' vaccine concerns ("vaccine hesitancy" as an inaccurate label to describe vaccine skepticism; ignorance to root causes of vaccine skepticism); and 3) recognizing and building on resources (community agency to address COVID-19 vaccine needs adequately). Conclusions: Vaccination campaigns should improve understanding of underlying vaccination concerns to improve vaccine outreach effectiveness and should partner with, provide resources to, and invest in local, trusted Black community entities to improve COVID-19 vaccination disparities.

Improving Patient Experience Scores Using Simultaneous Interpretation on Family-Centered Rounds.

OBJECTIVES: Patients speaking a primary language other than English face barriers to equitable care, particularly patient-provider communications. There is no gold standard for providing inpatient medical interpretation on family-centered rounds (FCR). We aimed to implement simultaneous, in-person interpretation of FCR for Spanish-speaking families and hypothesized improved satisfaction in care. METHODS: In-person, Spanish Equipment-Assisted Simultaneous Medical Interpretation (EASMI) was implemented in March 2018 on FCR. Child Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (Child HCAHPS) experience scores on communication domains were analyzed for Spanish and English-speaking families pre- (n = 118) and postimplementation (n = 552). Postimplementation, we conducted medical team surveys (n = 104) and semistructured interviews with Spanish-speaking families (n = 25) to determine satisfaction with interpretation modalities (phone, video, and EASMI). RESULTS: Spanish-speaking families exhibited statistically significant improvements in Child HCAHPS top box scores compared to English-speaking families in multiple communication and informed care-related domains. For example, "How often did your child's doctors explain things to you in a way that was easy to understand?" top box scores improved from 58% to 95% for Spanish-speaking families, compared to 85% to 83% for English speakers, with the differential effect of the intervention showing statistical significance (P = .001). Medical team surveys demonstrated high satisfaction with EASMI. Qualitative themes from interviews and open-ended survey responses emphasized multiple care benefits with EASMI, including a perceived reduction of communication errors and increased family participation. CONCLUSIONS: EASMI was associated with significant improvements in Child HCAHPS scores in communication domains and increased medical team and family members' satisfaction with interpretation. EASMI presents a novel method for equitable FCR for Spanish-speaking families.

STOP COVID-19 CA: Community engagement to address the disparate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in California.

Objective: To describe the early activities and lessons of the Share, Trust, Organize, Partner COVID-19 California Alliance (STOP COVID-19 CA), the California awardee of the NIH-funded multi-state Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL) against COVID-19. The Alliance was established to ensure equity in Coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) research, clinical practice, and public health for communities most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Study setting: The STOP COVID-19 CA Alliance network of 11 universities and affiliated partner community-based organizations (CBOs) across California. Study design: Mixed methods evaluation consisting of an analysis of activity (August 2020 to December 2021) detailed in reports submitted by community-academic teams and a survey (August 2021) of academic investigators and affiliated community-based organization (CBO) partners. Data collection: We summarized activities from the 11 community-academic teams' progress reports and described results from an online survey of academic investigators and CBO partners in the California Alliance. Principal findings: A review of progress reports (n = 256) showed that teams fielded surveys to 11,000 Californians, conducted 133 focus groups, partnered with 29 vaccine/therapeutics clinical trials, and led more than 300 town halls and vaccine events that reached Californians from communities disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Survey responses from academic investigators and CBO partners emphasized the importance of learning from the successes and challenges of the California Alliance teams' COVID-19 initiatives. Both academic and CBO respondents highlighted the need for streamlined federal and institutional administrative policies, and fiscal practices to promote more effective and timely operations of teams in their efforts to address the numerous underlying health and social disparities that predispose their communities to higher rates of, and poor outcomes from, COVID-19. Conclusions: STOP COVID-19 CA represents a new and potentially sustainable statewide community engagement model for addressing health disparities in multiethnic/multicultural and geographically dispersed communities.

COVID-19 Vaccine Decision-making Factors in Racial and Ethnic Minority Communities in Los Angeles, California.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had disproportionate effects on racial and ethnic minority communities, where preexisting clinical and social conditions amplify health and social disparities. Many of these communities report lower vaccine confidence and lower receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding factors that influence the multifaceted decision-making process for vaccine uptake is critical for narrowing COVID-19-related disparities. Objective: To examine factors that members of multiethnic communities at high risk for COVID-19 infection and morbidity report as contributing to vaccine decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used community-engaged methods to conduct virtual focus groups from November 16, 2020, to January 28, 2021, with Los Angeles County residents. Potential participants were recruited through email, video, and telephone outreach to community partner networks. Focus groups were stratified by self-identified race and ethnicity as well as age. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes were categorized by contextual, individual, and vaccine-specific influences using the World Health Organization's Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix categories. Results: A total of 13 focus groups were conducted with 70 participants (50 [71.4%] female) who self-identified as American Indian (n = 17 [24.3%]), Black/African American (n = 17 [24.3%]), Filipino/Filipina (n = 11 [15.7%]), Latino/Latina (n = 15 [21.4%]), or Pacific Islander (n = 10 [14.3%]). A total of 39 participants (55.7%) were residents from high-poverty zip codes, and 34 (48.6%) were essential workers. The resulting themes included policy implications for equitable vaccine distribution: contextual influences (unclear and unreliable information, concern for inequitable access or differential treatment, references to mistrust from unethical research studies, accessibility and accommodation barriers, eligibility uncertainty, and fears of politicization or pharmaceutical industry influence); social and group influences (inadequate exposure to trusted messengers or information, altruistic motivations, medical mistrust, and desire for autonomy); and vaccination-specific influences (need for vaccine evidence by subpopulation, misconceptions on vaccine development, allocation ambiguity, vaccination safety preferences, the importance of perceiving vaccine equity, burden of vaccine scheduling, cost uncertainty, and desire for practitioner recommendation). Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, participants reported a number of factors that affected their vaccine decision-making, including concern for inequitable vaccine access. Participants endorsed policy recommendations and strategies to promote vaccine confidence. These results suggest that support of informed deliberation and attainment of vaccine equity will require multifaceted, multilevel policy approaches that improve COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, enhance trust, and address the complex interplay of sociocultural and structural barriers to vaccination.

Reflections on the Importance of Community-Partnered Research Strategies for Health Equity in the Era of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: In the face of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) physical distancing mandates, community-engaged research (CER) faces new vulnerabilities in the equitable inclusion of communities within research partnerships aiming to address these very inequities. METHODS: We convened a series of virtual meetings with our CER partnership to discuss the current state of activities and to identify considerations for remote community engagement. We outlined and expanded recommendations through iterative, partnered discussions to inform protections against new CER susceptibilities. RESULTS: This article presents CER recommendations in translational COVID-19 research for health equity, including increasing accessibility for remote engagement, promoting opportunities for bi-directional knowledge exchange, committing to a community-centered workforce, and leveraging novel opportunities within community-academic partnerships. CONCLUSION: Researchers conducting CER face an opportunity to reimagine community engagement remotely for partnered resilience to ensure the voices of the most affected are appropriately and inclusively integrated into all aspects of decision-making within the COVID-19 research, practice, and policymaking continuum.

Health Challenges and Assets of Forest-Dependent Populations in Cameroon.

Indigenous populations often have poorer health outcomes than the general population. Marginalization, colonization, and migration from traditional lands have all affected traditional medicine usage, health access, and indigenous health equity. An in-depth understanding of health for specific populations is essential to develop actionable insights into contributing factors to poor indigenous health. To develop a more complete, nuanced understanding of indigenous health status, we conducted first-person interviews with both the indigenous Baka and neighboring Bantu villagers (the reference population in the region), as well as local clinicians in Southern Cameroon. These interviews elucidated perspectives on the most pressing challenges to health and assets to health for both groups, including access to health services, causes of illness, the uses and values of traditional versus modern medicine, and community resilience during severe health events. Baka interviewees, in particular, reported facing health challenges due to affordability and discrimination in public health centers, health effects due to migration from their traditional lands, and a lack of culturally appropriate public health services.

Pediatric Program Leadership's Contribution Toward Resident Wellness.

BACKGROUND: Residency program leaders are required to support resident well-being, but often they do not receive training in how to do so. OBJECTIVE: To determine frequency in which program leadership provides support for resident well-being, comfort in supporting resident well-being, and factors associated with need for additional training in supporting resident well-being. METHODS: National cross-sectional web-based survey in June 2015 of pediatric program directors, associate program directors, and coordinators about their experiences supporting resident well-being. Univariate and bivariate descriptive statistics compared responses between groups. Generalized linear modeling, adjusting for program region, size, program leadership role, and number of years in role determined factors associated with need for additional training. RESULTS: The response rate was 39.3% (322/820). Most respondents strongly agreed that supporting resident well-being is an important part of their role, but few reported supporting resident well-being as part of their job description. Most reported supporting residents' clinical, personal, and health issues at least annually, and in some cases weekly, with 72% spending >10%of their time on resident well-being. Most program leaders desired more training. After adjusting for level of comfort in dealing with resident well-being issues, program leaders more frequently exposed to resident well-being issues were more likely to desire additional training (P < .02). CONCLUSIONS: Program leaders spend a significant amount of time supporting resident well-being. Although they think that supporting resident well-being is an important part of their job, opportunities exist for developing program leaders through including resident wellness on job descriptions and training program leaders how to support resident well-being.