Aims: Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1 RAs) are widely used for type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity, with once‐weekly dosing that supports adherence. However, injection‐site reactions (ISRs) and dermatologic events have been recognised, ranging from mild local events to rare systemic hypersensitivity reactions that may cause discontinuation. To evaluate dermatologic and ISR safety of GLP‐1 RAs through a meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and disproportionality analysis of data from the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched through December 2024 to identify RCTs reporting ISR or dermatologic outcomes for GLP‐1 RAs. Random‐effects meta‐analysis synthesised trial evidence. A retrospective disproportionality analysis of FAERS data evaluated all approved GLP‐1 RAs. Lower bound reporting odds ratios (LB ROR), proportional reporting ratios (PRR) and information components (IC) were calculated. Results: The pooled meta‐analysis of 14 RCTs that reported ISRs (4861 patients; 396 ISR events) showed increased ISR risk with GLP‐1 RAs versus comparators (risk ratio 3.55; 95% confidence interval, 2.35–5.36; I ² = 41.4%). Dermatologic events were infrequent and not significantly elevated. FAERS data analysis revealed potential ISR signals for exenatide and dulaglutide. Exenatide was associated with injection‐site haemorrhage (PRR: 27.6; LB ROR: 29.4; IC ₀₂₅ : 4.6). Dulaglutide showed disproportionate reporting for injection‐site haemorrhage (PRR: 11.5; LB ROR: 11.5; IC ₀₂₅ : 3.4). Conclusions: GLP‐1 RAs are consistently linked to higher ISR risk, especially with exenatide and dulaglutide, while generalised dermatologic events are rare. Clinicians should counsel patients about ISR risk to support adherence and optimise outcomes.

Purpose: The CDC's Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is an effective lifestyle intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, DPP implementation in rural areas is limited. This study sought to address this gap by implementing DPP in rural church settings through a community–academic partnership and identifying implementation facilitators and barriers.Methods: This was a cross‐sectional qualitative study. Semistructured interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) assessed church leaders' and lifestyle coaches' perceptions of implementing DPP in rural churches. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes through an inductive approach; then, these emergent themes were deductively linked to CFIR constructs. COREQ guidelines were used to report study findings.Findings: Twenty‐five stakeholders participated. Facilitators to implementing DPP included its evidence‐based effectiveness in preventing T2D, as well as support from the academic partner in terms of funding, training, and communication. Additionally, DPP's alignment with community needs, along with the active engagement of pastors in participant recruitment, supported implementation. Several barriers hindered DPP implementation, including transportation and childcare issues, as well as program participants' medical conditions/disabilities limiting their participation. Furthermore, rural residents' reluctance to adopt lifestyle changes and loyalty to family churches posed challenges to their engagement in DPP.Conclusions: This study identified contextual factors influencing DPP implementation in rural communities. Findings highlight the importance of tailored strategies that leverage facilitators while proactively addressing barriers, including rural residents' reluctance to attend programs outside their church, resistance to lifestyle changes, and transportation issues to ensure successful DPP implementation in rural areas.