OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To identify the most frequently reported barriers/constraints and resources by junior faculty in achieving their goals at a large medical school in the Western United States. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We reviewed 222 individual development plans (IDPs) from 26 departments in an academic medical center for content regarding constraints and resources to achieve activities and barriers and/or resources to achieve new goals. The content and quality of the IDPs included was ascertained using quantitative data analysis as well a review of open-ended qualitative questions. In addition to analyzing the content, the quality and percent completion of data filled out for each field in the IDP was also assessed to help identify gaps with departments in successfully completing and submitting their IDPs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Junior faculty indicated the following barriers: time/time management (55%); work/life balance (32%); funding (8%) and other (5%). Junior faculty also indicated that they had resources to help them achieve their goals, including: mentors (60%); collaborators (26%); colleagues (6%); other (8%). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The barriers in goal achievement (e.g., time/time management & work/life balance issues) at this academic medical setting suggest that further resources regarding time management and work - life balance need to be developed and disseminated in order to assist faculty in achieving their objectives. This project also reinforces the importance of having a robust mentor or mentoring team for junior faculty. Mentors and administrators should work collaboratively with junior faculty to identify resources to improve time management and work-life balance.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Scholars and faculty in the Clinical and Translational Science (CTS) track of our institution’s biomedical science graduate school reported a lack of satisfaction with our learning management system (LMS); specifically, they reported frustration with the amount of time spent locating learning assignment guidelines, course readings, and submission portals. As a result, we created a new master template to address their concerns. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A new template was created within the LMS based on scholar and faculty feedback. Surveys and other tools have been used to determine student and faculty satisfaction as well as measure secondary outcomes of time spent in the online learning space. Some key changes include a redesigned menu and submission portal. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: There was an increase in satisfaction with the new LMS template. Next steps include systematically rolling out the new template, with continued solicitation of feedback from all stakeholders. All courses in the CTS track will be converted to the new template by summer quarter 2020. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The strengths of this project include the multidisciplinary team-based approach to improving course satisfaction and usability, as well as the use of innovative technologies. Additionally, the analytical capabilities of the LMS will be maximized in the new template, which was a shortcoming of the previously available template.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The clinical and translational research workforce is in jeopardy due to investigator attrition and competing demands upon researchers. Resilience and wisdom are measurable traits that can be acquired. The aim of this study was to examine a pilot curricular intervention promoting resilience and wisdom formation in early-career translational researchers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted a prospective, mixed-methods evaluation of a curricular intervention promoting the development of wisdom and resilience among junior faculty in a career development program. Six 90 minute sessions were delivered between September 2017 and January 2018. Pre- and post- resilience and wisdom were measured using the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale and 3D-Wisdom Scale. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted before and after the intervention RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Five scholars participated. Median resilience and wisdom scores revealed moderate levels of each trait; pre- and post-scores were not significantly different. Four themes emerged from the analysis of interview transcripts: 1. “Success” broadly defined; 2. Adversity threatens success; 3. Community breeds resilience; and 4. Wisdom formation parallels growth towards independence. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: An intervention aimed at developing capacities of resilience and wisdom is feasibly delivered to early career researchers. The relationship between these capacities and the sustainability of a research career warrants additional study.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Title V Cooperative Project between the University of Puerto Rico- Medical Sciences Campus (UPR-MSC) and Universidad Central del Caribe (UCC) has trained US, GS and F (participants) of HSPs to engage them in CTR. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: First stage of the training sessions (TS) dealt with the theory of CTR. After TS and responding to their research interests, as answered in a questionnaire, the participants formed a CTMT, under the mentorship of a well-established CT researcher. This, as a prelude to their hands-on experiences in Intensive Development and Experiences in Advancement of Research and Increased Opportunities (IDEARIO), for which a research proposal is needed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Five (5) CTMTs were formed in different research areas – cardio, neuro, liver, renal, Zika–, as submitted in their research concept papers.Eight (8) CT researchers are currently mentoring 2 US, 7 GS and 6 F of HSPs through the CTMTs. They have submitted a research proposal, as a bridge between the theory in the TS and the practice in IDEARIO. Five (5) proposals were received and 2 of them approved, while the other 3 are in the evaluation process. We will present the composition, research topics, development of research and the feedback of participants in IDEARIO and CTMTs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The CTMTs and their respective proposals are effective strategies for the mentoring of US, GS and F in CTR.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The study aims to determine the current clinical research training interventions of MD-PhD programs and how effective they are in promoting clinical research self-efficacy. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A national survey of MD-PhD trainees was conducted in 2018 to identify clinical research training methods and self-efficacy for clinical research skills. MD-PhD program directors and coordinators from 108 institutions were asked to distribute the survey to their students. Responses were received from 61 institutions (56.5%). Responses were obtained from 647 MD-PhD students in all years of training, representing 17.9% of the 3613 possible participants at the 61 medical schools represented. No compensation was provided for this study. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The primary methods of clinical research training reported by students included didactics, mentored clinical research, didactics plus mentored clinical research, didactics plus clinical research practicum, and didactics plus mentored clinical research plus clinical research practicum. A quarter of all participants reported having no clinical research training. Clinical research self-efficacy was then correlated with the amount of clinical research training. Students exposed to no clinical research had the lowest self-efficacy in clinical research skills and students experiencing didactics plus mentored clinical research plus clinical research practicum had the highest perceived self-efficacy in clinical research domains. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This is one of the first studies assessing clinical research training methods for MD-PhD students and assessing their efficacy. We found that of all students questioned, 25% mentioned had not received any type of clinical research training. The remaining students identified 5 research training methods that institutions currently use. This work highlights the importance of clinical research experience students need to improve their self-efficacy, a major influence on research career outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: In an effort the increase awareness and enhance knowledge and skills in relation to communication in science at Mount Sinai, the Communication in Science summer workshop series aimed to provide an accessible, workforce-wide lecture series to promote key concepts and skills related to communicating science. Delivered by faculty and invited speakers, a series of seven workshops delivered over a 4 week period covered topics such as communication in teams, storytelling and TED talk principles, and community engagement. The aim of each session was to offer “top tips” that participants could apply to their practice. Evaluation of the workshop series aimed to determine participant satisfaction and self-perceived changes in knowledge and skills in relation to science communication. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A total of 375 participants registered to attend the workshop series from a range of backgrounds including post-docs, faculty, residents, staff and students at Mount Sinai. Attendance at the workshops ranged from a high of 119 and a low of 33 participants, with as many as 41% of attendees joining the session via live-streaming. Participants were emailed an online survey at the end of the workshop series, asking for satisfaction feedback on each individual workshop and an overall impression of the workshop series. Participants were asked to rate the satisfaction criteria related to content, gained knowledge and skills, presentation style and whether they found the session of value for each workshop, using a Likert scale from 1 - 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Participants were also asked to provide an overall rating for the summer workshop series as a whole. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 35 participants responded to the survey. Mean responses to the survey questions were:. The content of this session is important to my work = 4.09 (range 3.77 – 4.45). This session increased my knowledge or skills 4.03 (range 3.56- 4.62). The presenters delivered this content clearly = 4.16 (range 3.78 – 4.67). Overall I found this session valuable = 4.13 (3.78 – 4.61) Participants were also asked to provide an overall rating for the summer workshop series as a whole on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = poor, 10 = excellent). The mean response was 8.36, indicating a high level of satisfaction with the program. Qualitative feedback indicated that the sessions were successful in increasing awareness of this topic. One participant reported that “these sessions inspired me to think differently, and in a way that can potentially allow me to communicate with the non-science community”. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The high number of registrants for this summer workshop series indicates a perceived need for education and training on Communication in Science at Mount Sinai. Sessions that focused on TED talk principles and storytelling in science were particularly well attended and well-reviewed, suggesting a particular interested in these topics. There was, however, a discrepancy between registration and attendance numbers, which going forward we will seek to better understand. One explanation is that recording and posting the sessions on YouTube allowed participants to review content asynchronously at a time and location convenient to them, which may have deterred people from attending in person. Following the popularity of this program, future plans are underway to provide an ongoing program of learning in relation to Communication in Science.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Current translational research moves beyond bench to bedside and includes translating scientific evidence to clinical practice and into the community settings (T1-T5). This progression is dynamic, involving patient-physician, community, and academic organizational structures and translational strategies. However, basic and clinician scientists are often unprepared and/or ill equipped to successfully conduct community-engaged research which may aid in more efficient translation of their research findings. The recognized need for such training was the impetus for our course which was originally designed and implemented through the innovative and sustainable joint academic-community partnerships of Morehouse School of Medicine and Emory University with the support of Georgia Institute of Technology. Since that time the course has evolved with the recently added partner, University of Georgia. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Initially developed and implemented in 2008, the course continues through the Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance, Community Engagement and Research Program (GaCTSA/CERP), a Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) (UL1TR002378). The course is an introduction to community-engaged research concepts/methods. This includes behavioral science; community engagement principles; clinical translational research partnerships; and strategies in planning, implementing, evaluating, and disseminating community-engaged research to address health disparities. The course is open to the four GaCTSA academic institutions’ faculty, MD, PhD, MS in Clinical Research, and the Graduate Certificate in Translational Science students. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Students received scholarly and hands-on training in community engaged research through faculty- and community member-led didactic lectures/interactions, team science activities, and a final assignment involving work with a community-based organization. From 2008-2017 over 230 students have matriculated through this course and many are now involved in community-engaged translational research. Most students in the class were MD/PhD students (33%), however 21% were junior faculty, attending physicians (21%), or fellows/residents/ postdocs (15%). Evaluations over the years indicate that most students were unware of Community-Based Participatory or community-engagement strategies for conducting translational research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Effective application of community-engaged translational research requires essential skills training to facilitate the translational research paradigm. Translational researchers, at any stage, will benefit from understanding the entire translational research process and the importance of quickly bringing research advances to patients and the community.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1. Foster a community of scholars – by centering on training and professional development programs that assist with career progression. 2. Improve heath equity for the community – by developing innovative ways to capture data, address problems, deliver solutions, and disseminate results to patients and people everywhere. 3. Facilitate interdisciplinary teams at all career stages – by providing opportunities for researchers, regardless of discipline and career stage, to engage in dialogue with others. SCOR has developed a series of programs to address each stage in the career arch. LEAD: Learn Enhance Advance Drive develops a pipeline of future leaders within UAB by engaging junior faculty and staff who are in leadership roles or will be in leadership roles soon to develop fundamental competencies. The one-year, cohort-based program enables junior faculty and staff to enhance their interpersonal skills, professional skills, and leadership skills. The program uses the Leadership Competency Model to provide the framework for the chosen topics. The K2R program provides structured activities over a 4– 5 month timeline to assist cohorts of scholars in their preparation of a specific grant application. Leveraging existing programs, like Project Panels, and offerings including a Specific Aims Workshop, K and R Writing Groups, and Mock Study Section, the SCOR extends the engagement of scholars in their ongoing research development. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Using quantitative methods, we have conducted surveys to measure effectiveness of weekly didactic sessions and topics. We use qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups to better understand the relevance of the individual programs and the larger community of SCOR. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: N/A DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Creating a community of interdisciplinary investigators will greatly impact research at the institution.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Leadership is an essential and recognized team science competency. To support the development of leadership skills at Mount Sinai, the LEAD (Leadership Emerging in Academic Departments) program, launched in 2016, delivers a structured 12-month blended learning program for junior faculty. The program aims to promote personal and professional leadership capacity, skills and behaviors. Following a competitive application process, 24 participants each year are selected to participate. In its second year, the challenge for the LEAD program leadership is to support alumni in fostering a culture of leadership that extends beyond the 12-month program. In order to promote a leadership community of practice and offer continued support to junior faculty, the LEAD Alumni program aims to bring former LEAD participants together to maintain motivation, share challenges and successes, meet with mentors and role models, and foster an ongoing community of practice that seeks to embed evidenced-based leadership culture at Mount Sinai. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The previous two cohorts of LEAD participants were approached to volunteer for the LEAD Alumni Forum working group. Four LEAD alumni came forward to form a self-selected working group. With input from the program leadership, the alumni working group is tasked with organizing regular events that bring the 48 previous LEAD participants together. The events provide the opportunity for individuals with expertise and a passion for leadership to create a supportive environment. This ultimately seeks to increase the transfer and utilization of leadership skills in practice, and promotes a culture of leadership. These alumni events also provide the opportunity for alumni to interact with senior leaders at Mount Sinai, thereby learning from role models within the organization. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Evaluating learning transfer and culture change is challenging, so a number of proxy measures will provide insight into the success of the Alumni Forum. Firstly, the number of LEAD Capstone projects implemented in practice, and the success of these initiatives, will provide insight into transfer of leadership learning to practice. Secondly, participants will complete a validated survey tool, Leadership Programs Outcome Measure (LPOM), which explores self-reported leadership change at a personal, organizational and community level. Finally, participants will be followed up in the long-term to track promotion, awards, and other formal or informal leadership positions assumed following engagement in the LEAD program and the subsequent LEAD Alumni Forum. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: It is hoped the LEAD Alumni program will enhance the ability of participants to implement leadership knowledge and skills to practice, which may subsequently advance organization and culture change. Fostering a community of practice will further the reach of the LEAD program and as the number of LEAD alumni grows, and the Alumni Forum may provide the supportive environment that allows these individuals to have real impact.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Translational researchers often require the use of informatics methods in their work. Lack of an understanding of key informatics principles and methods limits the abilities of translational researchers to successfully implement Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) principles in grant proposal submissions and performed studies. In this study we describe our work in addressing this limitation in the workforce by developing a competency-based, modular course in informatics to meet the needs of diverse translational researchers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We established a Translational Research Informatics Education Collaborative (TRIEC) consisting of faculty at the University of Utah (UU) with different primary expertise in informatics methods, and working in different tiers of the translational spectrum. The TRIEC, in collaboration with the Foundation of Workforce Development of the Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), gathered informatics needs of early investigators by consolidating requests for informatics services, assistance provided in grant writing, and consultations. We then reviewed existing courses and literature for informatics courses that focused on clinical and translational researchers [3–9]. Using the structure and content of the identified courses, we developed an initial draft of a syllabus for a Translational Research Informatics (TRI) course which included key informatics topics to be covered and learning activities, and iteratively refined it through discussions. The course was approved by the UU Department of Biomedical Informatics, UU Graduate School and the CCTS. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The TRI course introduces informatics PhD students, clinicians, and public health practitioners who have a demonstrated interest in research, to fundamental principles and tools of informatics. At the completion of the course, students will be able to describe and identify informatics tools and methods relevant to translational research and demonstrate inter-professional collaboration in the development of a research proposal addressing a relevant translational science question that utilizes the state-of-the-art in informatics. TRI covers a diverse set of informatics content presented as modules: genomics and bioinformatics, electronic health records, exposomics, microbiomics, molecular methods, data integration and fusion, metadata management, semantics, software architectures, mobile computing, sensors, recruitment, community engagement, secure computing environments, data mining, machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence and data science, open source informatics tools and platforms, research reproducibility, and uncertainty quantification. The teaching methods for TRI include (1) modular didactic learning consisting of presentations and readings and face-to-face discussions of the content, (2) student presentations of informatics literature relevant to their final project, and (3) a final project consisting of the development, critique and chalk talk and formal presentations of informatics methods and/or aims of an National Institutes of Health style K or R grant proposal. For (3), the student presents their translational research proposal concept at the beginning of the course, and works with members of the TRIEC with corresponding expertise. The final course grade is a combination of the final project, paper presentations and class participation. We offered TRI to a first cohort of students in the Fall semester of 2018. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Translational research informatics is a sub-domain of biomedical informatics that applies and develops informatics theory and methods for translational research. TRI covers a diverse set of informatics topics that are applicable across the translational spectrum. It covers both didactic material and hands-on experience in using the material in grant proposals and research studies. TRI’s course content, teaching methodology and learning activities enable students to initially learn factual informatics knowledge and skills for translational research correspond to the ‘Remember, Understand, and Apply’ levels of the Bloom’s taxonomy [10]. The final project provides opportunity for applying these informatics concepts corresponding to the ‘Analyze, Evaluate, and Create’ levels of the Bloom’s taxonomy [10]. This inter-professional, competency-based, modular course will develop an informatics-enabled workforce trained in using state-of-the-art informatics solutions, increasing the effectiveness of translational science and precision medicine, and promoting FAIR principles in research data management and processes. Future work includes opening the course to all Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs and publishing the course material as a reference book. While student evaluations for the first cohort will be available end of the semester, true evaluation of TRI will be the number of trainees taking the course and successful grant proposal submissions. References: 1. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016 Mar 15. 2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Translational Science Spectrum. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. 2015 [cited 2018 Nov 15]. Available from: https://ncats.nih.gov/translation/spectrum 3. Hu H, Mural RJ, Liebman MN. Biomedical Informatics in Translational Research. 1 edition. Boston: Artech House; 2008. 264 p. 4. Payne PRO, Embi PJ, Niland J. Foundational biomedical informatics research in the clinical and translational science era: a call to action. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA. 2010;17(6):615–6. 5. Payne PRO, Embi PJ, editors. Translational Informatics: Realizing the Promise of Knowledge-Driven Healthcare. Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 2015 edition. Springer; 2016. 196 p. 6. Richesson R, Andrews J, editors. Clinical Research Informatics. 2nd ed. Springer International Publishing; 2019. (Health Informatics). 7. Robertson D, MD GHW, editors. Clinical and Translational Science: Principles of Human Research. 2 edition. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2017. 808 p. 8. Shen B, Tang H, Jiang X, editors. Translational Biomedical Informatics: A Precision Medicine Perspective. Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 2016 edition. S.l.: Springer; 2018. 340 p. 9. Valenta AL, Meagher EA, Tachinardi U, Starren J. Core informatics competencies for clinical and translational scientists: what do our customers and collaborators need to know? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Jul 1;23(4):835–9. 10. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J, Wittrock MC. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Abridged Edition. 1 edition. New York: Pearson; 2000.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The DIAMOND project encourages study team workforce development through the creation of a digital learning space that brings together resources from across the CTSA consortium. This allows for widespread access to and dissemination of training and assessment materials. DIAMOND also includes access to an ePortfolio that encourages CRPs to define career goals and document professional skills and training. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Four CTSA institutions (the University of Michigan, the Ohio State University, University of Rochester, and Tufts CTSI) collaborated to develop and implement the DIAMOND portal. The platform is structured around eight competency domains, making it easy for users to search for research training and assessment materials. Contributors can upload links to (and meta-data about) training and assessment materials from their institutions, allowing resources to be widely disseminated through the DIAMOND platform. Detailed information about materials included in DIAMOND is collected through an easy to use submission form. DIAMOND also includes an ePortfolio designed for CRPs. This encourages workforce development by providing a tool for self-assessment of clinical research skills, allowing users to showcase evidence of experience, training and education, and fosters professional connections. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: To date, more than 100 items have been posted to DIAMOND from nine contributors. In the first 30 days there were 229 active users with more than 500 page views from across the U.S. as well as China and India. Training materials were viewed most often from four competency domains: 1) Scientific Concepts & Research Design, 2) Clinical Study Operations, 3) Ethical & Participant Safety, and 4) Leadership & Professionalism. Additionally, over 100 CRPs have created a DIAMOND ePortfolio account, using the platform to document skills, connect with each other, and search for internships and job opportunities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Lessons learned during development of the DIAMOND digital platform include defining relevant information to collect for the best user experience; selection of a standardized, user-friendly digital platform; and integration of the digital network and ePortfolio. Combined, the DIAMOND portal and ePortfolio provide a professional development platform for clinical research professionals to contribute, access, and benefit from training and assessment opportunities relevant to workforce development and their individual career development needs.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1.Identify barriers to pursuing research for physician trainees 2.Develop a sustainable pipeline of physician-scientists at Duke 3.Coordinate physician-scientist development programs across the School of Medicine under one central Office 4.Provide infrastructure and resources for all physician-scientists 5.Increase the number of MDs and MD/PhDs who pursue, succeed, and are retained in research METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To establish a baseline understanding of the needs and concerns of physician-scientist trainees at Duke, we conducted focus groups using a standardized interview guide and thematic analysis. Findings from these focus groups were used to develop a framework for support, leading to the creation of the Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) housed centrally within the Duke School of Medicine. The OPSD integrates programs and resources for multiple populations including medical students, residents, fellows, junior faculty, and faculty mentors. Pipeline programs will also be developed to enhance research engagement in targeted student populations prior to medical school. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 45 students and faculty participated in the focus groups and structured interviews (1st year medical student, n=11; 4th year medical students, n=11; residents/fellows, n=13; junior faculty, n=11). While participants raised a number of specific issues, one key message emerged: non-PhD MDs in basic research felt they lacked opportunities for directed training. Moreover, they felt the need to teach themselves many critical skills through trial and error. This has led to perceptions that they cannot compete effectively with PhDs and MD-PhD scientists for research funding and positions. Consensus recommendations included: better guidance in choosing mentors, labs, and projects; central resource for information relevant to physician scientists; training specifically tailored to physician scientists conducting laboratory-based research; improved infrastructure and well-defined training pathways; and assistance with grant preparation. To-date, over 90 students, residents, and fellows have been identified who identify as laboratory-based physician scientists. Additional efforts are underway to identify and characterize the broader range of physician-scientist students and trainees at Duke. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our planning study revealed specific steps forward toward developing a robust community of physician-scientists at Duke. As a first step, the Dean of the School of Medicine has appointed an Associate Dean of Physician-Scientist Development to oversee a new Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) being launched in December of 2018. The OPSD will offer four primary programs. 1) A concierge mentoring program will assist new trainees in identifying research areas of interest and mentors. Trainees will receive periodic contact to provide additional support as needed and promote success. 2) A physician-scientist training program is being created to provide training specific to laboratory research skills as well as career and professional development training to complement existing clinical and translational research programs. 3) Integrated training pathways will provide additional mentored research training for those pursuing research careers. Pathways will capitalize on existing resources from R38 programs, while pursuing additional R38 and R25 support. 4) An MD-Scientist funding program has been developed to provide additional research funding and protected time for students pursuing a second research year. Through the support and programming offered by the OPSD, we anticipate decreased perceptions of barriers to pursuing a physician-scientist career and increased satisfaction with training opportunities. Over time, we expect such support to increase the number of MD students pursuing research as a career and the number of residents, fellows, and MD junior faculty remaining in research careers.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Duke Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Translational Science (MERITS) program was introduced with the goal of providing education and resources to faculty and trainees who are involved in translational research. However, the definition of what translational science is and entails can be widely variable, even within a single institution or department, which creates difficulties in appropriate dissemination of information regarding translational resources and assistance. This objective of this study was thus to obtain baseline information and views of translational science from a pilot population of Duke faculty. Based on data collected in a previous focus group, we expected to observe a lack of consensus regarding the definition and inclusion principles of translational science. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A digital survey was distributed to Duke Department of Surgery faculty regarding translational science, including opinions on definition, impacts, experienced barriers, known resources, and future training preferences. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Ninety-five total responses were obtained, with 79.3% of respondents identifying their work as translational. There was no consensus on the precise definition of translational science, although the majority of respondents reported similar essential elements including multidisciplinary science and transitioning between investigative stages. Respondents noted that translational science increased their job satisfaction and recognition in their field, but also stated that they had experienced barriers to translational science. These barriers were primarily funding (56.4%) or lack of training (38.2%) related. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The results of our pilot survey suggest that the MERITS program should focus on training investigators on the resources available for translational investigations and expound upon how it fits into and enhances their current and future research endeavors.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of a junior faculty mentoring program on change in confidence in key academic skills. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Department of Medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center enrolled 33 mentees over three years (2015-2018) in a mentoring program that consisted of monthly interactive seminars focused on topics related to building academic careers, works-in-progress, and pairing of each mentee with a mentor. Mentees were asked about their confidence in key academic skills prior to and after completing the program. Confidence levels were assessed on a seven point scale, ranging from 1 (weak) to 7 (strong). Mean confidence levels were compared between pre and post surveys using independent samples t-test. Matching was not accounted for because not all individuals who completed the pre survey also completed the post survey and vice-versa. Of those mentees who completed both pre and post surveys, confidence scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test, with similar results to those reported here. Each mentoring session was evaluated by those in attendance at the end of each particular session with possible scores of 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (excellent). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: On average the mentees had a fair level of confidence in all nine areas assessed at baseline, with the exception of how to get funding (2.4 ± 1.7). Confidence increased in all areas assessed, and except for how to write a paper (p=.05) all represented a significant increase in confidence (Table 1). Evaluations of each of the mentoring sessions were high, with mean values ranging from 4.3 to 4.9 on the five point scale. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This mentoring program significantly improved mentees’ confidence in identifying their own professional values and goals, as well as knowing how to turn education into scholarship, work with a mentor, integrate work and life, and give a presentation.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Determine the effectiveness of a curriculum designed to teach doctoral students to use implementation science theories, models and frameworks in optimizing scientific, social, political, cultural and organizational impact METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Analysis of Integrated Final Projects across three cohorts of doctoral students (N=30) to identify sub-disciplinary knowledge integration and application. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Integrated Final Projects indicate that the integration of IS, Program Theory and Research design within semester two yields application of integrated, sub-disciplinary knowledge to research design, identification of mechanisms of action and the address of barriers and facilitators to implementation of findings. Future analysis will be conducted to determine the degree to which dissertations reflect a similar level of sub-disciplinary integration and focus on implementation within the appropriate service setting. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Training future translational researchers to understand and use implementation science theories, models and frameworks can potentially result in narrowing the science-to-service gap.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Emergency (911) dispatchers are the first link in the chain of care for the estimated 240 million emergency calls made each year. Yet even as emergency medicine, public safety, and public health have seen increasing study, emergency dispatch has very seldom been included in that research. Part of the reason is that, while emergency medicine is connected with hospital physicians and public health with university departments, emergency dispatch is largely invisible, not represented in university programs, and staffed by professionals without research training–and often without higher education or academic degrees. The purpose of our Dispatch Research Workshop is to engage these professionals in guided research projects of their own design, with the ultimate aims of both engaging more emergency dispatchers in research and increasing the field’s overall capacity to generate evidence-based practice. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The workshop is help in tandem with a national Emergency Dispatch conference. Participants are recruited through advertisements in professional journals and relevant social media sites. The workshop is co-led by members of a partnership between the nonprofit organizations the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch and the UCLA Prehospital Care Research Forum, along with the dispatch data aggregation company FirstWatch. The Workshop occurs over two eight-hour days, and participants generally have no research experience or background. By the end of the second day, groups have developed research questions and methods, begun to write IRB proposals, and created data collection and analysis plans. Throughout the remainder of the year, research mentors support the completion of the project, and completed projects are presented at the following year’s conference and submitted (if desired) for publication. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: During the first two years of the workshop, 36 attendees participated (17 the first year and 19 the second). Three successful attendees of the first workshop helped lead the second as research mentors. Three research projects were completed from the first year; all three were presented as posters and are now being prepared for publication as manuscripts. Four projects have emerged from the second year’s workshop. Assessments and one-on-one interviews with participants at the end of each workshop have led to continuous change and improvement in the delivery of the material, as well as the outline of a year’s worth of support materials, which is currently in development. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Developing a true evidence base for practice in emergency dispatch will serve all of our communities, and feedback from our participants (as well as significant existing research in practitioner-engaged research) indicates that those who participate in research have a better understanding of the value of evidence-based practice, are more likely to adopt it, and are more likely to raise questions and test theories in their own professional life. Also, providing these practitioners the opportunity to conduct and publish research raises their stature and the stature of their profession, helping it achieve its rightful place alongside other professions in public safety and health.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The primary goal of the project was to conduct a narrative review of the published literature to identify and summarize best practices for developing oncology-focused research and training experiences for AI/AN undergraduate, graduate and professional students. A secondary goal was to identify methodological limitations and areas for future research related to rigorous educational program evaluation. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION:. Published literature was searched using databases relevant to oncology (PubMed, Web of Science) and sociology (PsychINFO, SocIndex). The bibliographies of identified relevant papers were searched for additional references by title. Search terms included synonyms and commonly used terms for three general areas: (1) target population (e.g., American Indian), (2) training area (e.g., oncology), and (3) educational program (e.g., undergraduate). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS:. A current total of 107 original publications and 33 review papers that are relevant to the project goals have been identified. Key areas of program development and implementation relate to advertising and recruitment; didactic curriculum in research methods, cancer health disparities, and professional development and career planning; research immersion experiences through shadowing, networking, application of research skills, and opportunities to develop oral and written communication skills; ongoing career development support; mentoring by faculty, advanced trainees, and peers; and culture-specific enrichment. Important areas for program evaluation relate to measures of reaction, knowledge, practice and long-term outcomes. Evaluation design approaches include observational and experimental designs with recommendations for identifying relevant control groups. Strategies to ensure complete long-term follow-up are also summarized. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT:.Successful programs address barriers related to perceived lack of abilities, lack of AI role models, limited culture-specific enrichment, and limited mentoring and ongoing career development support. Program directors should work with local tribal and community leaders when creating a new program. A high degree of coordination is needed to create a bicultural program to interest students in a research career and avoid the creation of barriers hidden to the program director. There are opportunities to improve the rigor of educational program evaluation in this setting by including measures beyond self-reported reaction and knowledge to focus on educational program enrollment and completion and long-term career outcomes. Methodologic challenges include identification of relevant control groups for comparison and the use of experimental designs.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goals of this project are to develop, disseminate, and evaluate an online, self-paced training module designed to help mentors better understand and support their mentees’ motivation. The module introduces learners to the CARES mentoring model, which is rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), one of the leading theories of motivation. According to SDT, an optimal mentoring environment provides support for mentees’ psychological needs for Competence, Autonomy, Relatedness, Equity in extrinsic resources, and Structure (CARES). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Content for the CARES online module was drawn from a previously developed two-hour mentor training workshop designed for delivery in a face-to-face, small group setting. Content experts developed a slide deck and speaker notes. These materials were edited, adapted into a storyboard, and translated into a 60-minute interactive online module created with e-learning authoring software (Articulate Storyline). An evaluation survey was developed to assess mentors’ perceived skills gains related to course content (e.g., “Encouraging my mentees to think about how well their psychological needs are being met within the work/training environment,” “Recognizing how diversity, equity, and inclusion can be salient issues that impact a mentee’s motivation”) and mentors’ confidence gains in their ability to implement motivation-focused practices into their mentoring relationships (e.g., “Autonomy: Giving my mentees freedom in deciding what goals to pursue and how they to do their work,” “Competence: Working with my mentees to establish appropriate challenges to stretch their abilities”). The module was beta tested in October 2018 by 11 individuals with experience as mentors and in facilitating mentor training. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The beta testing process produced useful recommendations for improving clarity of content, visual design, and navigation. Users expressed a high level of enthusiasm for the content, which included a combination of practical information and empirical support for the CARES mentoring model. They also appreciated specific functionality in the module, including the presentation of brief case examples of mentoring scenarios that enhance or diminish motivation, opportunities for self-reflection, and a downloadable guide for initiating conversations with mentees about different domains in the CARES model. Evaluation data (quantitative and qualitative) from beta testers (n=11) are being analyzed. A preliminary examination of these findings found that mentors report gains from before to after the training in their self-perceived skills and confidence levels. Moreover, all expressed an intention to makes changes in their mentoring practices as a result of the training. Comments indicated potential value in offering a follow up face-to-face experience in which mentors can hear from others who have successfully implemented the CARES approach and acquire practice in skillfully implementing the CARES conversation guide with their mentees. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This innovative e-learning module offers a readily accessible and theoretically driven training approach to help mentors recognize the value of supporting their mentees’ motivation, and become more intentional in implementing motivation-focused practices into their mentoring relationships. In future work, the CARES module will be pilot tested with specific cohorts and in different implementation scenarios (as a standalone training, or combined with other programming) and made available to users nationally with support from the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute and the NIH National Research Mentoring Network.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goal of the Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute (WF CTSI) Mentor Academy is to contribute to increasing the next generation of faculty with competencies specific to research mentoring. The curriculum of the Mentor Academy is adapted from an evidence-based national curriculum developed by the National Research Mentoring Network and includes 20 contact hours of didactic and experiential training, complemented with outside readings and assignments. A pre-post-follow-up competency assessment is built in as part of the curriculum for both participants and their current mentees. The purpose of this study was to assess self-rated research mentoring competencies among the Mentor Academy participants to better understand the effectiveness of the Mentor Academy. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A total of 37 mid-level or early senior faculty members from WF have participated in the 3 Mentor Academy cohorts that have completed so far. All of the participants receive 5% salary support and are expected to regularly participate in Mentor Academy sessions; complete a pre, post, and 6-month follow-up self-assessments; and provide a list of their active mentees. The identified mentees are also asked to assess the participating mentors’ research mentoring competencies before the start and 6-months after the end of the Mentor Academy. The same list of 26 mentoring competencies are included in the self-assessments for both mentors and mentees. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The initial results of the self-assessments suggest that mentors are coming into the academy with a rather high self-assessed competency ratings. The change in competency ratings pre/post is not as significant. On average the change in self-assessed competency ratings increases by 1.0 on a 7-point scale. Interestingly enough, for 2 of the cohorts were mentees were also asked to assess their mentors’ competencies, the mentees rated their mentors as having a higher competency (for all 26 items) than what the mentor rated themselves, at both pre and 6-month follow-up assessments. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: After compiling data for 3 different cohorts, we are consistently seeing similar patterns in self-assessed competency ratings; participants are coming in with a high level of competency and an increased level of competency rating by mentees. These findings need to be further considered. For example, the program administrators need to discuss how participants are recruited, if we are recruiting the intended users, and what should we be expecting as an outcome(s) of the program. We also need to further explore different perceptions of mentor-mentee relationships and expectations to see how reliable are the data from mentees. A collaboration with the National Research Mentoring Network is also needed to see how the self-assessed competencies compare to those utilizing their curriculum outside of WF.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The study aims to (1) investigate the structural patterns of professional communication that exist at the Mount Sinai Health Hackathon (2) explore if and how the professional networks of the participants change after engaging in the Mount Sinai Health Hackathon (3) explore any associations between the characteristics of participants’ professional networks and successful innovation development. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The recruitment pool consists of all 78 Mount Sinai Health Hackathon 2018 participants. Characteristics of the social network of Health Hackathon participants are assessed via an SNA data collection instrument at three time points: T1 directly before the Health Hackathon event, T2 directly after the event, T3 six months post-event. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board approved this study as exempt. In order to explore patterns of communication between Health Hackathon participants during event, whole network data is collected at T2. Participants are provide with a roster of Mount Sinai Health hackathon participant names and asked to report the nature, frequency and perceived importance of their interaction with each of the other participants over the duration of the 48 hour event. In order capture any network change in the wider professional networks of the individual participants, known as “ego networks”, participants are asked to complete an SNA ego network survey at time points T1, T2 and T3. Open ended questions asked participants to report up to 20 people they consider being most important to them in their professional network and record the professional background of each person, the nature of the communication and the importance of each person to their success. Finally, at T3 participants are also asked to report on their project success (determined by businesses formed, filed provisional patents, financial income generation). This will be reviewed in relation to their social network data, to see if there is any relationship between the two. Data is analyzed using the specialized SNA software, UCiNET, which creates network sociograms to visualize network data. Descriptive statistics are used to report individual-level characteristics of respondents.RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: To describe the structural patterns of communication at each time point, the following network-level indices are calculated: density (a measure of network cohesion), degree centrality (how many connections the individual has), betweenness centrality (whether the individual provides connections to other people in a network) and closeness centrality (how close the individual is to other people in the network). Network sociograms are generated for each time point to provide a visualization of the network. To explore the hypothesis that participating in the Mount Sinai Health Hackathon increases diversity of a professional network, analysis will focus on whether and how network-level indices change pre- and post- Hackathon. It will also explore any association between network characteristics and project success. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Social Network Analysis of the Mount Sinai Health Hackathon provides an understanding about the structure of relationships that are formed as a result of participation in this event. Although, the design of this study does not allow for inferences of causality, the SNA approach enables an in-depth exploration of Hackathon participants’ professional networks, how these evolve over time and how certain network characteristics may be associated with project success. This information will be used to inform the development, content and delivery of future Health Hackathon initatives.