Trauma is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in humans and companion animals. Recent efforts in procedural development, training, quality systems, data collection, and research have positively impacted patient outcomes; however, significant unmet need still exists. Coordinated efforts by collaborative, translational, multidisciplinary teams to advance trauma care and improve outcomes have the potential to benefit both human and veterinary patient populations. Strategic use of veterinary clinical trials informed by expertise along the research spectrum (i.e., benchtop discovery, applied science and engineering, large laboratory animal models, clinical veterinary studies, and human randomized trials) can lead to increased therapeutic options for animals while accelerating and enhancing translation by providing early data to reduce the cost and the risk of failed human clinical trials. Active topics of collaboration across the translational continuum include advancements in resuscitation (including austere environments), acute traumatic coagulopathy, trauma-induced coagulopathy, traumatic brain injury, systems biology, and trauma immunology. Mechanisms to improve funding and support innovative team science approaches to current problems in trauma care can accelerate needed, sustainable, and impactful progress in the field. This review article summarizes our current understanding of veterinary and human trauma, thereby identifying knowledge gaps and opportunities for collaborative, translational research to improve multispecies outcomes. This translational trauma group of MDs, PhDs, and DVMs posit that a common understanding of injury patterns and resulting cellular dysregulation in humans and companion animals has the potential to accelerate translation of research findings into clinical solutions.

Academic Medical Centers strive to create multidisciplinary research teams to produce impactful science. However, few faculty researchers receive training in “team science,” a well-established concept in business research and practice. Responding to demand for assistance developing effective research teams, the Collaboration and Team Science Program of the Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) at Wake Forest School of Medicine (WFSM) partnered with faculty from the Wake Forest University (WFU) School of Business with expertise in leadership, management, and team building. We initiated a needs assessment, including a written survey from a diverse set of 42 research scientists as well as semi-structured interviews with 8 researchers. In response to identified needs, we developed training sessions and consultations to teach teams to implement two tools known to enhance team dynamics: (1) Team charter, a document that defines the team’s purpose, goals, roles, and strategies; and (2) Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed (RACI) matrix, a table or spreadsheet that clarifies tasks and accountability. Since 2018, 10 teams and over 100 individuals have attended training sessions and 6 teams received personalized team consults. We describe these tools, present a formal analysis of quantitative results, and highlight the next steps being taken in response to these findings.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: This study identifies potential areas for community and clinical interventions to improve eye and vision health. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The ‘All Eyes on Us’ study sought to understand perceptions of and barriers to eye and vision care, of residents over the age of 40 in the Broadway/Slavic Village neighborhood in Cleveland, Ohio. The goal of this study was to identify potential areas for community and clinical interventions to improve eye health. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Residents of the Broadway/Slavic Village neighborhood, an ethnically diverse, low socioeconomic status, neighborhood in Cleveland, Ohio were recruited from, and with the assistance of, University Settlement, a nonprofit that has been providing services to the neighborhood since 1926. The project’s Community Advisory Board assisted with the development of a semi-structured interview guide over the course of three meetings. Sixty interviews were completed, 30 with self-identified European Americans and 30 with self-identified African-Americans, all over the age of 40. Two research team members coded the interview transcripts and a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Participants identified barriers to obtaining eye and vision care for themselves as well as perceived barriers for others, including transportation, cost, insurance status, clinic locations, lack of education around eye and vision care, fear, forgetfulness, and priority management. To encourage people to go to the eye doctor more often, participants mentioned strategies related to access issues including lowering the cost of exams, operating on a sliding scale, improving insurance coverage, transportation services, and having mobile units that deployed to specific neighborhoods or senior centers. Additionally, participants suggested education and increasing awareness about the importance of eye and vision care. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Participants in this study identified that accessibility to and awareness about eye health and eye care is an issue. Interventions to address both access issues such as location, cost, and insurance as well as those that increase education could increase engagement with eye and vision care.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: -Transmit learning and wisdom from past scholars -Predispose new scholars towards a receptive attitude -Normalize struggle and failure on the road to success -Encourage a community of accomplishment and celebration -Connect the scholar METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The exit presentations were given by NCATS funded junior faculty in the CTSI KL2 Scholars Program who had graduated. All KL2 Scholars take part in the K Scholar Multidisciplinary Seminar Series that meets weekly during the academic calendar. The departed scholars returned for the presentations the following semester. The audience was made up of KL2 who had started with a later cohort, the CTSI KL2 program is a 3-year program, and newly appointed scholars. Scholars were given 12-15 minutes to cover: 1) What was learned, 2) Accomplishments on specific aims, 3) Next steps for project and career, and 4) Recommendations for other scholars. Presentations were collected and reviewed for recurring themes. Themes were grouped and quotes were included to identify nuance. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: From the 17 exit presentations, six themes were identified: 1) Don’t miss the forest for the trees (x10) – “the KL2 program helps to fill in gaps scholars don’t realize they have – it is about more than just the research project, trust in the process and let the program help keep you on track.” 2) Diversify and keep an open mind (x7) – “focus is important but diversifying research and reorganizing priorities is ok.” 3) Don’t be discouraged by failure (x6) –” perseverance is key, all success comes on the heels of many failures.” 4) Importance of building network inside and outside of Scholar program (x6) – “importance of exploring and establishing collaborations” 5) Learn to say no and yes (x5) – “protect your time but be open to opportunities” 6) Seek advice and criticism but don’t follow blindly (x4) DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The use of exit presentations for graduating KL2 Scholars is a useful tool in transmitting wisdom and enhancing subsequent KL2 cohorts. The Scholar’s experience and trajectory, share personal insights and recommendations to help other Scholars get the most out of their KL2 experience, give the community a chance to celebrate the Scholar’s accomplishments, and provide the Scholar with a sense of closure in their KL2 journey. Within the exit presentations, six common themes emerged relating to best practices on making good use of resources and guidance, and learning to interact and navigate within networks and responsibilities in a mature way. Scholars in the audience benefit from hearing the insights and advice from their predecessors. The identification of themes helps the program to understand where it adds value.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: Leverage community engagement to continue moving translational science and research forward. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Engaging community in translational research improves innovation and speeds the movement of evidence into practice. Yet, it is unclear how community is engaged across the translational research spectrum or the degree of community-engagement used. We conducted a scoping review to fill this gap. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used the PRISMA model search strategy with a range of databases (e.g., PubMed/Medline, Scopus) to identify articles published between January 2008 and November 2018 (n=167) and eliminated studies that did not use any level of community-engagement (n=102). Studies were coded for translational stage-corresponding to T0 (basic science), T1 (basic science to clinical research in humans; n=6), T2 (clinical efficacy and effectiveness research, n=45), T3 (dissemination and implementation research, n=95), and T4 (population health, n=21) as well as the degree of community engagement from least to most intensive (i.e., outreach, consultation, involvement, collaboration, shared leadership). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The final number of eligible articles was 65. There was a relatively balanced distribution across levels of community engagement across articles (i.e., outreach, n=14; consultation, n=13; involvement, n=7; collaboration, n=15; shared leadership, n=16). Within these articles, the depth of community engagement varied with higher engagement typically occurring at later stages of translational research (T3 and T4), but more specifically in the dissemination and implementation science stage (T3). However, shared leadership, the most intensive form of engagement, was found in T2, T3, and T4 studies suggesting the value of community-engagement across the translational research spectrum. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: A strong understanding of how various levels of community engagement are used in translational research, and the outcomes they produce, may to expedite the translation of knowledge into practice and enable practice-based needs to inform policy.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To evaluate whether a low cost, functional dynamic 3-D printed upper extremity (UE) orthosis could be designed, fabricated and used by children with cerebral palsy (CP) with severe unilateral UE involvement and the ability of common standardized instruments to assess its effectiveness. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Five patients, ages 13-17 years, with CP and unilateral UE involvement, MACS levels III-IV, were enrolled. Custom forearm thumb opponens orthosis and dynamic upper extremity orthosis (DUEO) were designed and fabricated by a multidisciplinary team for use during 8 one-hour occupational therapy sessions targeting bimanual UE training. Pre- and post-assessments included Assisting Hand Assessment(AHA), Melbourne-2(MA-2), Pediatric Motor Activity Log-Revised(PMAL-R), and PedsQL Measurement Model for the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory: CP Module(Peds-QL). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The 3D printed orthotic device is custom fit to the patient based on scans of their arm and is designed with a tensioning system that allows for functional usage of the arm. It incorporates a rigid polymer to provide support and flexible material for comfort where appropriate. Overall, higher post-treatment scores were found for the majority of participants using the custom orthotic. Four made minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the AHA. Three met MCID scores in subtests of MA-2 (two positive and one negative). Patient-reported outcome improvements were found for PMAL-R for four, but only one met MCID and at least three reported improvements in more than one domain of PedsQL. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Children with CP may often present with UE impairment, yet current therapeutic orthoses only target the progression of contractures and are still limited by cost and discomfort. Our team designed and fabricated a functional, low cost, 3D printed orthosis that showed significant gains in UE function.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The critical role that trust plays continues to be documented and highlights the gap in understanding the extent to which initiatives such as All IN for Health from the Indiana Clinical and Translational Institute (I-CTSI) can improve trust between the community and researchers. We discuss measures of trust and evaluate how we may improve recruitment. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: In this study, we invited over 13000 volunteers from the All IN for Health research participant registry. Six hundred and sixty-three (663) respondents participated in the survey. The Relationship of Trust and Research Engagement Survey included three validated surveys: Distrust in Healthcare Organizations, the Trust in Medical Researchers scale by Hall et. al, and Patient Trust in Medical Researchers by Mainous et al.. The 36-item survey also included open-text questions. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Based on preliminary results 74% agreed it’s safe to be in medical research, yet 79% had never been asked to participate in medical research by their doctor. Sixty percent believed that HCOs put money above patients’ needs. Forty percent agreed that doctors do medical research for selfish reasons. Fifty percent disagree that patients get the same medical treatment regardless of race/ethnicity. Moreover, 28 % agree that medical researchers act differently toward minorities. Between 9 and 11% believe that researchers select minorities for their most dangerous studies and some projects are secretly designed to expose minoritized groups to diseases. Our next step is to disaggregate the data by race and ethnicity and evaluate these answers. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This study's population willingly engaged in a research registry making their diminished trust quite alarming. Amongst the general population, trust in scientists is now below pre-pandemic levels. We must critically assess our own trustworthiness, and critically reflect on the authenticity of our efforts.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: More than 2 out of 3 adults in the United States are overweight or obese. Obesity disproportionately affects minority populations. There is limited data on obesity and CVD risks among inner-city minority cab drivers in New York City (NYC). The goal is to study perceptions, knowledge and health behaviors of Hispanic livery cab drivers of NYC that contributes to obesity. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted an observational study of focus groups related to perception, knowledge, or behavior among Latino livery cab drivers of NYC. Direct transcription of the taped recordings into concepts were grouped into themes and common themes were categorized. The sample size of the focus groups was based on the saturation point where common themes emerged. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In total, 25 Latino livery cab drivers were enrolled. Of those, 24 were men. Mean age is 53 years (21–69); body mass index (BMI) is 31 (22.8–38.7) kg/m2; 50% had hypertension and 27% had diabetes. Eight dominant themes emerged. Cab drivers were aware of their increased risk for CVD which most of them attributed to work stress, sedentary lifestyle, and poor eating habits “on-the-go”. In particular, they mentioned a tendency of having “Pipa,” a Spanish term denoting increased abdominal girth, which they equated to early death. Family and social support was an important facilitator in changing unhealthy behaviors. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our study shows that minority cab drivers are generally obese or overweight and aware of their personal risk factors for CVD including central obesity. Social and family support may be key to improving their lifestyle. An evidenced-based health model that includes family education and decision support will be tested in our next study phase to understand if it can improve body weight.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The time between lower extremity amputations and prosthetic acquisition profoundly influences patient rehabilitation and mortality outcomes. Our primary outcome was time to prosthetic acquisition following major limb amputation. We hypothesize that women face an increased time lag between amputation and prosthetic acquisition compared to men. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used the 2015-2021 Truven Marketscan Medicare and Commercial Claims Administrative dataset to identify individuals with lower extremity amputations based on CPT codes. We excluded patients < 18 years old, those with prior/concurrent major extremity amputations, and those with <= 31 days discontinuity in enrollment. To estimate time to prosthetic acquisition after initial amputation, Weibull Accelerated Failure Time multivariable regression models were used to estimate unadjusted and adjusted time ratios and 95% confidence intervals comparing men to women. We adjusted models for age, Medicare supplement/commercial payer, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), amputation type, social deprivation index, and Elixhauser comorbidities. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We identified 4,054 patients with major lower extremity amputations (75% below knee and 25% at or above knee). Patients were predominantly male (72%). For patients who received prosthetics, 39.06% of men and 31.28% of women received prosthetics within the first three months of amputation (p<0.001). Time ratios > 1 indicated longer time to prosthetic acquisition between comparison groups. The adjusted time ratio for women compared to men for the time to acquisition of prosthetics was increased; this was statistically significant (TR 1.3281, 95% CI 1.1667, 1.5118). This time ratio suggests that if a man received a prosthetic in 100 days, a women would receive her prosthetic in 133 days. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We found a significant difference in the time to prosthetic acquisition following major limb amputation and acquisition rate in the first three months of amputation among men and women. Successful rehabilitation, quality of life, and healthcare costs are influenced by the timeliness of prosthetic acquisition.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The molecular basis of increased risk of triple negative breast cancer in non-Hispanic Black women represents a critical knowledge gap that this research is designed to address; successful completion of this work could lead to better prevention, earlier stage diagnoses, and possible discovery of novel therapeutic strategies for this population. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We have recently generated a living tissue cohort of 11 non-Hispanic Black and 25 non-Hispanic White women who underwent breast surgery at Mayo Clinic. Gene expression profiling of normal breast tissue from this cohort has identified a pattern of gene expression differences that have been associated with the development of basal breast cancer and are also reflective of Hedgehog (Hh) signaling. We will identify protein-based biomarkers for Hedgehog signaling within normal breast tissue using immunohistochemistry methods. We will culture primary human mammary epithelial cells and further separate luminal and myoepithelial cells using flow cytometry to then decipher Hedgehog signaling. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We anticipate identifying and localizing protein-based biomarkers for Hedgehog signaling within myoepithelial cells of non-Hispanic Black women. Using our findings, we aim to create a biomarker risk model for triple negative breast cancer and validate this model within a separate and larger cohort of women to predict breast cancer risk. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: In addition to immediate benefits from improved risk prediction, the proposed work has the potential to provide new insight into the driving forces underlying basal breast carcinogenesis and the distinct biological differences that distinguish non-Hispanic Black women from non-Hispanic White women.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Low-income, urban adolescents experience high rates of interpersonal and community violence and consequently post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Memory theory purports that the development of PTSD can be explained by dysfunctional trauma cognitions, high sensory and poor articulation of trauma memories, and poor emotional regulation. The purpose of this paper are as follows: (1) to describe trauma experiences and PTSD symptoms of a high-risk sample of low-income urban youth and (2) to explore if post-traumatic cognitions, trauma memory quality, or emotional regulation means differ in participants screening positive for PTSD as compared with those that did not screen positive. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A preliminary sample of low-income, urban adolescents (ages 16–21) at risk for homelessness took a web-based, self-report survey responding to questions related to their experiences of trauma and mental health (n=48). PTSD was measured with the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 criteria (PCL_5). A cut-off of 33 was used as a positive screen for PTSD. Post-traumatic cognitions was measured with the post-traumatic cognition inventory (pcti) with higher scores representing greater dysfunctions and negative cognitions. Trauma memory was measured with the Trauma Memory Quality Questionnaire (TMQQ) with higher scores representing more sensory-based and poorly verbalized memories. Emotional regulation was measured using the Difficulties in Emotional Regulation Scale (DERS) with higher scores representing greater difficulties with emotional regulation. All 3 variables conceptually represented theoretical constructs of the development of PTSD. Initial data from the baseline survey was used conducted a 1-way ANOVA to compare the difference in post-traumatic cognition, quality of trauma memory, and emotional regulation in those that screened positive for PTSD as compared with their peers. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The majority of this population (80%) experienced at least 1 traumatic life event. This sample experienced an average of 10.5 lifetime traumas (SD=10.6). Of those experiencing trauma about 20% (n=8) reported a positive PTSD screen (PCL-5). There were significant group differences among those screening positive for PTSD and their peers in the following variables: (1) pcti (F1,24=10.43, p<0.004), (2) TMQQ (F1,29=11.02, p<0.002), and (3) DERS (F1,36=19.68, p=0.000). The majority of this population (80%) experienced at least one traumatic life event. This sample experienced an average of 10.5 lifetime traumas (SD=10.6). Of those experiencing trauma about 20% (N=8) reported a positive PTSD screen (PCL-5). There were significant group differences among those screening positive for PTSD and their peers in the following variables: 1) pcti [F(1,24) = 10.43, p<.004], 2) TMQQ [F(1,29) =11.02, p<.002], [F(1,36) =19.68, p=.000]. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This sample reported high rates of trauma and PTSD. Constructs representing memory theory (cognition dysfunction, quality of memory, and emotional regulation) all significantly differed among participants with PTSD compared with their peers. Consequently, it may be useful for trauma interventions to target the maladaptive post-traumatic cognitions, quality of traumatic memories, and emotional regulation in this population. These results will inform work that aims to explore if a trauma intervention, based on the memory theory can improve PTSD symptoms. Anticipated data collection completion in March 2017 (n=120).

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To fulfill the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute’s (Indiana CTSI) Community Health Partnerships’ (CHeP) mission of improving the health of Indiana residents through community-university partnerships, CHeP engaged with community partners to develop and implement a pilot award program for community-based participatory research, the Trailblazer Award (TA). The objective is to describe the engagement processes throughout the pilot program timeline and as the pilot program evolved over the 6-year period since the program started. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Though a process of engagement with community stakeholders, we assessed the process for each year of the TA, noting what changes occurred and how they occurred. Engagement for the TA process occurred during the following phases: RFA development, review, active project support, dissemination of project results, and project/partnership follow-up. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: During the RFA development phase, we decided to focus the award on health equity for 5 years; and we implemented structural changes to encourage new partnerships in underrepresented and rural areas. During the review phase, we incorporated both community and university reviewers and co-moderators. To increase capacity among our reviewer pool, we offered webinars and repeated opportunities to serve as reviewers. During the project support phase, we added the following: community-based CITI training; opportunities for networking with peer awardee teams; and community and academic co-led sessions on addressing recruitment barriers, grant writing, and dissemination to a community audiences. Through our active engagement of the CHeP Advisory Board, one Board member (from Indiana State Department of Health) leveraged matching funds for the TA, effectively doubling the number of projects supported each year. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Whereas previous work has reported on engagement during the review process of pilot award applications, we discuss ways to extend engagement to include other aspects of a pilot program both before and after the review process. In our process, several key partners offered insightful changes that have resulted in a more engaged program.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Community stakeholder engagement along the translational spectrum of biomedical research has been identified as a potentially crucial factor for encouraging participation among underrepresented groups, improving research relevance, and adoption of evidence into practice. Although we have developed various methods to improve communication between researchers and community stakeholders, we have not focused much attention on the manner by which community stakeholders choose to communicate with researchers in scientific feedback settings. In our PCORI funded study using Community Engagement Studios to elicit feedback on research from community stakeholders, we found that feedback from participants was frequently provided in the form of stories. This presentation aims to describe these narratives, examine their function in the feedback process and consider how a focus on these narratives enhances our understanding of community engagement for clinical and translational research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The present study comes from a larger randomized, controlled methodological study. We randomized 20 investigators seeking input on their research to either a Community Engagement Studio (a panel of community members or patients) or a Translational Studio (a panel of researchers). Any faculty member or research trainee at Vanderbilt University or Meharry Medical College was eligible to participate. Each Studio panel was convened to provide project-specific input. The 153 stakeholders who participated in CE Studios were patients, caregivers, or patient advocates identified by health status, health condition, or demographic variables based on the project-based needs of the 20 researchers randomized in this project. Stakeholders include individuals with diabetes, heart failure, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell disease, and ICU survivors. All stakeholders had experience as a partner or consultant on a research project or through serving on a research advisory board or committee. All Studios were recorded and transcribed, and experienced qualitative researchers analyzed the data. For this paper, we focus on the narrative feedback in the form of stories elicited in the CE Studios. Using qualitative methods, we coded the transcripts from the 20 CE Studios to identify stories and their functions in the feedback. Stories were defined as narratives with (a) at least one actor (b) action that unfolds over time, and (c) a realization, destination, or conflict resolution (i.e., a point of the story). For example, “I refilled my mother’s pillbox on Sunday and on Friday I found the pillbox still completely full” would be a story, however, “my mother doesn’t take her meds correctly” would not. We coded the stories for how they facilitated communication in the Studio using an open-coding style, that is we did not apply a specific theoretical framework of interaction or communication. It was possible for any given story to have more than one code applied to it; that is they were not classified in a mutually exclusive way. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We found 5 major functions of stories in the Studios. Basic sender-receiver functions were noted, including responding to queries and seeking mutual understanding. The other functions served to move or add to the conversation, including adding expansion and depth, characterizing abstract concepts, and providing context, with the latter being the most frequent function of stories. Speakers provided context in a wide variety of dimensions, ranging from the context of the body to spatial and institutional contexts. These stories served to help others understand the speakers’ lived experiences. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: We often engage community members in research for their expertise with regards to their lived experiences as patients or community members, and for their experiences of healthcare and social determinants of health in particular community contexts. Yet we may expect them to share their expertise in a manner that is consistent with a scientific, explanatory framing and language. However, we know there is a difference in the way that professional researchers discuss research Versus how community members discuss research. In our PCORI study, we found that our Community Studio participants relied on storytelling as an important means to communicate their lived experiences. Their stories were often key to communicating the complex contexts of their experiences. We focus on examining these narrative practices and their functions in how community members engaged with and provided advice to researchers. This understanding may help us in: (1) Characterizing the contexts, processes, and meanings associated with community stakeholder experiences that are otherwise difficult to access. (2) Identifying community priorities relevant to research that are embedded in community narratives to better align research priorities with community needs and to improve patient outcomes. (3) Collecting insights for improving the design of community engagement activities in research. (4) Harnessing more fully the potential of community engagement in research.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Penn State KL2 Career Development Program provides a comprehensive structured training and mentorship to junior faculty scientists (KL2 scholars). The goal of this study is to describe the perceptions of scholars after completion of the training and determine self-perceived impact of the program using exit interviews as a unique method. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Ten KL2 scholars (5 from each cohort of 2014 and 2017) participated in the evaluation. We used a descriptive qualitative design supplemented with quantitative data, to conduct an individual in-depth exit interview with each scholar to understand their perceptions on the impact of the KL2 program. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide developed by the program directors including scholars and a Likert scale survey. Thematic analysis of the data involved: reading and re-reading transcripts, identifying and categorizing keywords and phrases and developing overall themes that explained the processes within categories. In establishing rigor, two authors carefully coded, categorized and identified patterns and emerged themes which were also reviewed and confirmed by the other authors. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Two sets of themes emerged. The main themes that described positive aspects of the KL2 program by scholars included: Interdisciplinary Collaboration, Mentoring, and Protected Time for Independent Research. Scholars also identified some contrary themes that included: Limited Access to Expenditures, Changes in Individual Mentorship Needs and Areas for Improvement. On a Likert scale (1- not at all, 10-extremely likely), scholars reported high positive influence of the KL2 program on their scope of research (8.7±0.52) and future career (8.5±0.70). They also found mentorship experience with primary mentor (9.6±0.22) and team (8.5±0.54) as well as peer collaboration (8.5±0.67) opportunities highly beneficial to their career and professional development. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The qualitative study strengthens the reliability of data and scholar recommendations collected via other evaluation measures. Findings broaden understanding of the processes through which program outcomes are achieved effectively and where modifications are needed. An updated program for cohort 3 was guided by cohort 1 and 2 interview responses.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The complex health profile of those supervised by community corrections places them at a greater risk of morbidity and mortality from social disruption, infection, and of substance misuse, relapse, and overdose. This study aims to explore individual and social determinants of SUD and treatment utilization for this population. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A secondary data analysis was conducted using an administrative database from the Department of Corrections of Puerto Rico (DoC-PR) that included individuals under community supervision between 2015 and 2018 (N=13,163). Two logistic regression analysis were performed to predict SUD and SUD treatment utilization. The predictors included in the models were: a) age, b) gender, c) civil status, d) education level, e) employment status, f) income, g) number of dependents, h) housing zone, I) type of crime, j) offender classification k) community sentence classification, and k) sentence duration. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 4,531 cases (34.4%) were identified with an SUD and of these 79.2% were enrolled in treatment. Significant predictors of SUD included a parole sentence (vs probation), commission of felony, decreasing sentence duration and recidivism. Significant demographic variables include, male, single, younger age, unemployed, residing in an urban zone and decreasing income. Significant predictors for SUD treatment utilization were a probation sentence, older age and residing in a rural zone. Mandated treatment may explain a higher likelihood of treatment utilization, yet prevalent modalities consist of residential abstinence based, non-professionalized services known to have poor treatment outcomes. The current data set does not include follow up data to assess changes in treatment utilization. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We should aim to prevent health and social disparities and risk of sentence revocation associated with interventions that lack evidence to support their effectiveness. Next steps should address challenges and opportunities for the adoption of EBPPs for individuals with an SUD under community corrections supervision.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS) supports faculty and staff in carrying out clinical and translational research at UNC-Chapel Hill. To better understand customer satisfaction and impact, a survey was administered among NC TraCS users. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: NC TraCS has 13 program areas that range from Biostatistics to Community and Stakeholder Engagement. These programs provide services to faculty, staff, students, and outside researchers in the area of clinical and translational science. A customer feedback survey was administered in Spring 2019 to anyone who had used at least one NC TraCS service between March 1st, 2017 and February 28th, 2019. A total of 856 survey invitations were sent. The survey included questions around users’ perception of the ease of access, helpfulness, outcome, and promptness of the services received using 6-point Likert scale. The survey also addressed career impact, communications, and suggestions for improvement. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We received 268 responses, (31% response). Majority of respondents were satisfied with Overall Helpfulness (95%), Outcome of Service (96%), Ease of Access (93%), and Promptness of Service (90%). They also noted that their careers had at least slightly improved in the following areas: Mentorship (76%), Research Methods (75%), Skill Development (77%), Research Direction (71%) and Collaboration (80%). Furthermore, 96% responded positively to returning to TraCS. The feedback received was shared with service administrators and NC TraCS leadership to identify areas of improvement and further strengthen their services. Concerns, when present, were addressed by service directors or the overall PI’s. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Need to communicate expectations to customers the expected turn-around time for help emerged as a clear take-away. In response, TraCS leadership is working to improve staffing and workflows for efficient service delivery including expectation management, especially among the most popular services.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Verbal communication is a critical component for professional development and leadership. Yet, many clinical translational scientists lack the skills in communication of their scientific work in a meaningful and exciting manner that conveys the potential impact of their work on human health to the lay public, stakeholders, and to other scientists in different fields. We hypothesized that formal communication training could improve information transfer by trainees that would enhance their career development. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We therefore formalized a program for the KL2 scholars at the Ohio State University Center for Clinical and Translational Science that provided training from communications experts to develop a short, concise, and relevant talk about their field of research to general audiences. The program was a hybrid of workshop and individualized training. It culminated in each of the six scholars presenting public talk at the OSU STEM research dissemination and outreach space, the STEAM Factory. The scholars were administered a survey to assess their knowledge of the concepts presented in the training prior to and following the receiving the treatment, as well as their overall assessment of the experience. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The poster will present the positive results of this evaluation and the impact of the training on the KL2 scholars. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The poster explain the training as a model that other CTSA KL2 programs could adapt for their trainees.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: All IN for Health’s Advisory Board is an active board providing advice on strategic directions, feedback, contributing ideas, and accountability. Most recently, the HAB had 4 openings. A call to our community of over 13,000 individuals was published. We received 488 applications. We share the lessons in motivations and interests shared respondents. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Four hundred eighty-eight individuals submitted applications for participation in the All IN for Health Advisory Board. The call went out to the All IN for Health volunteer research network comprised of community members across the state.The call mentioned a nominal compensation of $50/hour, and time commitment of a 2-hour board meetings via video conferencing every 3 months. The application process included the following questions: 1. What lived experiences and/or personal interests have motivated you to be involved in All IN for Health? 2. Please explain why you are interested in being an All IN for Health Advisory Board member? RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We organize the findings in two categories: Motivation and Interests. The motivation category refers to individual’s motivation to be part of the All IN for Health initiative. Interest category referred to individual’s specific interest in participating in the All IN for Health Advisory Board. Individuals were motivated to participate based on (1) family or friend diagnosis, (2) personal diagnosis, (3) roles as caregivers, (4) desire to impact change and advocacy, (5) role as health professional, and (6) previous participation in research. Interests followed similar themes with additional categories of sharing their experience, previous research and board experience, as well as a desire to educate future generations of researchers. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We share the narratives honoring individual stories for the top three motivations and interest. This information can be used for recruitment to boards, research participation, and healthcare advocacy, and highlights importance of sharing successes and challenges to the processes of forming and sustaining effective boards.