OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The ITHS TL1 program is designed to grow trainees’ competence and knowledge in translational research. Our objective is to expand the program to the 5-state Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho (WWAMI) region by establishing a TL1 cohort at Montana State University (MSU). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Interdisciplinary training at the predoctoral level is ideal for preparing the future translational workforce. At this stage in their training, they have developed disciplinary expertise but have not yet narrowed their specializations. By expanding the TL1 program to include both University of Washington (UW) and MSU we are amplifying the robust academic research networks of both institutions, particularly programs in rural health equity, rural and tribal populations, and emerging infectious diseases. Using a collaborative, online educational model we will bring together trainees in a multi directional, joint training effort utilizing existing and emerging collaborations. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The anticipated outcome is to create a single program by bringing together a cohort of scholars from various disciplines spanning the translational science spectrum, with diverse types of research experience which enables them to learn from each other in a diverse setting. This will allow the program to more effectively grow trainee’s competencies and knowledge in multidisciplinary translational research methodology, as well as build skills in team science and cross-disciplinary communication. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: If successful, the ITHS TL1 program will prepare translational scientists with an awareness of diverse perspectives and contemporary research challenges. This would benefit the 5 state WWAMI region, which covers 27% of the total land mass of the US.

Academic and community investigators conducting community-engaged research (CEnR) are often met with challenges when seeking Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. This scoping review aims to identify challenges and recommendations for CEnR investigators and community partners working with IRBs. Peer-reviewed articles that reported on CEnR, specified study-related challenges, and lessons learned for working with IRBs and conducted in the United States were included for review. Fifteen studies met the criteria and were extracted for this review. Four challenges identified (1) Community partners not being recognized as research partners (2) Cultural competence, language of consent forms, and literacy level of partners; (3) IRBs apply formulaic approaches to CEnR; & (4) Extensive delays in IRB preparation and approval potentially stifle the relationships with community partners. Recommendations included (1) Training IRBs to understand CEnR principles to streamline and increase the flexibility of the IRB review process; (2) Identifying influential community stakeholders who can provide support for the study; and (3) Disseminating human subjects research training that is accessible to all community investigator to satisfy IRB concerns. Findings from our study suggest that IRBs can benefit from more training in CEnR requirements and methodologies

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Previous literature has suggested that the lack of participation of minorities and women in the science field affects research centers’ quality and competitiveness. This study assessed perceived self-efficacy, obstacles and factors that influenced the development of Hispanic women in a STEMM career. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This project followed a mixed-method approach with a convergent design. It included two simultaneous phases: an electronic survey as the quantitative phase and semi-structured interviews as the qualitative phase. Data was collected from an academic-research institution in Puerto Rico. A total of 71 questionnaires were collected applying the Baessler & Schwarzer General Self-efficacy Scale. Five women were interviewed using a semi-structure questionnaire. These women hold a tenure-track faculty position, have held a leadership position, had more than ten publications in peer-reviewed journals, and have received grants for research projects. The data was analyzed by triangulation. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The General Self-efficacy scale sum scores ranged from 26 to 40 and a mean score of 34.25 (SD=3.79). Items where all answered the higher score stated, ’Thanks to my qualities and resources I can overcome unforeseen situations’ and ’I can solve most problems if I put in the necessary effort.’ Age was the only variable showing statistically significant relationship with general self-efficacy. The most relevant factor facilitating the development in STEMM fields’ careers was the family support. Other contributing factors were the opportunities of employment, positions, professional development, financial status, early experiences during middle and high school, and good mentors, among others. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Results identified some contributing factors and barriers for Hispanic women’s career development in STEMM. Strategies must be implemented as early as middle school for girls showing interest in this field and should include administrative resources to support the career development of women.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Writing self-efficacy & self-regulation are tied to publication & grant submission” writers high in these traits are more productive. We investigated if participating in Shut Up & Write! would produce statistically significant gains in self-efficacy & self-regulation when comparing pre/post surveys. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: 47 US med students, TL1/KL2, & early-career faculty expressed interest in participating. We conducted a 12-week, 1 hr/week Shut Up & Write!-style (SUAW) activity, held on Zoom, and measured the effect using a pre-post survey adapted from the Writer Self-Perception Scale. Matched pairs t-tests (I2=0.05) to test for significant differences between pre- and post-test means were conducted on 3 subscales. The 3 subscales reflected writing attitudes (self-efficacy), writing strategies (self-regulation), and avoiding writing distractions (self-regulation). Subscales showed acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.80, 0.71, and 0.72. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 24/37 (65%) completed pre-post surveys. 81% presented as female. 60% were NIH-defined URB and/or were from MSIs. 60% previously participated in an activity similar to SUAW. Sum scale statistics for those who previously participated were significant for the self-efficacy subscale (p=0.020) and writing strategies subscale (p=0.041). Sum scale statistics for those who had not previously participated were significant for the writing strategies subscale (p=0.002). We saw no difference in the avoiding writing distractions subscale. 80% were very satisfied/satisfied with SUAW (I really loved these sessions” they helped me to identify a writing goal that could actually be accomplished in an hour.) DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We found significant differences in self-efficacy & self-regulation, building upon findings from a 2021 pilot, and providing evidence that regular participation in an activity like SUAW produces increased self-efficacy and self-regulation and may increase manuscript and grant-writing productivity

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Clinical Research Professional (CRP) shortages and high turnover rates directly impact the conduct of studies. A strategy for improving CRP retention is using Stay Interviews (SI), which are intentional exchanges between CRPs and leadership to enhance transparency and trust. Importantly, SIs are entirely separate from performance evaluations. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Representatives from seven academic medical centers formed a collaborative workgroup (WG) as part of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science (ACTS) Clinical Research Professionals Taskforce (CRPT) Special Interest Group (SIG). The purpose of this workgroup was to develop a Stay Interview (SI) toolkit that will empower leadership to retain high quality staff by engaging employees in open and responsive conversations about motivations to stay in their current roles. Tools previously used by collaborating institutions were evaluated and aligned to establish a sharable guide for SI best practices. Training resources to support leaders in effectively using SI tools were also developed to accompany the toolkit. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Discussions of current tool use among group members highlighted 2 categorical use cases: continuous integration to promote workforce engagement and retention; and targeted use to address acute workforce challenges. The WG identified the need for a standardized conversation guide as well as leadership tools to support effective use of the guide. From the examples collated, the group crafted a 14 question SI guide with additional probing questions that can be tailored to the work environment. Questions fell into 4 key themes: likes/dislikes, motivations, workplace influence on work life, and professional development barriers and opportunities. Anecdotally, SI use in other industries suggests that wide adoption is likely to reduce CRP workforce turnover and improve job satisfaction. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: SIs are designed to build trust and strengthen relationships, fostering positive change by acknowledging issues, understanding motivations, and increasing engagement. Leaders can make immediate actions: clearing obstacles, providing new resources, and increasing recognition. Our next step is implementing a pilot to gather workforce metrics.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To address investigator frustration and appropriate oversight for student interns performing clinical research activities, we created infrastructure to support matchmaking with clinical research teams and onboarding of student interns, thereby allowing for more meaningful internship experiences with access to clinical research systems. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Internship requests may be initiated by a student, an affiliated institution, or an investigator. Requests are triaged accordingly. Affiliation agreements define the parameters for these placements. Unaffiliated institutions may request an agreement by contacting CRISP; otherwise, unaffiliated interns will be classified as visiting scholars with restricted access. If a student is from an affiliated institution, the Clinical Research Internship Portal (CRISP) is used to collect and track information regarding the internship. CRISP provides: Matchmaking for student interns with placements Compilation of onboarding documentation Tools (e.g., learning agreements) for student intern supervisors Professional development workshop series for all student interns RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Launched in 2021, CRISP is a relative newcomer to the Duke research training landscape, but preliminary impact may be measured by the following metrics: Affiliated institutions: 8 agreements in place, 4 pending 25 student interns from 7 institutions placed across 11 departments/institutes 7-session professional development series garnering positive feedback from interns and supervisors Improved access to clinical and research systems aligned with clinical research activities Enhanced oversight and tracking of student interns across Duke enterprise Expansion of program to include internal and external student interns CRISP has engaged invested parties within and outside of Duke to ensure robust oversight of these valuable training opportunities and to create new pathways into our workforce. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Streamlining intern placements has lessened pain points related to including students in our research environment, both for investigators and institutional partners. Future plans include expanding the number of affiliation agreements, creating an interface to quickly triage intern requests, and scaling up the professional development series.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: There are few training programs for health research staff and clinicians like The Practice-Oriented Research Training program, that include opportunities to conduct funded clinical and translational research. The goal of this study is to evaluate the long-term impact of this program on participants professional development and advancement. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Practice-Oriented Research Training program for health research staff and clinicians was operated by the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research from 2008 through 2018. Participants received training and formed teams that received financial support to conduct a clinical or translational study with a faculty mentor. Eleven cohorts comprising 111 individuals participated. The long-term impact of the program was evaluated using sequential mixed methods. All participants were invited to evaluate the program via an online survey in 2021. Respondents were invited to participate in interviews in 2022. Secondary records of the participants’ publications, grants, and professional advancement were collected. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 68 participants in the PORT program published 345 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals following the program, averaging over 5 publications per participant. These publications have been cited over 4000 times with an average of over 13 citations per paper. Large proportion of program participants have continued contributing to health research; the vast majority of program participation chose to continue at the University of Michigan. Survey results indicate participants’ belief that the program had wide-ranging and enduring impacts on key aspects of their careers, including their application of research to practice. Interviews confirmed that the program helped many participants make substantial advancement in their careers. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Training programs for health research staff and clinicians can have a substantial and enduring impact on their professional development and advancement. The need for programs like PORT will increase as the health research workforce grows. These results inform recommendations for translational scientists.

The COVID-19 pandemic raised the importance of adaptive capacity and preparedness when engaging historically marginalized populations in research and practice. The Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics in Underserved Populations’ COVID-19 Equity Evidence Academy Series (RADx-UP EA) is a virtual, national, interactive conference model designed to support and engage community-academic partnerships in a collaborative effort to improve practices that overcome disparities in SARS-CoV-2 testing and testing technologies. The RADx-UP EA promotes information sharing, critical reflection and discussion, and creation of translatable strategies for health equity. Staff and faculty from the RADx-UP Coordination and Data Collection Center developed three EA events with diverse geographic, racial, and ethnic representation of attendees from RADx-UP community-academic project teams: February 2021 (n = 319); November 2021 (n = 242); and September 2022 (n = 254). Each EA event included a data profile; 2-day, virtual event; event summary report; community dissemination product; and an evaluation strategy. Operational and translational delivery processes were iteratively adapted for each EA across one or more of five adaptive capacity domains: assets, knowledge and learning, social organization, flexibility, and innovation. The RADx-UP EA model can be generalized beyond RADx-UP and tailored by community and academic input to respond to local or national health emergencies.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The duration of the apprenticeship program is 2 years, with promotability to: -Research Program Coordinators -Senior Coordinators. CRCs learn essential clinical research foundations through courses and instructor led training, mentoring, and shadowing of other CRCs, such as: -Good Clinical Practices (GCP) -International Committee on Harmonization guidelines (ICH) -Institutional Review Board (IRB) -Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) -Shipping Dangerous Goods (DOT/IATA) -REDCap data entry -Clinical Research Management System (CRMS) -Clinical Skills (i.e., vital signs, ECG, and phlebotomy) -CPR (etc.) -EPIC training RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: -Over 100 CRCs have been trained since 2012 -Currently more than 40 active studies assigned between 16 CRCs -Over 10,000 hours of clinical trial activity in the past 15 months -The program is moving towards cost neutrality CRCs have gained access to begin DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE:

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Establishing a career trajectory geared towards undergraduates interested in a biomedical career has led to the development of a Clinical Research Training (CRT) Program. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the student experience of the program. It is our hopes to train the next generation of clinical researchers straight out of undergrad. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Establishing the success of the recently established Clinical Research Training Program and creating quality improvement measures has been analyzed with a focus on 5 domains. Outcome quality measurements and evaluation of the following domains have been completed from a student’s experience. These domains include: 1) the capstone course, 2) the internship experience, 3) career development opportunities, 4) hands-on training opportunities, and 5) post-baccalaureate career plans or career attainment. Each of these outcomes have been collected from students who have completed the program as well as students currently enrolled. Data will be obtained via qualitative measures such as course surveys, Likert scale ratings, and evaluation of data-based outcomes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In this ongoing study, results will demonstrate there is a percentage of students who were directed into clinical research positions due to their exposure to the clinical research world during their undergraduate training. Transferable skills such as CITI training, knowledge of good clinical practice, and familiarity of current research topics are associated with a higher likelihood to pursue a career in clinical research. Students placed within an associated internship slot with the community partners has also led to an increase in career placement in clinical research. Other factors provided by the course such as establishment of an extensive network, exposure to career pathways related to clinical research, and an increase in cross-trainings that lead to increased advancement in the scientific domain. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: To address clinical research workforce gaps by training students during their undergraduate education. Also, by addressing this gap, we can begin to strengthen the career trajectory and goals of students interested in a career in the life sciences. By targeting this workforce, it can lead to an increase in diversity and retention in the workforce.

Revisions to the Common Rule and NIH policy require the use of a single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for the review of most federally funded, multisite research, with the intent of streamlining the review process. However, since initial implementation in 2018, many IRBs and institutions continue to struggle with the logistics of implementing this requirement. In this paper, we report the findings of a workshop held in 2022 to examine why sIRB review remains problematic and propose possible solutions. Workshop participants identified several issues as major barriers, including new responsibilities for study teams, persistent duplicative review processes, the lack of harmonization of policies and practices across institutions, the absence of additional guidance from federal agencies, and the need for greater flexibility in policy requirements. Addressing these problems will require providing additional resources and training to research teams, the commitment of institutional leaders to harmonize practice, and policymakers to critically evaluate the requirement and provide flexibility in applicability.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Assistive technology (AT) can improve older adults’ function in daily activities. However, Latinos are among the least likely to use AT. Given that primary health care physicians (PCPs) have low awareness about AT, this study aims to evaluate the usability and acceptability of an AT WebAPP among PCPs to increase older Latinos’ access to AT. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A team of an established researcher, a sub-graduate faculty and student, and a graduate student will recruit ten PCPs in Puerto Rico and will interview them to explore their current practice in addressing the functional needs of older Spanish-speaking Latinos. The researchers will then train PCPs in the use of a Spanish evidence-based AT WebAPP developed in one of our earlier studies. PCP participants will use the APP with their older patients for 30 days. At the end of the usage period, the analysis will include a mixed method design, consisting of the simultaneous collection of quantitative data using a validated scale followed by qualitative data through individual interviews. Quantitative data will be analyzed with descriptive statistics and qualitative data with thematic content analysis. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We expect that the AT WebAPP will be rated as particularly useful and acceptable by the PCPs to increase older Latinos’ access to information about AT that could compensate for their physical function disabilities. We also expect that PCPs will offer recommendations for enhancing the design and usability of the AT WebAPP. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Studying the usability and acceptability of this AT WebAPP among PCPs will advance our understanding of its feasibility in enhancing PCPs AT knowledge and recommendations of AT devices for older adults with disabilities in Puerto Rico and in Latino communities in the continental United States.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The training needs of clinical & translational scientists are evolving. Implementation of new curriculum content requires assessment of need, fit with current curriculum, incentives and barriers to implementation. We used implementation science methods to plan the implementation of a dissemination and implementation science training toolkit. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Tufts Clinical & Translational Science (CTS) Graduate Program is the training core of the Tufts CTSI and its associated TL1. To assess barriers and facilitators to implementing the University of Washington’s Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) Science Toolkit for TL1 Programs into the Tufts CTS Graduate Program, we used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We developed an interview guide based on CFIR constructs or categories of factors that might influence implementation of the D&I Toolkit and interviewed 8 stakeholders including leadership, trainees and faculty. We compared D&I Toolkit content to the current curriculum on stakeholder engagement (SE) and research study quality improvement (QI) to identify how the D&I Toolkit could be adapted to fit trainee and program needs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Stakeholder interviews and review of the current curriculum identified facilitators and barriers to implementing the D&I Toolkit in the Tufts CTS Graduate Program. The program has a strong SE focus and fosters the use of research study QI methods. Interviews identified student and faculty desire to implement the D&I content yet time constraints and overlap with the current curriculum were identified. The following plan to adapt the D&I Toolkit content to fit contextual factors was developed and executed: 1. Adapt didactic content to fit into a 90-min session. 2. Highlight the synergy between the current SE curriculum and the role of stakeholders in D&I science. 3. Modify course materials to highlight examples of disseminating local research results. 4. Limit the experiential learning component to a SE plan. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: TL1 training programs must balance competing demands in selecting curriculum content. The CFIR framework was used to systematically assess implementation barriers by engaging program faculty, students and leaders to identify implementation strategies. This process could be useful when evaluating the addition of other educational content.