OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: (1) Evaluate the auditory narrative process as a learning experience for interviewer, editor, and interviewee. (2) Discuss methodologies for developing or selecting audio narratives and suggest how to effectively integrate them into the DPT curriculum, or thread into individual coursework. (3) Experience and appraise podcast components developed for a DPT psychosocial aspects of disability course. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Students were provided preassessment and postassessment on empathy. Other methodologies include conducting interviews, developing story boards, and editing audio narratives. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Learner feedback indicated that course material was experienced in a way that deepens one’s understanding of the complex and challenging issues facing patient, caregivers, and themselves as they embark on their profession. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The utility of integrating different modalities within coursework is to enrich learner experience to encourage self-reflection and awareness of not only their identity but that of multidisciplinary collaborators.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Innovation in healthcare is increasingly dependent on technology and teamwork, requiring effective collaboration between disciplines. Through an intensive team-based competition event, Mount Sinai Health Hackathon 2017, aimed to harness the power of multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration to foster innovation in the field of cancer. Participants were immersed in an intensive weekend working in teams to develop technology solutions to important problems affecting patients and care providers in the field of cancer. The learning objectives were to enable participants to: Identify cancer-related healthcare problems which lend themselves to technology-based solutions. Delineate key behaviors critical to multidisciplinary team success Identify optimal strategies for communicating in multidisciplinary teams. Engage and inspire participants to apply knowledge of technology to meaningfully impact clinical care and well-being. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Mount Sinai Health Hackathon is an annual 48-hour team-based competition, using a format adapted from guidelines provided by MIT Hacking Medicine. The 2017 event gathered a total of 87 participants (120 registered), representing 17 organizations from as far away as California, with a diverse range of backgrounds in bioinformatics, software and hardware, product design, business, digital health and clinical practice. The overall participation model included: Phase 0: Health Hackathon 101 summer workshops; Phase 1: pre-Hackathon priming activities using online forums Trello and Slack; Phase 2: a 48-hour onsite hackathon to catalyze innovation through problem sharing, solution pitches, team formation and development of prototype solutions; Phase 3: competitive presentations to judges and prize awards; Phase 4: a suite of post-hackathon support to stimulate continued development of innovations. The event sponsored by ConduITS, was also co-sponsored by Persistent Systems, IBM Watson, Tisch Cancer Institute, Sinai AppLab, Sinai Biodesign and other ISMMS Institutes. Mentors circulated throughout the event to support the teams in the technical, clinical, and business development aspects of their solutions. In total, the 14 teams formed during the Hackathon, created innovations ranging from diagnostic devices, networking apps, artificial intelligence tools, and others. The top 3 teams were each awarded $2500 to support their projects’ future development. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Qualitative and quantitative post-event survey data revealed the Hackathon experience fostered collaborative attitudes and a positive experience for participants, providing insight into the potential benefits of team science. In the post-event survey (n=24) 92% of participants reported that the experience increased their ability to solve problems and 96% made new professional or personal connections. In addition, 96% of respondents would attend future Hackathon events and 75% reported they were likely to continue working on their project after the Hackathon. Qualitative feedback from 1 participant reported it was: “a wonderful event that really highlighted how much interdisciplinary team science can achieve.” Along with intermediate support interactions, including the winning teams participating in a Shark Tank style event with pitches to external entrepreneurs and investors, all teams will be followed up in 6 months time to determine if participants continue to work on projects, file new patents, create new companies, or leverage the new connections made through the Health Hackathon experience. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our experience indicates that a Health Hackathon is a compelling and productive forum to bring together students, trainees, faculty, and other stakeholders to explore tech-based solutions to problems in cancer and other areas of biomedicine. It is a valuable tool to foster collaboration and transdisciplinary team science and education. Follow-up analysis will determine to what extent the Mount Sinai Health Hackathon is contributing to an ecosystem that encourages professionals and trainees in healthcare and in technology development to work together to address unmet needs in healthcare with innovative technology solutions.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Opinions regarding translational science vary incredibly. We aimed to gather a baseline of perceptions, barriers, and needs for translational science among faculty investigators. We will use these data to define areas in which the Duke Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Translational Science program (MERITS) can work to address, educate and improve. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Data was collected via a scalar, multiple-choice, open-ended survey including questions regarding, definition, impact, barriers, resources, and training preferences specific to translational science. Digital survey links were emailed to Duke University faculty. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In total, 350 responses were collected. While perceptions of translational science varied, common defining elements were noted, including multidisciplinary collaboration (69%) and transitions between research stages (63%). Translational science was said to have an overall positive impact, despite 37% of participants stating issues of insufficient institution-wide support and 62% citing minimal training in translational science skills. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Effective support for translational science requires a multi-faceted approach, as perceptions differ among investigators and between career stages. Duke MERITS will seek to standardize education and support ranging from teambuilding to entrepreneurship, and to promote support from institutional leadership to reduce barriers and facilitate acceleration of translational science.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The use of digital practices and approaches can potentially increase the quality and efficiency of all phases of the traditional clinical translational research (CTR) process. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe key stakeholders’ perspectives on the need to: (A) formalize training in digital practices and approaches among CTR trainees; and (B) develop an aligned educational framework that defines core competencies, educational methods, and evaluation metrics. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Participants (n=66) were recruited via email from June to November 2017 using purposive and snowball sampling methods across 4 groups: (1) English speaking national and international experts from academic and private sector institutions with working experience in using digital practices and approaches in research (n=36), (2) CTR educators (n=8), (3) CTR trainees (n=13), and (4) Members of the Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute at the University of Southern California (n=9). Online focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured, open-ended interview guide through Google Hangouts and a conference call interface. Sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and 2 research team members performed independent content analyses to identify before and emergent themes using an inductive analytic approach. Kappa was calculated for inter-rater agreement and repeated until agreement was at least 0.70. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Participants’ average age (41.2 yrs, SD 9.26), gender (59% females), non-Hispanic (97%), race (72% White), and doctoral degree (67%). In total, 85% reported experience in teaching digital practices and approaches in research, although 70% were currently not teaching in this field. Participants reported that complementary teaching in digital practices and approaches across the 15 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) CTR competency areas was relevant, especially in literature review, research implementation, statistical approaches, biomedical informatics, regulatory support, responsible conduct of research, scientific communication, translational teamwork, cross-disciplinary training, leadership, and community engagement; and less so in literature critique, study design, sources of error, and cultural diversity. Additional competencies were identified, for example, online study recruitment, crowdfunding, team and project management, scholarly impact metrics (Altmetrics), ethical and regulatory guidance for conducting research using digital approaches. Five main educational practices were identified including online training sessions, flexible on-demand modules, in-person consultations and training, and project-oriented hands-on workshops. Among the identified challenges were the need for clear metrics in order to evaluate such a training program. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: There was consistent support for a structured program to help CTR trainees to develop competency in digital research practices and approaches. Our results indicate that an education program focused on digital practices and approaches should include a step-wise approach to meet different research and training goals, allowing attendees to increase their awareness and specialized hands-on practical experience.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Hispanic Clinical and Translational Education and Career Development program entails formal research training (Phase I) through an established post-doctoral Master of Science in Clinical and Translational Research. The most qualified graduates from Phase I compete to receive 1–2 years support for continued mentoring and career development (Phase II program) aiming to apply for a regular research grant or career award (K or R series). OBJECTIVE: This project aims to present an evaluation of the Phase II program and Scholars outcomes. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: METHODS: Participants (n=12) responded to a semistructured interview including 43 questions about program’s processes and outcomes. Descriptive and content analysis was done. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: RESULTS: Results show that 83% are women, 42% are MD, and 67% are affiliated to the University of Puerto Rico-Medical Sciences Campus and 67% were able to fulfill their career development expectations during the Phase II Award. At present (92%) are conducting clinical research in their current position. Outcomes include new selection of research line, K Awards, and enhanced skills in clinical and translational research DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: DISCUSSION: Challenges identified were: time management, better coaching and a more structured mentoring experience. The main benefit of the program were protected time, research budget, and the opportunity to acquire more research experience.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: As multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research has become imperative to solving the complex problems of contemporary healthcare, teaching researchers how to create and maintain high-functioning and innovative teams has also become paramount. In Fall 2016, the Center for Improvement Science (CIS) core, in collaboration with the Translational Workforce Development (TWD) core, at the Cincinnati Center for Clinical & Translational Science & Training (CCTST) began offering training in Team Science in an effort to better prepare researchers for collaborative work. Since then, the CIS has expanded Team Science education into a multifaceted and adaptable curriculum that includes workshops, team consultations, Grand Rounds, grant writing assistance, grant review, train-the-trainer, and a graduate-level course. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Over almost 2 years, we have offered 9 unique workshops attended by individuals from the University of Cincinnati, UCHealth, and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Recruitment was primarily accomplished via email invitations. Topics ranged from introductory team science issues such as Creating Teams, Team Effectiveness, and Team Leadership to more advanced team science areas such as Team Dysfunctions and Conflict Management. In addition, we have consulted with researchers on Team Science components of grant applications and served as grant reviewers for Team Science elements in a competitive, internal research funding program. We have developed tools and teaching strategies for faculty members tasked with teaching students about collaboration (train-the-trainer). And finally, we offered a graduate level course on Collaboration and Team Science. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Over 250 participants attended our workshops and Grand Rounds, many at the faculty level, but we also had research staff and graduate students register. Content was very well-received, with workshop evaluations typically scoring in the high 4.5 and above range (on a 5-point scale, with 5 being the highest rating). The CIS team received (and accepted) at least 2 follow-up invitations from workshop participants to provide training to an additional team or group. We are tracking data on long-term effects of team science training and consultation, both in research productivity and team satisfaction/longevity. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The goals of Team Science training at the Cincinnati CCTST are 2-fold: to provide practical knowledge, skills, and tools to enhance transdisciplinary collaboration and to promote systemic changes at UC, CCHMC, and UCHealth that support team science. After almost 2 years of training, team science is gaining traction among key leaders at our local institutions and a broader audience of researchers who see how collaborative practice can enhance their professions.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Describe (1) the components of the research navigation service and consultation/onboarding program, (2) use and adoption of the services, and (3) the overall satisfaction from the research community. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Duke offers 2 programs to support researchers: Research Navigation and Researcher Onboarding. The services aim to connect researchers to resources, offices, funding opportunities, and other collaborators. The general Research Navigation Service is an on-demand “hotline,” where navigators answer questions from researchers across the institution, helping them understand processes, best practices, and how to locate resources or potential collaborators. Navigators can be reached via the myRESEARCHhome portal, email, or by phone. The researcher onboarding program is a free 1:1 consultative service, focused on the researcher’s individual portfolio, stage of career, and immediate plans in the research arena. The goal is to equip researchers “from the start” to be successful. Researchers are identified via the new faculty hire list, or by referral. Both services are provided by the myRESEARCHnavigators team, who are trained in a variety of research areas, from basic to clinical to social sciences, and are familiar with Duke. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Use of both services has increased substantially over the year. Of the almost 200 faculty members hired into the School of Medicine in 2017, ~75% have taken part in the onboarding program, and 91% have rated the service as 5-stars. The content of the sessions will be described. The Research Navigation service has fielded hundreds of calls since its inception, with topics including Equipment and Facilities (55 requests), Study start up (44 requests), Innovation and Technology (15 requests), and Regulation and Policy (25 requests). Categorization of requests, users of the services, and other information about the programs will be described. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The navigation and onboarding services are proving to be a successful way to increase efficiency and understanding of processes and resources across the institution. Feedback from the users, coupled with high referral rates to the programs, suggests that the program is helping researchers feel better equipped with regard to their research planning, conduct, and analysis.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To determine if an educational intervention designed to increase respiratory therapists’ knowledge of the modified early warning score (MEWS) would influence their intention to use the MEWS. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A web-based self-administered survey based on the constructs of the TAM as well as awareness, attitude, and job-relevance was developed and validated using traditional scale development process and distributed to 75 respiratory therapists (RTs) from the respiratory care department of Rush University Medical Center. RTs were recruited for participation in the study using consecutive sampling. The RTs were then given a training session on the MEWS after which they were again asked to complete the survey. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The response rate to both the pre and post survey was 60 percent. Of the 46 participants recruited to the study, the educational intervention elicited an increase in the MEWS knowledge score in 45 participants compared with the knowledge score prior to the educational intervention. Additionally, there was an increase in the behavioral intention score post intervention in 30 participants compared with the behavioral intention score before the educational intervention. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test determined that there was a statistically significant median increase in MEWS knowledge score (2.0) post educational intervention (4.0) compared with pre-educational intervention (2.0), p<0.0005. There was also a statistically significant median increase in behavioral intention score (0.667) pre-educational intervention (4.0) compared with posteducational intervention (3.0), p<0.0005. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Numerous studies over the last 4 decades have demonstrated that change in behavioral intention is a good predictor of change in behavior. Consequently, the increase in the respiratory therapists’ behavioral intention score post MEWS education suggests that they may be more inclined to incorporate the MEWS score in their assessment of patients if they are educated about its clinical relevance. Additionally, the study results verified key postulates of the TAM, suggesting that the TAM is an appropriate model for assessing respiratory therapists’ perception and reaction to new systems, and may also help respiratory care managers develop new mechanisms that facilitate respiratory therapists’ adoption of new systems and processes.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To provide students an opportunity to select health care-oriented course work that reflects both their interests and the increasingly diverse spectrum of health professions education and health care careers. To increase the opportunity for students to enter professional schools and health care professions with enhanced engagement and experience. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The 4-credit elective (Selective) curriculum is a component of the 38 credit Duke School of Medicine Master of Science in Biomedical Sciences (MBS) program which is completed over 10.5 months. Students work closely with their advisors to choose activities that reflect their interests. Selectives are offered by an array of schools, institutes, and programs within Duke University, including: the School of Medicine, School of Law, Global Health Institute, Bioethics and Science Policy Master Program, Clinical Research Training Program, Center for Documentary Studies, and Medical Informatics. Students may also pursue directed studies in areas such as health policy, or an inter-professional trip to Honduras. In addition to the course-based Selectives, three research practicum options are offered: Community Engagement, Clinical Research (Duke Office of Clinical Research), and a self-selected mentored research experience. Finally, the MBS program offers 2 in-house specific Selectives: Fundamentals of Learning: Theory and Practice, and Planning for Health Professions Education. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The MBS program accepted its first cohort of students in June 2015. Two cohorts have graduated and the third has begun (n=30, 2016; n=42, 2017; n=43 enrolled, 2018). Our students come from diverse background with a third from populations historically underrepresented in STEM due to race/ethnicity, and another third underrepresented due to other factors such as low socioeconomic status, first generation to college, LGBQT, and those from rural and immigrant communities. Thus far, Selective distribution has been: Clinical research practicum (7, 2016; 14, 2017; 9, 2018); Mentored research practicum (2, 2016; 1, 2017); Community engagement practicum (7, 2016; 4, 2017; 5, 2018); Planning for health professions educations (14, 2016; 32, 2017; 33, 2018), Fundamentals of learning: Theory and Practice (7, 2016; 17, 2017; 18, 2018); documentary film (1, 2016); inter-professional trip to Honduras (2, 2016, 2, 2017). Since the implementation of the curriculum, at least 53 of 70 students who have applied (76%) were admitted to health professions or other graduate schools despite having lower initial MCAT and undergraduate GPAs in aggregate than the average of students who matriculate to allopathic medical school programs: 41 to medical schools, 3 to dental school, 2 each to osteopathic and physician assistant schools and 1 each to physical therapy, business school and law school. Eighteen of the 2016 graduates, and 21 of the 2017 graduates work in research for their gap year following graduation, the majority being employed in our institution’s research programs providing a pipeline of trained research assistants and coordinators. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Lessons learned by implementing our curriculum include the following: (1) students are eager to explore different areas of health care; (2) collaboration across schools, centers, departments, institutes, and offices increases our ability to identify common areas of interest; (3) implementing a diverse curriculum can be challenging due to the need for significant organization and planning; (4) the diversity of courses can be a source of confusion when there is a lack of standardization in learner expectations; (5) continued collaboration across, schools, centers, institutes programs, health professions and sections requires a significant amount of time and expertise. However, our programs demonstrate significant positive impacts both on students and at the institutional level. Our program shows that a diverse curriculum leads to a high number of students engaged in pursuing and successfully continuing a health profession education. Institutional benefits include a robust pipeline for a diverse research workforce.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The need to diversify the biomedical research workforce is well documented. The Career Education and Enhancement for Health Care Research Diversity (CEED) program at the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Clinical Research Education (ICRE) promotes success and helps seal the “leaky pipeline” for under-represented background (URB) biomedical researchers with a purposefully designed program consisting of a monthly seminar series, multilevel mentoring, targeted coursework, and networking. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Over 10 program years, we collected survey data on characteristics of CEED Scholars, such as race, ethnicity, and current position. We created a matched set of URB trainees not enrolled in CEED during that time using propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since 2007, CEED has graduated 45 Scholars. Seventy-six percent have been women, 78% have been non-White, and 33% have been Hispanic/Latino. Scholars include 20 M.D.s and 25 Ph.D.s. Twenty-eight CEED Scholars were matched to non-CEED URB students. Compared with matched URB students, CEED graduates had a higher mean number of peer-reviewed publications (9.25 vs. 5.89; p<0.0001) were more likely to hold an assistant professor position (54% vs. 14%; p=0.004) and be in the tenure stream (32% vs. 7%; p=0.04), respectively. There were no differences in Career Development Awards (p=0.42) or Research Project Grants (p=0.24). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Programs that support URB researchers can help expand and diversify the biomedical research workforce. CEED has been successful despite the challenges of a small demographic pool. Further efforts are needed to assist URB researchers to obtain grant awards.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The objectives for the Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency course within KAIZEN-Edu was to provide a platform that allows essential training, in a novel and customizable approach, for a large number of students across the multiple institutions within the UAB CCTS Partner Network. Successful implementation across this geographically diverse of partner institutions would serve as proof of concept to future dissemination across the CTSA consortium. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used the “build a game” tools within Kaizen-Edu to design the “Rigor and Reproducibility Game.” The games consisted of four modules, with 20 questions designed to test participant knowledge, and edify learners on particular concepts through a multimedia approach (embedded video, text, and hyperlinks to articles) with content provided as questions released over 4 weeks. Researchers from across the UAB CCTS Partner Network developed comprehensive modules for (1) How Scientists Fool Themselves/Scientific Premise, (2) Authentication of Chemical and Biologic Resources and Sex and Other Biologic Variables, (3) Statistical Rigor, and (4) Comprehensive Review. A typical week began with review articles (1–2) sent to each participant. The participants are informed that 5 questions will be released midweek testing the key concepts from the papers. When ready, the participant logs into Kaizen-Edu and starts to answer questions/play the game. Immediately, the articles are opened for reference, followed by a brief 4–5 minute video which reinforces key concepts and then timed questions begin. A typical question is allowed 3 minutes (visible countdown clock). Accurate responses result in the addition of points, with double points awarded for correct answers within the questions time limit. No points are awarded for incorrect answers. After each question, a detailed explanation reviews and reinforces the key concepts. Each participants’ points contribute to both their individual score and team scores, which influences their position on the Rigor and Reproducibility game leaderboard. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Within 2017, the Rigor Reproducibility, and Transparency course was conducted 5 times. A total of 126 researchers across 9 institutions were enrolled. A total of 87 enrollees completed the full course, with 80% passing (answering ≥75% of questions correctly) on their first attempt and an additional 20% passing on a second attempt. The distribution of completers across the CCTS Network was UAB=48, Auburn=13, Pennington=10, University of Alabama=5, Hudson Alpha=5, Tulane=4, University of South Alabama=1, LSU=2, and Southern Research=1. Researchers throughout at Partner Institutions represent 46% of the total population trained. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This software based, gamification-enhanced course was broadly accepted with each session fully enrolled, and learners spread almost evenly between our institution and various Partner Network sites. Our pilot proved that gamification was an effective technique to engage users and produced a high pass rate, suggesting that the content both engaged learners and was effectively internalized. Educational interventions, imbued with principles of gamification provide educators powerful tools that use competition and/or collaboration to disseminate knowledge, engage learners with content, and save educator time as created game content can be reused in additional educational sessions. Analyses of the data trail provided by users engaging with such electronic learning tools will provide educators will insights on how to maximize learning, opening the door to an era of educational analytics.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Clinical Research Operations Program is a free educational program designed to educate clinical research personnel on the conduct of clinical research (CR). The participant completes 16 required core sessions (24 h), 4 elective sessions (4 h), and passes the final exam to receive a certification in CR operations at Stanford. Sessions focus on the 9 domains of CR (established by the Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency), such as Ethical & Participant Safety Considerations, Clinical Study Operations, & Data Management/Informatics. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Sessions are taught by volunteer lecturers. Participants may also attend the sessions without pursuing the certification. The program objective is to provide easy-access education in CR in order to increase regulatory compliance, staff retention, and improve CR at Stanford. The program targets CR coordinators, however, staff, postdocs, fellows, and faculty also participate. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since the program’s launch in January 2017, 119 individuals have enrolled in the certification program. The most represented group is the Department of Medicine. Sessions consistently reach their maximum with a waiting list. Each core session requires that the participant complete an evaluation (Likert scale, 1–5) of the registration process (4.5/5), the class environment (4.6/5), the presented content (4.5/5), and the instructor (4.6/5). Data from these evaluations are positive to date and is used to continually refine the program. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: N/A.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Objectives/goals: Describe the process used to develop leveled competencies and associated examples. Discuss the final leveled competencies and their potential use in clinical research professional workforce initiatives. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The revised JTFCTC Framework 2.0 has 51 competency statements, representing 8 domains. Each competency statement has now been refined to delineate fundamental, skilled or advanced levels of knowledge and capability. Typically, the fundamental level describes the competency for a professional that requires some coaching and oversight, but is able to understand and identify basic concepts. The skilled level of the competency reflects the professional’s solid understanding of the competency and use of the information to take action independently in most situations. The advanced level embodies high level thinking, problem solving, and the ability to guide others in the competency. The process for developing both the three levels and examples involved 5 workgroups, each chaired by a content expert and comprising of national/international clinical research experts, including representatives from research sites, professional associations, government, and industry and academic sponsors. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The committee developed 51 specific competencies arrayed across 3 levels and examples of each to demonstrate an appropriate application of the competency. The competencies and examples, and potential utilization, will be described. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The use of competencies in the context of workforce development and training initiatives is helping to create standards for the clinical research profession. These leveled competencies allow for an important refinement to the standards that can be used to enhance the quality and safety of the clinical research enterprise and guide workforce development.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To establish a conceptual framework to develop a CTS-IDP with data analytics, and an e-Learning Faculty Development Guide on best practices and use of the IDP over the CTS academic life-course. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To accomplish our goal, we propose the following methods: (1) an online survey, using a convenience sample of the 24 KL2 CTSA IDP Collaborative members (conducted in 2017), to assess perceived needs for a universal CTS-IDP, current IDP practices, barriers to IDP use, and to discern and align each CTSA Hub’s interests, expertise and commitment to specific areas of the study; (2) A scoping narrative literature review, utilizing the Arksey and O’Malley framework covering the time period corresponding to the initiation of funding (1999) of the original K30 Clinical Research Curriculum Awards through to the present CTSA funding period, incorporating Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) keywords (career development; career development plan; employee plan; mentoring plans; compacts; research contracts; career planning; mentor guide), initially delineated by USC reference librarian and to be expanded by reference librarian services from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and University of Rochester, and performed on NIH searchable databases including NCBI PubMed, Central and Medline & Worldwide Science; Web of Science, ProQuest, ProQuest Abi/Inform, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Ovid MEDLINE databases, as well as Google for published papers in English and Spanish. For this portion of the work, we will describe and characterize (1) research career development or progression constructs, domains, and milestones; (2) establish the presence or absence of defined and/or pre-specified timed milestone objectives and inclusion of SWOT analytics (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) and/or Gantt chart approaches; (3) delineate IDPs structure, toolkits and their key features (competencies, skills acquisition and processes utilized); (4) and identify specific gaps to best address the need for personalized career development education. Based on this review, we will synthesize CTS milestones, develop a time frame for meeting RCD expectations, and establish RCD benchmarks for achieving these milestones, all in consensus with the IDP Collaborative Workgroup. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of the IDP CTSA’s responded to the online survey, led by University of Rochester, and the results can be summarized as follows: (1) 100% agreed that the IDP process is important and should be considerably improved to optimize effectiveness; (2) a range of diverse IDP formats are utilized, making comparisons across programs difficult; (3) 50% of CTSA hubs report only fair to good compliance with the IDP process; (4) a major barrier to the IDP process is lack of instruction regarding how best to utilize; (5) poor alignment of currently available IDPs designed for basic science PhDs with CTS investigators; (6) an absence of a CTS specific IDP to best foster RCD for this specific career trajectory. When asked: What are the barriers to writing a detailed and thoughtful IDP, responses in order of agreement from greatest to least were: No verification of acquired competencies, beyond self-report (56%), Static platform (38%), Not constructed for clinical and translational researcher (31%), No analytical or documentation on use (31%), No instruction given to scholars on how to use it effectively and efficiently (31%), The IDP we are using is more constructed for PhD students and postdoctoral fellows (25%), No instruction given to the scholars on why it is important as adult learners (19%), and Not constructed for early career physicians/scientist (13%). Additional progress has been made on our Scoping review: An initial ABI/Inform and PubMed USC research librarian conducted search using Author names yielded 72 articles, of which only 2 were relevant to the topic at hand. A ProQuest™ search yielded 19 potentially relevant articles, 11 of which were of relevance to the topic of IDPs; and a Google Scholar search yielded 18 and 25 on career development and self-management, respectively. This has enabled us to put forth an initial model of factors that impact the purpose and design of IDPs that includes? DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Discussion: Our initial data suggests that many CTSA institutions see the need to further enhance the mentoring process with a more informed and personalized IDP template and process. Furthermore, our initial scoping review suggests a framework upon which to build specific components of a more ideal and useful IDP to best guide mentored research career development of CTS trainees. Significance: Developing and evaluating collaborative evidence-based CTS IDP and corresponding e-Learning Guide could potentially prevent or reduce important delays in RCD, a common roadblock for the translation of clinical interventions. Ultimately, the CTS-IDP serves not only to support and frame a scholar’s RCD “habits of mind” during training and early career development but to also to achieve a sustainable long-term career at a CTS researcher equipped to meet the ever challenging and dynamic research landscape.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The TL1 Team approach aims to train translational investigators capable of tackling complex and multifaceted diseases, such as hypertension, by beginning multidisciplinary, team-based training early in their graduate programs. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Leanne Dumeny is a graduate student in Genetics and Genomics studying how pharmacogenomics can be applied to improve clinical care and cardiovascular outcomes. Chu Hsiao is a graduate student in Anthropology studying how sociocultural experiences become biologically embodied. Both are in the Ph.D. phase of M.D.-Ph.D. training. Joining the seemingly disparate but complementary fields of anthropology and genomics facilitates understanding of the intersection between socially driven experiences and genetics on nocturnal blood pressure. Understanding both social determinants, such as racial discrimination, and biological determinants, such as genetics, is important because an interplay of gene-environment interactions influences many complex diseases. Rarely can 1 individual, or 1 discipline, tackle all the perspectives necessary to answer these types of complex questions. The TL1 Team curriculum teaches students to navigate the spectrum of translational research as a team, reflect on disciplinary limitations, and embrace collaborative research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This team project will investigate the relationship between racial discrimination and genetics using a large epidemiological cohort of African Americans in Mississippi. The data request application is currently under review. By the project’s end, the team anticipates their investigation will reveal novel associations between racial discrimination, genetic polymorphisms, and nocturnal blood pressure measurements. The investigators will have gained experience obtaining and analyzing large external data sets, working in diverse team settings, collaborating across state-lines, and publishing articles. Through this team approach, the students will also understand the barriers to working in multidisciplinary groups, and develop a foundation for approaching future collaborations. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: By joining anthropology with genomics, it becomes possible to understand the intersection between socially driven experiences of racial discrimination and genetics on nocturnal blood pressure. The successful training of this first cohort of team-applicants to the TL1 funding mechanism can impact how graduate education will be structured and could reframe graduate education to emphasize a team-based approach.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Responding to the need and interest of students and faculty of the UHSP in learning about CTR, the Title V Cooperative Project between UPR-MSC and UCC, developed and offered a training cycle (TC) in CTR. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Undergraduate students (US), undergraduate faculty (UF), and graduate students (GS) were invited to register in: Research Education Towards Opportunities (RETO) and Mentorship Offering Training Opportunities for Research (MOTOR), which consisted of 20 hours of training in CTR, with interdisciplinary sessions in: Introduction and preparation of a presentation in CTR; Identify, interview and share a presentation of a CT researcher; participation in conferences and a summer camp in CTR. At the end of the TC, surveys—satisfaction and needs assessment—for training in CTR were administered. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Thirty-three (33) registered in the TC, distributed: 13 (39.39%) US in RETO, 12 (36.36%) GS and 8 (24.24%) UF in MOTOR. Of these, 25 (75.75%) answered and submitted the on-line surveys and received a completion certificate. All (100%) were satisfied with the TC, and for 96% of the respondents, their expectations were fulfilled, and will continue in the TC. They selected critical review, scientific communication, and cultural diversity as thematic areas of interest. In addition, 60% of them selected neuroscience, cancer and medical imaging as main research areas of interest. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The TC demonstrated to be an effective strategy to provide new knowledge, experiences, and interest in CTR. It also established a pathway for future engagement in CTR.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Indiana CTSI is investigating innovative approaches to integrate resources that will enrich scientific investigators. Our goals are to enhance the availability and communication among CTSI resources, for example internal funding, and to expand existing mentorship. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Developed a reviewer database that serves to streamline reviewer identification, decrease reviewer fatigue, and promote collaboration among disciplines. We started with a pool of NIH-funded investigators from across the Indiana CTSI core institutions and merged this list with previous CTSI reviewers and internal funding awardees. To expand this list, names and expertise from new faculty hires were added. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Though this tool is relatively new, we have already observed an increase in junior faculty awareness and engagement with the CTSI. This database allows for increased opportunities of junior faculty to serve as reviewers and to refine grant writing skills and provides a platform for networking and collaborating across disciplines. It also allows for increased integration of programs with a shared reviewer database and promotes grant review standardization. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our database utilization seeks to decrease the time for junior faculty to obtain their first extramural grant, to enhance promotion and tenure packages, strengthen integration among CTSI programs, increase interactions between clinical and basic science investigators, and promote team science.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: A key factor for success in science is the ability to communicate clearly and succinctly using language appropriate to the audience. Most predoctoral training programs offer opportunities for students to build oral and written communication skills at local and national conferences. However, this rarely provides specific feedback and tends to be episodic. The Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS) has developed an environment for deliberate practice of presentation skills within a weekly Works in Progress and Journal Club session using a learning management system, Blackboard Collaborate. The learning management system captures the presentation that can then be viewed by the student. Watching yourself give a presentation is a powerful learning tool. The learning objectives of the sessions provide students deliberate practice to: (1) Build critical presentation skills for a 1-minute elevator talk, a 2-minute poster overview, a 10-minute oral presentation of your science to a science audience and to a non-science audience. (2) Develop constructive reviewer skills by completing peer reviews of presentations. (3) Develop critical thinking skills to ask thought provoking questions during presentations. By utilizing a curriculum that offers video-recording for reflection and self-evaluation, Mayo Clinic CCaTS has developed an environment in which predoctoral students are encouraged and supported to constantly hone their presentation skills. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: All CCaTS predoctoral students are asked to prepare presentations in several formats for the weekly 1-hour session. The students’ presentations of their science or journal articles are recorded and saved within Blackboard; a link is provided for the student to review personally, with a mentor, and with the Education Coordinator to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the presentation. During each session, faculty facilitators encourage students to ask thought provoking questions, and student reviewers are assigned to provide critical and constructive written feedback to the presenter. Sessions providing tools and guidelines for constructive feedback and developing critical and constructive questions are regularly interspersed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: By reviewing a video recording of their presentations, CCaTS predoctoral students get the opportunity to self-evaluate their performance as an audience member. By going through this process of preparing, presenting, reflecting on their presentations, and discussing their strengths and weaknesses with mentors and classmates, the students gain both powerful presentation skills and methods to improve their delivery and reviewer skills. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Successful scientists, whether in academia or industry, have the ability to communicate their science clearly using appropriate and common language specific to each audience they present to. By utilizing a curriculum that offers video-recording for reflection and self-evaluation, Mayo Clinic CCaTS has developed an environment in which predoctoral students are encouraged and supported to constantly hone their presentation skills.

OBJECTIVES: We developed the concept of the extra-territorial translational team (ETTT) in 2014 as a more inclusive revision and extension of the team science concept. Translational thinking is largely marked by the perception of the team as a thing-like structure at the center of the scientific activity. Collaboration accordingly involves bringing external others (e.g., scientists, community members, and clinicians) into the team through limited or dependent participation. The ETTT is intended to frame the team as an idea: a schema for assembling and managing relationships among otherwise disparate individuals with vested interests in the problem at hand. Thus, the ETTT can be seen as a process as well as an object. Our initial focus was on the very successful SCI Café program (where Science and Communities Interact) conducted through the Institute for Translational Sciences and the Center for Translational Sciences Award at UTMB. We found that by looking beyond the taken-for-granted features of translational research teams, we are free to discover new ways of organizing research and community engagement that are innovative yet productive. The major area of growth, however, has been the Research, Education, And Community Health Coalition (REACH). The purpose of the current study is to outline strategies for inventorying and evaluating the emerging programs that are the major components of REACH and the SCI Café and to suggest implications for the extra-territorial translational team concept. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The assessment of the extraterritorial team concept in REACH and SCI Café is primary a process of qualitative content analysis. We use semi-structured interviews with project leadership, observations of the actual performance of the REACH teams, and the review of REACH and SCI Café documents, for example, Quantitatively, we have conducted a Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) to better understand community health and resource needs. RESULTS: Both the SCI Café program and the REACH initiative follow the principles of the ETTT concept for assembling and managing research and community outreach. The following are several key principles shared by both programs: (1) The importance of creative, applicable, and inclusive mission statements: (a) REACH seeks to facilitate communication, collaborative research, and service efforts between UTMB and Institute for Translational Sciences investigators and Galveston County community leaders; (b) The SCI Café hosts interactive dialogs that serve as a medium for priming, organizing, communicating and strategizing among the individuals involved in team science via community-based research projects. (2) Increasing scientific and health literacy: (a) REACH seeks to increase literacy through both short-term and long-term interactions; (b) The SCI Café focuses on short-term yet intensive interaction through conversations among researchers, clinicians, and the public. (3) Sharing timely scientific public health information with the community: (a) REACH seeks information from community leaders on relevant topics; (b) The SCI Café can mobilize quickly to respond to timely topics by direct communication with a wide range of stakeholders, academic as well as community based. (4) Sharing leadership with the community: (a) REACH establishes formal relationships with 23 UTMB units and 39 broad-based, high impact Galveston County organizations. (b) The SCI Café works primarily with “grass roots” community-level groups and organizations. (5) Creating resources and strategies for expansion: (a) REACH is working to expand its activities to other counties in the Gulf Coast area of Texas (e.g., Brazoria and Matagorda Counties); (b) The SCI Café is expanding its program to comfortable locations accessible to local residents (e.g., schools and libraries). (6) The value of regular and systematic scientific and evaluation: (a) REACH is conducting a Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) that has already discovered major issues of relevance to community leaders including mental health, vaccination rates, food security, disaster preparedness, and caregiving. (b) The SCI Café conducts an evaluation survey at the conclusion of every event to stay current with participants interests and needs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: (1) In order to maintain the ability to operate extra-territorially (i.e., beyond the safe organizational confines of the University), the 2 programs discussed here must maintain a fluid team structure. Different projects require different types of leadership, grass roots participation, university resources, communications/public relations, etc. (2) The strategy of accumulating and disseminating best practices appears to be one of the most valuable products of the extra-territorial team. (a) REACH’s “Offer and Ask” practice by which information of university and community resources (skills and expertise) are shared makes cooperation and shared leadership explicit. (b) The SCI Café’s interactional strategies for encouraging and enabling café participants to join the discussion/conversation are wonderful ways to convert an otherwise unidirectional lecture into a vibrant conversation. (3) Although the scope of these 2 programs is quite different, the message from both is that the principles of extra-territorial translational teams are application to all such endeavors to improve scientific and health literacy.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Objective: The Rockefeller University Center for Clinical and Translational Science (RU-CCTS), Clinical Directors Network (CDN), and Carter Burden Network (CBN), a multisite senior services organization serving East Harlem, NY, formed a community-academic partnership to examine the use of a simple validated surrogate measure of overall health status and frailty in this population. Many CBN seniors are racial/ethnic minorities, low-income, and suffer from multiple chronic conditions, depression and food insecurity. Multiple biological, musculoskeletal, psychosocial and nutritional factors contribute to frailty, which has been defined variously in senior health outcomes research. The CTSA-funded Pilot Project aims to: (1) Engage CBN seniors and stakeholders in priority-setting, joint protocol development, research conduct, analysis, and dissemination; (2) Characterize the health status of the CBN seniors using validated measures; (3) Establish database infrastructure for current and future research; (4) Understand how health and senior activities information can be used to create programs to improve senior health. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Methods: (1) CEnR-Navigation, a collaborative program/process that consists of semistructured meetings and activities facilitated by expert Navigators, was used for partnership development and to engage Carter Burden seniors to refine priorities and research questions, provide feedback on study design and conduct, and analyze and disseminate results. (2) Standard physical measurements and validated survey instruments were used to collect health information; target enrollment is 240 seniors across 2 sites (1 hosted within a subsidized housing facility and Social Model Adult Day Program). (3) A REDCap-based platform was designed for data capture and import. Individual attendance at senior activities for the prior year was extracted from existing records. The primary outcome is frailty, as measured by validated walk/balance tests (Short Physical Performance Battery). Secondary outcomes include measures of engagement, and association of use of services/activities with the primary outcome. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: (1) In total, 29 residents and 14 other stakeholders engaged in partnership-building, study design and implementation. (2) From May to November 2017, 98 participants were enrolled from site 1 (a residential site). Enrollment at site 2 (a senior center), begun in November, is projected for February completion. Characteristics of site 1 participants: median age=63.6 years; Hispanic, 44.90% (44); White, 13.89% (10), Black, 62.50% (45); Asian, 4.17% (3); American Indian or Alaskan Native, 2.78% (2), and Other, 16.67% (12). Educational attainment: 51.04% (49) had not completed high school; 19.79% (19) were high school graduates; 18.75% (18) completed some college, and 10.42% (10) were college graduates. For the 85 participants reporting annual income: 64.71% (55) reported <$10,000; 28.24% (24) reported $10,000–$15,000; 7.06% (6) were among the ranges from $15,000 to $50,000. The average body mass index (BMI) was 30, which is obese. For 83.67% (82) of site 1 participants, the BMI was in the range of overweight or obese. Half of participants (49) reported health literacy barriers in the Single Item Health Literacy Survey. Demographics and Frailty assessments (walk and balance tests) for participants enrolled at both sites will be reported. (3) Activity participation data for July 2016–November 2017 were recovered for 507 sessions at site 1 and are being analyzed. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Here we report progress in developing a sustainable community-academic partnership, infrastructure and research capacity with the CBN senior services organization, and characterizing this at-risk population, of whom 71% have a high school education or less, 93% live in extreme poverty, and 84% are overweight or obese. A simple validated frailty measure in seniors will enable the acceleration of community-based translational research addressing senior health, and examine changes in this measure in relationship to the utilization of senior services.