ABSTRACT IMPACT: A robust and collaborative network of expertise and services is essential for successful research commercialization, including timely and scalable educational support for CTSA institutions and individual faculty investigators with biomedical innovations. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Leverage expertise at the University of Michigan (UM) by creating collaborative and scalable interactive online courses to instruct and prepare internal and external faculty to navigate critical stages of life science academic research commercialization. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: UM’s Fast Forward Medical Innovation created two online courses with the UM Office of Technology Transfer and the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR). Collaborative planning committees, with content and educational experts, set course goals and learning objectives based on audience needs (e.g. preparation for consultations, commercialization concepts, etc.). Draft content was developed, peer reviewed, and revised before Articulate Storyline was used to convert didactic content to active learning content (e.g. interactive slides, scenarios, quizzes, and forms). Pilot testing was conducted prior to the launch to faculty investigators throughout the UM network. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Intellectual Property in the Academic Setting launched via the FFMI website and newsletter in July 2020 and has had 66 learners to date. Medical Device Regulations launched in October 2020 and has 22 learners. OTT and MICHR have successfully integrated the courses into their consultation process by requesting review from faculty investigators. We suspect that this will lead to more in-depth and meaningful conversation. Additionally, these courses have been integrated into an FFMI commercialization course to instruct on critical concepts. Evaluation and refinement for both use cases will ensue, as well as inform future collaborative courses. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Early results suggest that the courses are advantageous and can serve as a model for future collaborations. The opportunity to disseminate the courses across the CTSA network, as well as collaborate with other institutions, to scale localized expertise to a broader network is promising.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: This presentation highlights an integrated curriculum in CTR and a scientific entrepreneurship approach to entice and support students and faculty in HP programs into CTR and SE thus expanding the pool of new minority CTR researchers. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To present the TVMSC as a hub for trainings, mentoring programs, courses, entrepreneurship and support activities for health professionals(HP) and HP students :graduate (GS) and UgS and UgF. Responding to the need for CTR minority researchers, in a virtual setting due to COVID-19 crisis. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: TVMSC will offer an educational program based in the Center for Research,Entrepreneurship and Scientific Collaboration (CRESCO) with on line courses and workshops in CTR and SE, for HP and students and a continued education curriculum for HP and clinician scientists toward a certification in CTR. Two hands-on experiences: a) a Pilot project program(PiP) with teams composed of an F, that previously completed training cycles and a research experience from a previous project in CTR as PI, with a research mentor and students or an established researcher as a PI with UgS and UgF, and b) participation in a SE team which will engage in training and submission of an SE project proposal. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: By the end of the five-year period the project will have had 200 UgS, 200 GS and 200 F that received online assistance in CTR skills, statistics and SE; 48 UgS and 48 GS with the skills in SEFL. In curricular development the project expects to have 6 online tutorials created, one FLSE online course and 18 modules in CTR content areas available for continued education of HP. Certifications in CTR will be completed by 160F/HPs. The expected participation in CTR on-hands experiences is 32 F, 64 students and 32 established researchers. PiP teams will publish at least 8 scientific papers and SEFL teams will submit at least 5 SE project proposals and 100% increase in CRESCO web based resources DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: This Project and its expected results will provide students and faculty members island-wide with the knowledge, skills and experiences in CTR with IE approach to foster the expansion of a cadre of Hispanic minority CTR researchers in direct benefit of the health of the people of Puerto Rico.

Understanding patient and caregiver experiences is a critical component of the conception, design, and implementation of clinical research studies. The “Database of Individual Patient Experiences” (DIPEx) is an innovative, evidence-based approach for eliciting rich information about health experiences. We conducted a formative evaluation with 14 pediatric oncology researchers to assess the value of using data from a DIPEx study on patient and caregiver experiences with childhood cancer to inform patient-centered research in pediatric oncology. Participants identified barriers to incorporating patient perspectives and experiences into their research and how the DIPEx approach could be leveraged to facilitate this practice.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: This study works to improve the quality of clinical and translational workforce development programs in order to enhance the training of researchers in the field. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Evaluating the impact of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Programs is crucial. To this end, the value of competency-based metrics to assess the professional growth of CTSA awardees is unknown. A needs assessment was conducted to determine the present use and potential need for a competency-based self-assessment tool. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A mixed methods study was conducted using synchronous live interviews and asynchronous online surveys. Study authors contacted 102 CTSA administrators nationwide for live interviews according to I-Corps ******„¢Customer Discovery Guidelines. Interviews were recorded and transcribed through Innovation Within, an I-Corps „¢online platform and independently analyzed by two members of the study team. An online REDCap survey was also distributed to 63 CTSA hubs via an internal listserv. In an attempt to elicit responses similar to the I-Corps „¢Customer Discovery Guidelines, the survey asked questions related to the use of competency assessments and requested explanatory responses but did not explicitly ask respondents if they needed a competency-based self-assessment tool. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Overall, 30 unique CTSA hubs participated. Interview requests and surveys had a response rate of 22% (22 out of 102) and 33% (21 out of 63), respectively. Of the interviewees, 32% (7 out of 22) reported existing use of a competency-based assessment tool, and 59% (13 out of 22), inclusive of those already using a tool, indicated a clear need for one. Of the survey respondents, 62% (13 out of 21) already use a CBST. Interviewees highlighted preferred features for a CBST: customization, soft skills assessment, and integration with local academic institutions. Communication and teamwork were highly valued soft skills, a finding reinforced by survey results in which 80% of respondents marked oral and written communication and teamwork as important skills for their professional workforce. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Among CTSA administrators involved with workforce development, there is notable interest in a competency-based self-assessment tool, particularly one that is customizable, soft skill-focused, and integrated with local educational systems.

Community research advisory councils (C-RAC) bring together community members with interest in research to support design, evaluation, and dissemination of research in the communities they represent. There are few ways for early career researchers, such as TL1 trainees, to develop skills in community-engaged research, and there are limited opportunities for C-RAC members to influence early career researchers. In our novel training collaboration, TL1 trainees presented their research projects to C-RAC members who provided feedback. We present on initial evidence of student learning and summarize lessons learned that TL1 programs and C-RACs can incorporate into future collaborations.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: The successful conversion of an in-person biomedical research commercialization education course to a fully virtual and flipped experience (self-paced) allows greater participation from faculty investigators at CTSA institutions and serves as a model for similar educational programs intended to accelerate the translation of biomedical innovations to products of impact. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Due to COVID-19, University of Michigan’s Fast Forward Medical Innovation developed new educational resources and leveraged virtual learning tools to convert a successful in-person research commercialization course to a fully virtual, flipped format and evaluated the effectiveness of the converted course compared to the in-person equivalent. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Two novel interactive modules (intellectual property and FDA regulation) and five instructional videos (customer discovery, value proposition, opportunity sizing, target product profile, and patent searches) were developed while Constant Contact and Zoom were used for a weekly progression of content delivery and to flip the course: (1) forming/testing value propositions, (2) intellectual property, (3) regulatory, (4) medical reimbursement, (5) business case development. A total of 32 faculty and graduate students completed the virtual, flipped course and submitted a post-course evaluation. Results of the converted course were compared to evaluation results from the in-person course. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Open rates for the weekly email content were: (1)61%, (2)67%, (3)65%, (4)67%, and (5)59 %. Total views for the modules and videos were: IP-28, regulation-19, customer discovery-62, value proposition-21, opportunity sizing-66, target product profile-11, and patent searches-29. Evaluation results from the virtual course (n=22) were compared to mean results from the 5 previous in-person courses (n=42); 86% of virtual course respondents stated the course met the objectives compared to 85% of in-person respondents; 87% of virtual respondents stated the course met their expectations compared to 100% of in-person; 87% of virtual respondents said they would participate in a follow-up program compared to 94% in-person; 91% of virtual respondents would recommend the course to others compared to 97% of in-person. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Email open rates and content views suggest positive flipped participation. Overall, the converted course was comparable to the in-person course at meeting objectives, suggesting the virtual format is effective at delivering the course content and holds the potential for engaging a broader audience.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: NJ ACTS provides mentored coaching in NIH grant writing for early stage investigators. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Launching an independent academic careers requires the ability to effectively communicate the purpose and impact of biomedical research in order to obtain extramural funding. We sought to develop and evaluate an interactive grant writing group of junior faculty and senior postdoctoral fellows mentored by trained coaches. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Participants meet monthly for 1 hour to peer review Specific Aims pages for grant applications to NIH and private foundations. Sessions are moderated by two senior faculty trained as coaches by the National Research Mentoring Network. Participant grant submission and review of the program are collected annually. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: From 2019-2020, 15 faculty and 2 postdoctoral fellows participated in the grant writing group with an average of 5.7 participants each month. Over the year, participants submitted 53 grant applications (68% submitted to NIH with the majority being R21 or R01 grant mechanisms). Half of grants submitted were discussed during peer review sessions. Of the grants reviewed, 42% were funded or near/below the funding payline. Using a 5-point Likert scale, participants highly rated the quality of coaching (mean/SD: 4.9 ±0.2), time discussing their research (mean/SD: 4.5 ±0.8), and the input from other participants (mean/SD: 4.5 ±0.5). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: In conclusion, a monthly meeting of junior investigators hosted by two grant writing coaches is an effective means to receive peer review of grant application aims and support submissions for extramural funding.

In this paper, we introduce the Team Effectiveness Model for Science (TEMS) and describe a multiphase set of interventions for forming a new team or developing an existing team. TEMS uses a shared mutual learning mindset as the model’s central and guiding element. It shows how team mindset leads to behavior and to results and how this affects the characteristics of effective team functioning. TEMS addresses two related questions: What are the variables that contribute to effective teams? and How do the variables need to be designed to make their relevant contributions? Team models often answer the first question without fully answering the second. By addressing three gaps, TEMS contributes to enhancing science team effectiveness. Gap 1 is the absence of explicit core values, assumptions, and norms that serve as the foundation for developing and maintaining science team effectiveness. Gap 2 is the absence of a process for integrating the science and relationship aspects of a science team. Gap 3 is the absence of team processes and structures that are derived from the team’s values, assumptions, and norms. Using TEMS to design new or intervene with existing teams focuses on shifting mindset, developing behavioral skills, and designing processes and structures congruent with the new mindset.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: Rapid launch of a virtual internship can address clinical and translational science training needs of the New Jersey Alliance for Clinical and Translational Science (NJ ACTS) workforce during a pandemic. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The global pandemic has necessitated innovate strategies for training clinical and translational scientists. With trainees largely restricted from campus, the Workforce Development Core of the NJ ACTS Hub sought to develop and evaluate a virtual 8-week internship program for professional and graduate students within the NJ ACTS community. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Establishment of the internship required a systematic approach to 1) recruiting projects and supervisors, 2) collecting and evaluating 90 applications, 3) screening and selecting finalists, and 4) onboarding interns that spanned 7 weeks. Core Leads and Researchers within NJ ACTS developed 8 projects to be performed remotely by 11 interns. Leads and co-leads from the Team Science, Special Populations, Community Engagement, Informatics, and TL1 Cores and Programs designed projects. During the internship, participants engaged in a series of career development training and one-on-one mentoring through weekly meetings. The internship culminated in a final symposium open to the entire clinical and translational science community. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Interns spanned different educational programs - pharmacy (36%), medicine (18%), and undergrad (9%)/graduate education (36%). Interns included women (63%), students from underrepresented backgrounds (27%) and students who were first in their family to pursue advanced education (18%). Project topics included competency assessment, COVID-19 clinical trials, marketing materials, community engagement salons, eSource for clinical trials, team science projects, and REDCap utilization. Using a 4-point Likert scale to evaluate competencies, the baseline strengths of interns included team-based science (mean/SD: 3.5 ±0.7). Trainings were designed to address gaps in intern skills including developing written and graphical abstracts (mean/SD: 2.2 ±0.9) and effective LinkedIn pages (mean/SD: 2.4 ±1.0). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Taken together, the rapid development and launch of a virtual internship program can increase participation of trainees in CTSA Hub research activities and address gaps in their clinical and translational skill set. Plans are to host virtual internships each semester to enhance workforce training and collaboration across Hub Cores.

Achieving the clinical, public health, economic, and policy benefits of translational science requires the integration and application of findings across biomedical, clinical, and behavioral science and health policy, and thus, collaboration across experts in these areas. To do so, translational teams need the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to mitigate challenges and build on strengths of cross-disciplinary collaboration. Though these competencies are not innate to teams, they can be built through the implementation of effective strategies and interventions. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) has contributed robust theories and evidence of empirically-informed strategies and best practices to enhance collaboration. Yet the field lacks methodological approaches to rigorously translate those strategies into evidence-based interventions to improve collaborative translational research. Here, we apply lessons from Implementation Science and Human-Centered Design & Engineering to describe the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science (WITS) framework, a process for translating established team science strategies into evidence-based interventions to bolster translational team effectiveness. To illustrate our use of WITS, we describe how University of Wisconsin’s Institute for Clinical and Translational Research translated the existing Collaboration Planning framework into a robust, scalable, replicable intervention. We conclude with recommendations for future SciTS research to refine and test the framework.

Routine, nonmedical and ancillary medical costs associated with participation in clinical research create barriers to enrollment for economically disadvantaged individuals. To the extent that race, ethnicity, and gender are linked to SES, such barriers impact efforts to diversify clinical research enrollment. But payment policies and practices often reflect the longstanding and singular concern that payment to participants will bias decision-making and compromise informed consent. We argue that this concern must be viewed in a larger ethical context in which the untoward consequences for the individual participant and for the broader research enterprise are considerable when either inadequate or no payment is provided for expenses incurred (“reimbursement”) and time committed (“compensation”). Fairness in payment and protection from undue influence of payment on the informed consent process are important but distinct ethical considerations. Fundamentally, approaches to payment that leave participants financially worse off as a consequence of taking part in research are inherently unjust as they have a differential impact on recruitment and retention based on socioeconomic status. Sponsors, funders, investigators, and IRBs must be cognizant of the impact of inadequate payment on clinical trial inclusion of historically understudied groups. We address practical and fair payment strategies to advance inclusion, the additional barrier of ancillary medical costs, and potential unintended consequences of payment.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: We present new programs aimed at training, retaining and preparing a diverse cadre of scientists to lead the field in transforming population health and advancing health equity OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To mitigate biases inherent to the R01 grant funding process, trainees from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine (URM) may benefit from enhanced mentorship and a longer ‘runway’ to funding. As such, we have deployed two synergistic programs that aim to support URM retention and advancement. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The URM Program for Advising in Research and Development (UPwARD) pairs URM trainees with 2 mentors: 1) an institutional leader from outside their discipline to serve as an internal advocate and 2) an external eminent scholar who will facilitate the scholar’s development and prominence within their discipline. Additionally, the KL2 Program to Launch URM Success (KL2 PLUS) offers URM trainees a third year of funding to focus on scholarship, grant writing and leadership development. Four specific training components of KL2 PLUS include: 1) PLUS II Seminar Series, 2) Faculty Success Program, 3) attendance at the AAMC Minority Faculty Leadership Conference, and 4) CTSI Committee Service. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Along with measures of productivity (papers, grants, K to R transition), we will utilize social network analyses and measures of collaboration, retention, and future CTSI engagement to evaluate the programs “success’‘ as both are designed to enhance trainee scholarly development and expand their professional and social networks. UPwARD does so by supporting engagement with external mentors at professional meetings and travel to present work across institutions. PLUS writing accountability groups will enhance publication rates and grant submissions, while also building connections with other URM faculty. Trainees also serve on IN CTSI committees to groom talent for future IN CTSI leadership. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Systemic inequities underlie the ‘leaky pipeline’ challenge we face in cultivating a diverse cadre of senior scientists and independent investigators. With intentional programming and targeted investments, IN CTSI aims to advance more equitable funding outcomes and diverse leadership.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: The Wake Forest School of Medicine Mentor Academy has adapted to provide continued effective and relevant formal mentoring training to translational researchers in a virtual format, to improve mentoring and provide effective mentor-mentee communication tools. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To determine whether the WFSM Mentor Academy (MA), an effective long-standing mentoring program for research faculty, is compromised after moving from an in-person to an online format as a result of COVID-19 restrictions. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A vetted National Research Mentoring Network (NMRN) implemented at WFSM addresses 6 major competencies (Effective Communication, Aligning Expectations, Assessing Understanding, Addressing Equity/Inclusion, Fostering Independence, Promoting Professional Development) over 6 months with 10 sessions (20 contact hrs). COVID-19 required that the MA (13 participants) move to an online format after 3 (out of 10) in-person sessions. We survey 26 self-rated mentoring competencies pre- and post MA, based on a numerical 7-point scale (abstract published for ACTS 2020) and, in 2020, included additional assessments of online versus in-person MA satisfaction/effectiveness and perceived impact on abilities of MA participants to mentor in an exclusively virtual format. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: All 13 participants responded to the survey and rated the online format as effective (9) or somewhat effective (4) for learning content. However, for participant interactions, only 4 found it effective and 9 somewhat effective. When assessing ability to mentor in a virtual format, most negatively affected competencies were ‘helping your mentee network effectively’ (7 of 13), ‘motivating your mentee’ (7), and ‘identifying and accommodating different communication styles’ (6). Goal setting (research goals, career goals) was rated easier under COVID-19 restrictions by 3 mentors. Increases in Pre-Post self-expressed mentoring effectiveness (+1 pt quality; +1 pt meeting mentee expectations) are similar to historical values, and 12 of the 13 mentors changed mentoring practices based on MA experiences. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: While 2020 ratings for increased effectiveness are similar to prior years, since the 2021 MA will remain online, we will adjust content to address challenges identified in training mentors and in mentoring trainees in virtual settings by strategies to keep MA participants engaged online and sharing new resources for virtual/hybrid format mentoring.

Rigorous scientific review of research protocols is critical to making funding decisions, and to the protection of both human and non-human research participants. Given the increasing complexity of research designs and data analysis methods, quantitative experts, such as biostatisticians, play an essential role in evaluating the rigor and reproducibility of proposed methods. However, there is a common misconception that a statistician’s input is relevant only to sample size/power and statistical analysis sections of a protocol. The comprehensive nature of a biostatistical review coupled with limited guidance on key components of protocol review motived this work. Members of the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design Special Interest Group of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science used a consensus approach to identify the elements of research protocols that a biostatistician should consider in a review, and provide specific guidance on how each element should be reviewed. We present the resulting review framework as an educational tool and guideline for biostatisticians navigating review boards and panels. We briefly describe the approach to developing the framework, and we provide a comprehensive checklist and guidance on review of each protocol element. We posit that the biostatistical reviewer, through their breadth of engagement across multiple disciplines and experience with a range of research designs, can and should contribute significantly beyond review of the statistical analysis plan and sample size justification. Through careful scientific review, we hope to prevent excess resource expenditure and risk to humans and animals on poorly planned studies.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: We report a novel metric for assessing clinical informatics fellows relative to their personal goals, using standardized milestones that have been approved for the field by ACGME. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: ACGME has defined 20 milestones that serve as the goals for fellows in clinical informatics. Each fellow is rated from 1 to 5 on the achievement of each milestone, where 1 is entry-level, 4 is the level expected of a graduating fellow, and 5 is aspirational. We assessed fellows’ progress toward the personal goal levels that they set for each milestone. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: At the start of the fellowship, we asked each fellow to rate the personal target levels that they want to achieve for each milestone. Since the default target level of achievement for a graduating fellow is a 4, we asked fellows to document exceptions from this target. We calculated a metric for each fellow’s achievement of each milestone as their achievement rating (assigned by mentors and rotation leaders during the semi-annual Clinical Competency Committee meeting) divided by the fellow’s desired level of achievement. In summarizing across the milestones, we counted those milestones having achievement metrics >=1.0 as ‘achieved,’ and then for milestones that were not achieved, we calculated an average for the fellow. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: As of June, 2020, our two graduating 2nd-year fellows had fully met 9/20 and 18/20 milestones, respectively. For the unmet milestones they averaged 81% and 85% achievement. The largest shortfalls were 75% achievements in Assessing User Needs for one fellow, and in Recognition of Errors for the other. One of our three 1st-year fellows had fully met 3/20 milestones; the other two had met none at 1st-year’s end. For unmet milestones, the 1st-year fellows’ average achievement metrics were 69%, 67%, and 52%. The greatest shortfalls were in Resource Utilization (creating job descriptions, budgeting etc.) and in Communication with Patients and Families. However, the rotations that would expose them to project management and to patient-facing systems such as MyChart come in our 2nd-year. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Assessing milestones met plus the percent achievement for those not yet met provides a useful metric for comparing fellows and identifying areas in need of more training. Although milestones will soon change to reflect the recent practice analysis for clinical informatics, we expect that this approach to assessing fellows will remain equally useful.

We used a Zoom Un-meeting as an educational approach to provide experienced clinical research professional (CRP) adult learners a collaborative learning space to learn more about current issues for academic medical center (AMC) clinical research workforce development and collaborate on solution finding. CRPs operationalize the conduct of clinical trials and represent a significant brain trust for the Clinical and Translational Science (CTSA) consortium hubs with their vast knowledge base, extensive experience, understanding of relevant institutional policy, organizational culture, and clinical research operations. Un-meetings are an intentionally organized and coordinated group activity that encourages participants to focus on a topic and incorporate an open flow of ideas through brainstorming and an open discussion format, setting the stage for future collaborative action. We divided topics into a series of six consecutive monthly Un-meeting Zoom workshops. Ultimately, one resulting output from the meeting was the Center for Leading Innovation and Collaborations (CLIC) synergy paper award to support continued collaborative work. Currently, work teams have emerged to analyze qualitative data from brainstorming and breakout session recordings and to identify small-group activities. We describe this adult learning tool as valuable for exploring issues of AMC CRP professional development. This approach encouraged creative/critical thinking and opportunities for leadership, team science, and problem-solving among participants.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: By understanding Junior investigator characteristics and CTSA support services which strongly influence scientific productivity and impact, we will inform and improve research training and enhance the career development of future generations of clinical and translational science researchers. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: In the field of clinical and translational science, the career trajectory and definition of Junior Investigators (JIs) vary greatly. This study aims to investigate JI characteristics, training, and support that contribute to career development at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Clinical and Translation Science Institute (CTSI). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Every 18 months, the UCLA CTSI administers the Longitudinal Scientific Achievement Survey, which collects information on the predictors of scientific productivity and impact. In 2018, a special supplement was added to survey JIs who received CTSA support between 2011 and 2017 (n=305), including questions on knowledge, use, and effectiveness of CTSA specific support, barriers and facilitators of research, scientific productivity, and perceived scientific impact. A literary analysis was conducted to explore previous categorizations of JIs. The JIs in our sample conducted bench to bedside, population and policy research at our four partner sites. Bivariate and logistic regression analysis were conducted to examine the significant predictors of a new grant award attributed to the CTSA support/services. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The survey response rate was 82% (n=250). Respondents include core voucher co-investigators, enrollees in the Training Program in Translational Science, and K- and K-to-R workshop participants. Bivariate results showed new grant awardees significantly more likely to have the following characteristics: physician scientist with an MD and PhD (47%), pilot grant awardee (42%), core voucher awardee (49%), four or more types of CTSI support (48%), prior affiliation with an NIH institute/center other than NCATS (42%), and reported at least one impact in science, health, and/or the community (72%). Multivariate results showed that investigators with a prior core voucher award, a prior NIH affiliation, or reported one or more impacts were the strongest predictors of obtaining a new grant (each with OR>=4.0). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The most successful investigators consulted with NIH program officers and received feedback on their research plans and methods. Sufficient funding is crucially important to research progression. In our CTSA hub, vouchers and grants to initiate new studies or offset costs of existing research are consistent predictors of new extramural funding.