This in-depth analysis illuminates a translational journey of a community-university research collaboration that examined health disparities among incarcerated pregnant women and spanned the translational spectrum, with the initial collaboration in 2011 paving the way for consequent research grants, publications, practices, programs, and legislation passed years later. The case study utilized data from interviews with research stakeholders, institutional and governmental sources, peer-reviewed publications, and news stories. Identified research and translational challenges included cultural differences between research and prison system; the prison system’s lack of transparency; politics of using and translating research to policy change; and issues of capacity, power, privilege, and opportunity when doing community-engaged research/science. Among the facilitators of translation were the Clinical and Translational Science Award and institutional support; engagement of key stakeholders and influencers; authentic collaboration and team science; researchers as translation catalysts; pragmatic scientific approach; and policies and legislative activities. The research contributed to a variety of community and public health, policy/legislative, clinical/medical, and economic benefits. The case study findings enhance our understanding of translational science principles and processes leading to improved wellbeing and serve as a call for advancing the research agenda addressing health disparities related to criminal and social justice issues.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: This study surveyed parents and/or caregivers of children with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy (DBMD) to obtain their perspectives on experiences during multidisciplinary team (MDT) clinic visits. The goal was to improve DBMD care by identifying positive and negative aspects of the visits. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Multidisciplinary care models have been widely used in many disciplines, as they provide excellent opportunities for patient-centered care (PCC). Survival of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) has improved with multidisciplinary care. As the model continues to evolve, additional services and disciplines are added, and exploring parents’ and caregivers’ perspectives on multidisciplinary care for patients with DBMD must be assessed. A survey, via a non-identifiable Redcap link, was emailed to registered parents/caregivers through The Duchenne Registry provided by Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy (PPMD). The survey contained questions concerning the children’s demographics, medical information, knowledge, and perspectives on MDT visits. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 186 parents/caregivers of DMBD patients responded to the survey. Respondents were white (83.1%), bi/multi-racial (9.3%), African American (1.6%), and other (2.7%). The average travel distance to the care site was 228.37 miles. Most respondents (75%) had their visits within one day, but 25% had visits over ≥2 days. 89.0% of respondents preferred a single MDT meeting with their child’s care providers; 89.4% indicated they had enough time with each provider, 86.1% were satisfied with the MDT care, and 81% said they received enough information prior to the visit. Scheduling difficulties were rare for MDT visits, but common when arranging care with providers not included in the MDTs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: MDT clinic visits enable patients to see multiple caregivers in a single visit. Our study suggests that parents and caregivers of DBMD patients prefer to have MDT visits and are satisfied with the care. This information will support the DBMD community as they continue to advocate for MDT visits.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this evaluation is to assess the value added by offering a CTSA-funded Translational Science Leadership Academy (TSLA) for faculty research leaders. We aim to disseminate lessons learned to help inform best practices for other CTSA hubs promoting team science, specifically research team leadership. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Atrium Health Wake Forest CTSI Team Science Program has completed 3 iterations of the TSLA, offered to all faculty leading research teams. Academies were attended by 16 (2020 cohort), 17 (2021) and 18 (2022) research faculty. For the 2022 Academy, the CTSI Evaluation Program, in collaboration with the Team Science Program, implemented a pre-post assessments for all cohort participants. These assessments tracked self-rated competencies changes, satisfaction with the program, and any recommendations for program improvement. All future cohorts will receive these assessments as well. Results will be presented from 15 semi-structured interviews with participants. We will incorporate continuous improvement cycles to gather future feedback, track recommendations and identify future directions for content. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Faculty from all ranks (Assistant, Associate, Full Professor, Department Chair) participated. Leadership competencies were assessed through a pre-post comparison, each self-rated by Academy participants. The 2022 cohort showed an increase in every competency at the time of post-assessment. When asked how they would rate the overall quality of their team leadership, cohort average increased from 4.3 to 5.5 (+1.2 on a 7-point scale) from pre- to post-assessment. Additionally, 80% of post-assessment respondents plan to make (or have already made) changes in their team leadership practices. Through the qualitative evaluation, we expect to gain insight into individual experiences, changes made after participation in the Academy, and what needs still exist for research leaders. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Competent team leadership is key to realizing our clinical and research mission. The CTSI Translational Research Leadership Academy is an important way to bolster study team productivity, engagement and satisfaction among research teams. This project provides insight for CTSA hubs interested in promoting team science best practices.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM), developed at Washington University in St. Louis, was used to create a survey to collect group-level data on the real-world impacts of research. It was used with two cohorts of CTSA-supported pilot studies to compare the benefits of campus-community partnerships to campus-only projects. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Investigators from two funding streams were surveyed: a campus-based cohort (n=31), and a campus-community partnership cohort (n=6). All studies were related to COVID-19. The Translational Benefits Survey collected quantitative and qualitative data for each of the 30 TSBM benefits, in 4 benefit categories: clinical, community, economic and policy. Text provided by investigators to support each reported benefit was evaluated by two coders through a process that required coder consensus to verify a benefit as realized. Verified benefits were aggregated for each cohort, and the percentage of projects per cohort with realized clinical, community, economic and policy benefits were calculated. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Campus-community partnerships did not realize any clinical benefits, whereas 26% of campus-based projects realized at least one clinical benefit. In contrast, campus-community partnerships were more likely to realize community health benefits (17% vs 10% of campus projects) and economic benefits (17% vs 13% of campus projects). We identified a substantial amount of self-reported benefits (64% across all categories) that were unable to be confirmed as realized using the provided text, which either described activities not relevant to the selected benefit, or lacked critical details needed to verify that the benefit was realized. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This project demonstrates that the TSBM can be utilized to collect group-level data and to compare cohorts’real-world benefits. It also illuminates the need to improve the process for verifying self-reported benefits. Sharing data on these real-world impacts has the potential to convey the strengths of translational science to the public.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Evaluation of the contributions of the CTSI core services to the science of translational science requires focused protocols that are rigorous developed and piloted. The goal of this presentation is to report on the process of protocol development and present the results of protocol pilot implementation. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Translational science’ (TS) is the field of investigation focused on understanding the scientific and operational principles underlying each step of the translational process (Austin, Clin Trans Sci. 2021; 14:1629-1647). A key tenet of translational science is to understand common causes of inefficiency and failure in translational research projects (e.g., incorrect predictions of the toxicity or efficacy of new drugs, lack of data interoperability, ineffective clinical trial recruitment). The navigation steps and mapping to resources for translational researchers provides an opportunity to develop effective navigation tools and study the barriers to effective translation. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The UF-FSU Evaluation Committee has developed and piloted an evaluation protocol that aims to assess the role of CTSI service centers in addressing specific TS barriers. The protocol is informed by interviews with CTSI service users, and is grounded in the Donabedian Framework of Quality Assessment and Lean principles. The pilot implementation of the protocol showed its relevance and applicability across multiple UF-FSU core service centers. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The barriers to translational science are not unique but addressing them is rarely within the scope of individual translational research projects. Conversely, service centers within the CTSA institutions are uniquely positioned to address TS barriers thus enhancing to the operational efficiency of the CTS enterprise and promoting the science of TS.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) must be more frequently embedded within clinical research to ensure translational outcomes are patient-led and meet patient needs. Active partnerships with patients and public groups are an important opportunity to hear patient voices, understand patient needs, and inform future research avenues. A hereditary renal cancer (HRC) PPI group was developed with the efforts of patient participants (n = 9), pooled from recruits within the early detection for HRC pilot study, working in collaboration with researchers and healthcare professionals (n = 8). Patient participants had HRC conditions including Von Hippel–Lindau (n = 3) and Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Carcinoma (n = 5), and public participants included two patient Trustees (n = 2) from VHL UK & Ireland Charity. Discussions among the enthusiastic participants guided the development of a novel patient information sheet for HRC patients. This communication tool was designed to aid patients when informing family members about their diagnoses and the wider implications for relatives, a gap identified by participants within group discussions. While this partnership was tailored for a specific HRC patient and public group, the process implemented can be employed for other hereditary cancer groups and could be transferable within other healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of Miami CTSI’s Mentored Translational Research Scholars (KL2) Program is to identify outstanding early-stage investigators and prepare them to become the next generation of highly skilled independent researchers who translate fundamental knowledge and new technologies from the laboratory to the clinic and to the community. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Evaluation of the KL2 program focused on assessing progress in the following areas: 1) scholar productivity during and after graduating from the program; 2) continued engagement of KL2 program graduates in clinical and translational research; scholar productivity during and after graduating from the program; 3) outcomes such as establishing independent research careers, obtaining research funding, and establishing collaborations; and 4) research impact. We used a developmental evaluation approach and benefits-framework model to conduct program evaluation, incorporating both in a program-specific logic model. Bi-annual surveys were used to measure scholar feedback and progress, and utilization of CTSI services. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since 2013, the KL2 program has trained 21 scholars,17 of whom have completed training, and four are still in the program. Of the 21 scholars, 52% are female and 38% are underrepresented minorities (URM)–significantly higher than the 12% URM for overall CTSA KL2 scholars. Scholars have 176 total publications related to their KL2 projects and have received $52.4m in total research funding. In addition, 50% of the projects focused on health disparities. Overall, 48% of KL2 scholars have received large subsequent federal awards including three NIH K awards and six NIH R awards. Scholars actively utilized CTSI services during and after graduation. Programmatic enhancements such as adding institutional scholars and using scholar feedback to improve program resources were also implemented. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Miami CTSI’s KL2 program has demonstrated success in fulfilling its program goals. The process and outcome evaluation has provided a better understanding of program performance and progress and has demonstrated alignment with CTSI’s overall goals on addressing health disparities and its commitment to diversity and equity.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: This study examined patient perceptions on the benefits, barriers, and facilitators of conventional and complementary/behavioral pain strategies that can be offered in the ED setting including physical therapy, mindfulness, acupuncture, and yoga. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted and recorded semi-structured interviews with 30 patients who presented to the ED with musculoskeletal pain. Interviews focused on patients’ perceptions of NP pain treatments, barriers/facilitators to utilization, and recommendations that would promote engagement. A hierarchical coding system was developed and refined using the interview guide, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and preliminary review of the transcripts. The iterative process of developing the coding system allowed us to identify preliminary themes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Patients believe education on pain and the mind-body connection would give a sense of pain control. Likely barriers to engaging at the ED include lights, noise, interruptions, and uncertainty of their medical status. Post-discharge NP treatment barriers are financial and logistical. Engagement can be facilitated by a desire to avoid opioids, familiarity with meditation practices, and consistent positive communication with the health care team. Patients desire evidence on effectiveness, including testimonials, and suggested NP techniques should be introduced early, with written materials used for post-discharge referral. Patients prefer in-person treatment but would appreciate a virtual option. The initial session should occur in-person to build trust and facilitate virtual session engagement. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Patients are willing to engage in nonpharmacological pain treatment, however the unpredictable ED environment, uncertainty of their medical status, and financial and time constraints are significant barriers.

Successful translation involves the coupled application of knowledge-generating research with product development to advance a device, drug, diagnostic, or evidence-based intervention for clinical adoption to improve human health. Critical to the success of the CTSA consortium, translation can be more effectively accomplished by training approaches that focus on improving team-emergent knowledge skills and attitudes (KSAs) linked to performance. We earlier identified 15 specific evidence-informed, team-emergent competencies that facilitate translational team (TT) performance. Here, we examine the SciTS literature describing developmental, temporal dynamics, and adaptive learning stages of interdisciplinary teams and integrate these with real-world observations on TT maturation pathways. We propose that TTs undergo ordered developmental phases, each representing a learning cycle that we call Formation, Knowledge Generation, and Translation. We identify major activities of each phase linked to development goals. Transition to subsequent phases is associated with a team learning cycle, resulting in adaptations that enabling progression towards clinical translation. We present known antecedents of stage-dependent competencies and rubrics for their assessment. Application of this model will ease assessment, facilitate goal identification and align relevant training interventions to improve performance of TTs in the CTSA context.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Micronutrient deficiencies contribute to poor health and childhood development outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine the independent and combined effects of responsive parenting and multiple micronutrient supplementation interventions on preschooler hemoglobin and ferritin concentrations in southwestern Guatemala. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We enrolled 387 preschoolers (36-52 months) at nutritional risk (height-for-age z-score < -1) (51% male; 17% indigenous ethnicity) in a double blind, 2 x 2, cluster randomized controlled trial. Participants in the parenting intervention received culturally tailored responsive parenting or nutrition education (control) curriculum, delivered over 6 home visits. Participants in the nutrition supplementation group received daily supplementation with a maize-soy product fortified with 21 micronutrients for 6 months or a control product fortified with vitamin B2 only. Linear mixed models were used to estimate changes in hemoglobin and ferritin from baseline (2015) to endline (2017) in a subsample with blood specimens (n = 218). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: At baseline, 14% of preschoolers were iron deficient and 11% were anemic. Preschooler ferritin significantly increased over time in most arms, with the largest increase in the combined responsive parenting + multiple micronutrient supplementation arm (ferritin = 95.6 (95% CI 46.4, 144.74); rates of change did not differ between study arms (p = 0.16). Preschooler hemoglobin did not change over time. Further analysis will examine the moderation of intervention effects by pre-specified child and household factors. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Increases in preschooler ferritin did not differ between intervention and control arms. There was no effect of the intervention on hemoglobin. Future analyses will examine intervention effects on pre-specified subgroups including baseline micronutrient deficiencies.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Physical therapy (PT) is key for treating functional decline that inpatients experience but is a constrained resource in hospital settings. The Activity Measure Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) score is a mobility measurement tool that has been used to define misallocation of PT. We aim to optimize PT referrals using AM-PAC-based clinical decision support . METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted a prospective study of patients admitted to University of Chicago Medical Center. AM-PAC scores were assessed by nursing staff every 12 hours. Clinical decision support was designed using validated AM-PAC cutoffs (> 18, a predictor of discharge to home). The tool was embedded in hospital medicine note templates, requiring providers to indicate PT referral status based on current AM-PAC scores. The primary outcome, unskilled consult , was defined as PT referral for patients with AM-PAC > 18. Data were collected for one year prior to implementation and one year after implementation for intervention (hospital medicine) and control (general internal medicine) services. Difference in differences analysis was used to assess the association between the intervention and unskilled consults. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Between October 2018 and March 2021, 18,241 admissions were eligible for the study. Compared to preintervention, there was a lower rate of referral to PT for patients with high AM-PAC mobility scores in the post-intervention period [18.5% vs 16.6%; X2(1) = 7.02; p < 0.01]. In the postintervention time period, the control group experienced a 2.6% increase in unskilled consults while the intervention group experienced a 2.3% decrease, a difference in differences of 4.9% (95% CI -0.07–-0.03 for difference in differences) controlling for age sex, race, LOS, and change in mobility. Compared to preintervention, there was no statistically significant difference in mean change in mobility score post-intervention for either group. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results suggest that clinical decision support can decrease unskilled PT consults. Many functionally independent patients can mobilize with nursing or other mobilization staff. Hospitals should consider mobility score-based decision support to prioritize PT for impaired and at-risk patients.

Intervention development frameworks offer the behavioral sciences a systematic and rigorous empirical process to guide the translation of basic science into practice in pursuit of desirable public health and clinical outcomes. The multiple frameworks that have emerged share a goal of optimization during intervention development and can increase the likelihood of arriving at an effective and disseminable intervention. Yet, the process of optimizing an intervention differs functionally and conceptually across frameworks, creating confusion and conflicting guidance on when and how to optimize. This paper seeks to facilitate the use of translational intervention development frameworks by providing a blueprint for selecting and using a framework by considering the process of optimization as conceptualized by each. First, we operationalize optimization and contextualize its role in intervention development. Next, we provide brief overviews of three translational intervention development frameworks (ORBIT, MRC, and MOST), identifying areas of overlap and divergence thereby aligning core concepts across the frameworks to improve translation. We offer considerations and concrete use cases for investigators seeking to identify and use a framework in their intervention development research. We push forward an agenda of a norm to use and specify frameworks in behavioral science to support a more rapid translational pipeline.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Use the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program Health Effects Library to identify the breadth and depth of research on the health effects of youth due to exposures from the events of September 11, 2001, to track the research trajectories by study population, and to identify gaps and define needs for future research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We selected references from the WTC Health Effects Library. This curated library includes research publications that measure, report, or discuss health effects of 9/11 at the three disaster sites. Articles included had to evaluate people under 18 years old on 9/11/2001, including those in-utero. Of the 1,813 references considered, 195 were included in our study. Data from each reference was extracted using DistillerSR software and organized in four topics: overview, methods, conditions, and results. Each publication was abstracted independently by a team of two health scientists and conflicts were resolved by the four-person team. All data was then exported from DistillerSR into Microsoft Excel for analysis. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The 195 articles included were published between 2002 through 2021, of which 29 were funded by the WTC Health Program. The study population represented ranged from in-utero to 18 years old. Research trajectories will be developed by assessing chronological research by outcome groups (physical, mental and behavioral, interventions, and biomarkers), study population categories, as well as exposure location and mechanism. Demographic data extracted will be used to assess whether there are disparities in the research conducted to date for this population and if so, in what areas. Research recommendations and clinical implication extracted from references will be used to assess whether more recent research has addressed research from the early post 9/11 years. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: WTC research strengthens our understanding of 9/11 health effects and provides a way to improve healthcare for the people afflicted from 9/11 exposures. The anticipated results from this scoping review can lead us to identify past research challenges and current knowledge gaps that the Program can address in future research grants.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: - Illuminate processes and findings of a translational science case study of impactful research with incarcerated pregnant women and mothers; - Improve our understanding of the translational mechanisms by sharing translational challenges, facilitators, an METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Utilized the following evaluation methods and tools: - The Retrospective Translational Science Case Study protocol to examine translational path from innovation to policy and practice, barriers and facilitators for that translational movement. - Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) Checklist for translational/research impact analysis Triangulated diverse data sources: - Primary data: semi-structured interviews with research partners - Secondary data: researchers’ grant applications, reports, and publications; public stories/news related to their research; scientific publications; organizational/policy documents; and over 50 interviews with 30 stakeholders featured in published sources. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The research contributed to community and public health, policy/legislative, clinical/medical, and economic benefits, social/institutional change, health equity advocacy, catalyzing research (consequent research studies) and public awareness. Translational research challenges: cultural differences between research and prison system; politics of translating research to policy change; issues of capacity, power, privilege, and opportunity when doing community-engaged research; and science vs. social justice criticism. Facilitators of translation: CTSA support; stakeholder engagement; authentic collaboration; researchers as translation catalysts; and engagement in legislative activities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The evaluation case study provides useful knowledge about translational impact, challenges, and facilitators of community-based research that moved along the translational continuum and contributed to transformational, systemic changes on the legal, clinical, organizational, and interpersonal levels.