OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To evaluate the clarity of plain-language informed consent forms (ICF) created using a browser-based tool called the ICF Navigator, we solicited feedback from two community review boards (CRB) to ensure the resulting ICF met the informational needs of all potential participants, including those with limited health literacy skills. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Community-engaged research highlights the importance of involving community members in the planning and execution of translational research projects. Virtual discussions were held to elicit feedback from two separate CRBs on the understandability of an ICF that was generated using an online, browser-based tool that we designed to aid researchers in the creation of plain-language ICFs. CRBs included representation of diverse communities from across the state of Arkansas, including individuals who may have limited health literacy skills, those with and without prior experience participating in clinical research projects, members living in rural and urban settings, and those whose race or ethnicity have been traditionally underrepresented among clinical research participants. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: CRB feedback was used to inform actionable improvements to the tool, such as removing content redundancies and embedding tips to guide researchers on how best to optimize the clarity and understandability of resulting ICFs. Program refinements in response to the feedback have been implemented and will be evaluated in another round of CRB discussions in early 2023. Feedback from this follow-up CRB session will also be presented in addition to a discussion of how the feedback was used to improve the online tool, which will ultimately be available for free use by other institutions. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The use of community feedback to optimize the functionality of the ICF Navigator demonstrates the value of CRBs for ensuring that ICFs are culturally salient and readily understandable by all potential research participants, particularly those who may have limited health literacy skills, thereby promoting more equitable opportunities for all.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Team science is a focus of the University of Florida Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UF CTSI) Learning Health System Initiative. Citizen Scientists (CSs) are integral research partners who provide pragmatic feedback. The UF Health Cancer Center (UFHCC) aspired to adopt a similar approach to research, starting with onboarding CSs. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To understand the content with which they would be engaging through the CTSI, CSs first became certified through a self-paced online curriculum focused on clinical research basics. UFHCC envisioned their onboarding as a companion piece to this first course, and CSs must complete both courses to work in cancer-focused research. The new CS Cancer Curriculum consists of a mix of didactic lessons with quizzes, case studies, a behind-the-scenes look at a research lab meeting, and interviews with CSs. As with the clinical research course, the cancer course was co-developed alongside the CSs and utilized the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) instructional design model. The course was implemented with UF CSs from July to September 2021 through Canvas. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: For the nine CSs completing this pilot test, scores for all didactic quizzes across the course were mostly high. Two CSs scored a perfect 100%, three missed only one question (98%), and two CSs missed two questions (96%). A course evaluation was completed by eight of the CSs and determined that most (86%) felt that they were capable of applying what they had learned. An additional 75% felt the course empowered them to advocate for the needs of all stakeholders involved in cancer research. Qualitative responses on the evaluation found that the course helped CSs better relate to the challenges faced by other stakeholders (patients, clinicians, caregivers) and helped them conceptualize how they could contribute to cancer research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The partnerships within the UF CTSI have a direct impact on patient care through research studies in Florida and nationwide. CSs can be overlooked by researchers unfamiliar with concepts of a learning health system, including those in cancer research. By engaging these stakeholders, we may soon see similar impacts to cancer-related patient care.

Contracting delays remain a challenge to the successful initiation of multisite clinical research in the US. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Contracts Processing Study showed average contract negotiation duration of > 100 days for industry-sponsored or investigator-initiated contracts. Such delays create enormous costs to sponsors and to patients waiting to use new evidence-based treatments. With support from the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the Accelerated Clinical Trial Agreement (ACTA) was developed by 25 major academic institutions and medical centers engaged in clinical research in collaboration with the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership and with input from pharmaceutical companies. The ACTA also informed the development of subsequent agreements, including the Federal Demonstration Partnership Clinical Trial Subaward Agreement (FDP-CTSA); both ACTA and the FDP-CTSA are largely non-negotiable agreements that represent pre-negotiated compromises in contract terms agreed upon by industry and/or medical center stakeholders. When the involved parties agree to use the CTSA-developed and supported standard agreement templates as a starting point for negotiations, there can be significant time savings for trials. Use of the ACTA resulted in an average savings of 48 days and use of the FDP-CTSA saved an average of 57 days of negotiation duration.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Patients on chronic opioids face gaps in transitions of care in the time following surgery, increasing the risk for adverse events, specifically high-risk opioid prescribing. The objective of this study is to determine how rates of high-risk prescribing differ between patients with public and private insurance. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A retrospective cohort study of 1,435 adult patients with preoperative chronic opioid use on Medicaid or commercial insurance who underwent surgery between November 2017 and February 2021. Patients were identified using the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) database, a collection of perioperative data from 70 hospitals across the state of Michigan. Data from the MSQC were merged with Michigan’s prescription drug monitoring program to provide additional information on pre- and postoperative opioid prescribing. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess high-risk prescribing by the presence of a preoperative usual prescriber and insurance type. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Overall, 22.7% of patients on private insurance and 23.6% of patients on Medicaid fulfilled criteria for new, postoperative high-risk prescribing. Among criteria for high-risk prescribing, multiple prescribers was the most significant contributor (private insurance: 17.4%, Medicaid: 18.9%). Patients on Medicaid insurance did not have increased odds of new postoperative high-risk prescribing (OR = 1.067, 95% CI: 0.813-1.402). While fewer patients on Medicaid had a preoperative usual prescriber (86.9% and 90.9% respectively, p = 0.015), there was no significant difference between the two insurance types in baseline rates of high-risk prescribing prior to surgery (private insurance: 43.4%, Medicaid: 46.0%, p = 0.352). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: While we do not observe disparities in high-risk prescribing between insurance types, rates of high-risk prescribing postoperatively are high across payer types. Further studies to determine the factors driving rates of high-risk opioid prescribing among patients with chronic opioid use are needed to identify areas for future intervention.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: African-Americans are at increased risk for nutrition disparities; home cooking is a strategy to optimize dietary quality. to develop a cooking intervention, a mixed-methods community-based participatory, acceptability study was conducted to understand cooking behaviors, options for intervention content, and implementation factors. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Self-identified African-American adults were recruited from a larger community-based study within Washington, D.C. Five moderated virtual focus groups with four participants in each group were conducted in March and April of 2021. A semi-structured moderator’s guide focused on cooking, meal habits, food choices, and the proposed cooking intervention was utilized. Qualitative data collected were verbatim transcriptions and notes from research team members. Thematic analysis was conducted using an iterative process among research team members. Participant validation interviews were conducted following the research team analysis. Electronic self-administered surveys were used to measure demographic, food environment, cooking behavior, health behavior, and psychosocial variables. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Study participants (n=20 females, mean age 60.1 years) lived in low-food resource neighborhoods but reported high food security (n=14). Barriers to the intervention included traveling distances to other neighborhoods for produce, poor quality of vegetables and fruit within neighborhood stores, lack of trustworthiness from neighborhood store experiences, perception of decreased cooking skills, and competing priorities related to time and weekday schedules. Motivators included health promotion for self, family, community, and enjoyment from cooking. Virtual or in-person sessions were suggested. Intervention options included costs of recipe ingredients, using recipes with ingredient flexibility, nutrition information, and provisioning of or compensation for ingredients used in virtual classes. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Use of virtual focus groups for a participant-based design of a cooking intervention among African American adults living in low-food access neighborhoods provided acceptability results that were food and home environments contextual and provided barriers and motivators to participation and implementation of behavior from the intervention.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Alabama has the 3rd highest maternal mortality ratio in the U.S., with more than 50% of deaths occurring postpartum. There is little evidence on the prevalence or equity of postpartum care use in Alabama. This mixed methods study examines relationships between patient and provider factors and access to, use of, and racial disparities in postpartum care. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: I will use a sequential explanatory mixed methods design. In the quantitative phase I will analyze an integrated electronic health record and human resource dataset to identify patient and provider factors that have a relationship with receipt of at least one postpartum visit within 12 weeks of delivery in a cross-sectional, retrospective cohort of 30,000 obstetric patients in Alabama. In the qualitative phase I will describe the postpartum experiences of obstetric patients who identify as Black or African American who received or did not receive at least one postpartum visit within 12 weeks of childbirth. In the integration phase I will draw synthesized conclusions about how the results of both phases describe predictors of and barriers and facilitators to postpartum care for Black birthing people in Alabama. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: I will identify relationships between patient factors (e.g., race, racial concordance with primary provider, insurance status, age, parity, type of delivery, Area Deprivation Index, presence of a chronic condition or severe morbidity) and patient receipt of postpartum care. I will also explore whether health care provider factors (e.g., race, racial concordance with the patient, age, gender, provider type, years of experience) predict patient receipt of postpartum care in this retrospective cohort. In the qualitative phase, I will explore the experiences and perceptions of birthing people who identify as Black or African-American that help explain the relationships between patient and provider factors and receipt of postpartum care identified in the quantitative phase. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: More than 50% of maternal death occurs after childbirth. Postpartum care is critical to birthing people’s survival, especially in states with high maternal mortality. This study will fill a gap in knowledge about factors that have a relationship with equitable postpartum care in Alabama.

Academic medical centers (AMCs) rely on engaged and motivated faculty for their success. Significant burnout among clinical and research faculty has resulted in career disengagement and turnover. As such, AMCs must be vested in cultivating faculty engagement and well-being through novel initiatives that support faculty. The Well-Being Education Grants program was established by the Office for Well-Being within the Center for Faculty Development at Massachusetts General Hospital to provide the impetus many faculty needed to dedicate time to their well-being, demonstrating that investments in multi-component interventions around faculty well-being require resources and funding.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We have developed a community engagement model that embraces several core values: bi-directional, co-equal, co-created, inclusive, culturally centered, and trust. Our promotoras de salud and community health workers (CHWs) facilitate listening sessions to understand the most pressing health needs and concerns as perceived by the community. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Our Southern California CTSI Community Engagement team includes promotoras de salud and community health workers who are trusted individuals within our targeted communities–Latino and Black populations in South and the Eastside of Los Angeles. Listening sessions identify the community’s perceived health needs and concerns, and our team in turn delivers a workshop series that addresses those concerns. Workshops are co-developed by community members, offered in English and Spanish, and delivered both virtually and in-person in community venues. Workshop topics have included mental health, depression, anxiety in children; child development and autism; COVID-19 testing, variants, and vaccines; monkeypox; and a primer on understanding clinical research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In 2022, we held 49 workshops that delivered evidence-based information including how to access needed resources. We had a total of 1212 participants, 60% of whom were returning, meaning they had attended at least one prior workshop. An evaluation of the workshop program demonstrated that our promotoras de salud and community health workers are trusted by the community and that workshops are meeting community needs. 677 surveys were completed by participants, 87.5% of whom were female. 85% of respondents stated that they will use the information they learned in their daily life, and 90% said they would attend another workshop. Feedback from the evaluation will inform future workshop format and topics. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Academic-community partnerships are key to advancing health equity, especially in diverse and under-resourced communities. This is one model of community engagement, which includes promotoras de salud and CHWs that was designed to build trust, empower individuals through education, and to address the health needs as defined by the community.

The UC San Diego Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center (DISC) launched in 2020 to provide dissemination and implementation science (DIS) training, technical assistance, community engagement, and research advancement. DISC developed a program-wide logic model to inform a process evaluation of member engagement and impact related to DISC services. The DISC Logic Model (DLM) served as the framework for a process evaluation capturing quantitative and qualitative information about scientific activities, outputs, and outcomes. The evaluation involved a multimethod approach with surveys, attendance tracking, feedback forms, documentation of grant outcomes, and promotions metrics (e.g., Twitter engagement). There were 540 DISC Members at the end of year 2 of the DISC. Engagement in the DISC was high with nearly all members endorsing at least one scientific activity. Technical assistance offerings such as DISC Journal Club and consultation were most frequently used. The most common scientific outputs were grant submission (65, 39%), formal mentoring for career award (40, 24%), and paper submission (34, 21%). The DLM facilitated a comprehensive process evaluation of our center. Actionable steps include prioritizing technical assistance, strengthening networking opportunities, identifying streamlined approaches to facilitate DIS grant writing through writing workshops, as well as “office hours” or organized writing leagues.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We seek to describe the challenges to mental healthcare access and utilization among Somali refugees in Minnesota. The objectives of this study are 1) to characterize beliefs and attitudes about mental illness and 2) identify barriers, either personally experienced or perceived, to utilizing mental health services among Somali refugees. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Mental health challenges are of particular concern among Somali refugees, who have been found to have rates of PTSD as high as 50%. However, Somali refugees are reported to underutilize mental healthcare. We will recruit 20-25 Somali refugee women and men, who are 18 years or older and reside in the Twin Cities, to participate in one on one interviews. Participants will be asked about their perception of barriers to mental healthcare services, and their beliefs about mental illness and treatment. We will transcribe the interviews, code them, and identify key themes. A community advisory board will be directly involved in the research design, recruitment, interview instrument development, interpretation of findings, and dissemination of project materials as part of our community engagement protocol. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: When completed we expect to identify mental health beliefs and barriers to mental healthcare utilization. The long-term goal of this work is to reduce the substantial mental health morbidity among Somali refugees. Common barriers to research participation that we expect are mistrust, financial constraints, fear of unintended outcomes, stigma about participating in research, and fear of deportation or concern of immigration status. We plan to address these barriers by hiring bilingual Somali recruiter/interviewer, translating study materials, reassuring confidentiality of participant’s information, providing a $50 incentive, and implementing community advisory board’s input on study design and recruitment sites. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Translational Impact: Findings from interviews will be disseminated and evaluated by members of the community and providers. Recommendations based on our findings can be applied in mental healthcare practice to reduce identified barriers. Community dissemination can also promote the destigmatization of mental healthcare in the Somali community.

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

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

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: COVID-19 disproportionately impacts rural communities of color. Socioeconomic status, occupation and chronic illnesses lead to worse COVID-19 outcomes. This study identifies motivators and barriers of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the Latino and Flathead Reservation agricultural communities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Thirty key informant interviews and 6 focus groups (N=39 focus group participants) were conducted with community and tribal leaders using an interview guide informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior, Social Cognitive Theory, and the Social Contextual Factor Frameworks. The interview guide was designed to understand the motivators and barriers of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The Community Advisory Board, community investigators and community health workers from the community reviewed and revised the guide. A codebook applied deductive coding to informant responses, followed by an inductive, constant comparison approach. Three analysts met to refine the codebook and conduct inter-rater agreement. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Participants from Flathead reservations and Yakima frequently noted a desire to protect one’s self, family and elders. This significant motivator encouraged individuals to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, despite sincere vaccine concerns and government rollout. Barriers included concerns regarding rumored, serious or rare side effects, speed of vaccine development and misinformation. Key differences exist between both communities. Yakima participants noted religious concerns and ID requirements as major barriers. Flathead reservation participants noted distrust and historical trauma of the U.S. government and issues with access (e.g. transportation, technology). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The pandemic disproportionately impacts vulnerable communities in agricultural settings. Participants in both communities felt vaccine availability had outpaced uptake. Clearly, culturally sensitive education and respectful communication would be key in addressing vaccine concerns and improving vaccine uptake.