Gaps in the implementation of effective interventions impact nearly all cancer prevention and control strategies in the US including Massachusetts. To close these implementation gaps, evidence-based interventions must be rapidly and equitably implemented in settings serving racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse populations. This paper provides a brief overview of The Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity (ISCCCE) and describes how we have operationalized our commitment to a robust community-engaged center that aims to close these gaps. We describe how ISCCCE is organized and how the principles of community-engaged research are embedded across the center. Principles of community engagement have been operationalized across all components of ISCCCE. We have intentionally integrated these principles throughout all structures and processes and have developed evaluation strategies to assess whether the quality of our partnerships reflects the principles. ISCCCE is a comprehensive community-engaged infrastructure for studying efficient, pragmatic, and equity-focused implementation and adaptation strategies for cancer prevention in historically and currently disadvantaged communities with built-in methods to evaluate the quality of community engagement. This engaged research center is designed to maximize the impact and relevance of implementation research on cancer control in community health centers.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Clinical research professionals (CRPs) are vital for high quality research. Professional development opportunities for CRPs help improve job satisfaction and retention. This poster will present data on peer-presenter satisfaction and their assessment of co-leading a workshop as an important professional development and networking activity. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Developing a Research Professionals Network Workshop is an important professional development opportunity for peer-presenters in a mentored, collaborative environment that encourages networking and inter-institutional teamwork. Presenters are connected by the leadership team and then work together to develop the workshop’s learning objectives, presentation, and activities. A summary of learner evaluations are provided to the presenting team to provide constructive feedback for future presentations. A survey to assess experience in leading the workshops is sent to presenters after the workshop to assess overall satisfaction and assessment of importance in their professional development. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Presenter evaluation response data from the years of 2019-2022 showed high rates of agreement that presenters’ participation 1) increased their knowledge of the topic, 2) appreciated the support provided by the leadership team, 3) felt adequately prepared to lead the workshop, and 4) were overall satisfied with the experience. Questions specifically around the inter-institutional collaboration and professional development of the workshop experience were added in 2021 and similarly showed high marks of satisfaction. Qualitative response data showed that some presenters continued collaborations after workshop completion. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Overall results show that workshop presenters felt that leading an RPN workshop with collaborators from the other participating sites was a useful experience that supported their ongoing professional development. High marks on satisfaction by presenters is attributed to the multi-hub partnership and guidance from the leadership team.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Mayo Clinic implemented a CRC Placement Hub to improve hiring experiences for candidates and hiring managers. Candidates apply to a centralized posting. A Placement Coordinator handles administrative and screening responsibilities, allowing hiring managers to focus on selecting best candidates. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CRC Placement Hub was implemented in phases. Initially, first and second interviews were conducted using Zoom and hiring manager utilization of the Hub was voluntary. Positive candidate and hiring manager feedback shifted Hub utilization to the standard practice and hiring managers must request an exception to post separately for unique candidate requirements. The third phase progressed to utilizing the HireVue hiring platform. Qualified candidates are invited to complete an on-Demand interview at their convenience, which hiring managers utilize to select candidates to continue through the interview process. HireVue utilization has decreased time to fill metrics for CRC candidates. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The intentions for the CRC Placement Hub are to offer a positive hiring experience for candidates and reduce administrative burden for the hiring managers, while maintaining autonomy of hiring decisions. Additional purposes for the Hub are to increase the candidate pool by developing recruitment pipelines and decrease overall timeline to fill an open position. Qualitative and quantitative metrics were established to monitor performance. Metrics depict positive experiences for candidates and hiring managers, and decreased timelines to fill open positions. Candidate pools continue to increase as the Hub Placement Coordinator holds off-campus and online recruitment events. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The CRC Placement Hub provides candidates a positive experience, allowing them to apply to one posting but considered for all open positions. The Hub decreases administrative burden for hiring managers, allowing them to focus on critical aspects of candidate selection and managing clinical research.

A live, virtual conference, “Driving Responsible Conduct of Research during a Pandemic,” was held in April 2021, 13 months after the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered the conduct of clinical research across the USA. New York was an early epicenter of the US pandemic, highlighting preexisting problems in clinical research and allowing us to assess lessons learned and to identify best practices for the future. Risks and opportunities were categorized broadly into three areas, protecting the welfare and safety of human subjects, ensuring trust in science and medicine, and implementing efficient, ethical, and compliant clinical research. Analysis of conference proceedings, and recent publications, shows a need for preparedness that is more effective, robust partnerships, and organizational systems and standards to strengthen the ethical and responsible conduct of research.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: A clinical research coordinator (CRC) digital badge offers a novel approach to addressing the ongoing shortage of CRCs at academic medical centers. We sought to pilot this low-cost, short-term training digital badge to train entry level CRCs and to attract a diverse pool of individuals. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Experienced clinical research professionals outlined competencies needed by study coordinators working in an academic center using a Delphi approach. The competencies aligned with 6 of the 8 domains established by the Joint Taskforce for Clinical Trial Competencies. Five course modules were created in a standardized format consisting of instructional videos, handouts, and a 25-question quiz (passing grade: 90%) which was hosted in the university learning management system. Beta testers were recruited to complete surveys at the conclusion of each module addressing both module performance and content accuracy. An item analysis was performed on the 25-question quiz. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Nine volunteers were recruited for the pilot. Seven completed the badge. All participants, with years of experience from 0 to over 10 in clinical trials, found the course to be informative. The majority (84%) of responses on course logistics were positive or neutral. The quiz item analysis identified most questions (86%) as either Easy or Neutral, which is ideal for a Level 1 Badge addressing foundational skills. Forty percent of the quiz questions scored high on the Discrimination Index, indicating that the quiz could identify those who performed well and those challenged by the quizzes. One negative comment received stated that course was too intense to be completed in 4 weeks. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The results of this pilot study demonstrated that this badging course offers a low cost, easily accessible option for recruiting and training entry level clinical research professionals. The proof-of-concept study encouraged our initiation of the program and attempt to broaden our reach.

Residents of rural areas are underrepresented in research. The aim of this narrative review was to explore studies describing the effectiveness of community engagement strategies with rural communities to promote participant recruitment and participation in clinical research. Following PRISMA guidelines, this narrative review was conducted in June 2020. Our search strategy was built around keywords that included community-engaged research, rural community, and recruitment strategies into clinical research. Content-related descriptive statistics were summarized. The selected articles were distributed into categories of levels of community engagement: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, or co-lead. The search resulted in 2,473 identified studies of which forty-eight met inclusion criteria. Of these, 47.1% were randomized controlled trials. The most common levels of engagement were consultation (n = 24 studies) and collaboration (n = 15), while very few focused on informing (n = 2) and co-leadership (n = 2). Strategies, limitations, and findings are discussed for each level of community engagement. This narrative addressed a gap in knowledge regarding participant recruitment in rural communities in relation to assistance from community members. Community engagement contributed to the success of the research, especially in recruitment, participation, and building trust and partnership.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this study is to demonstrate growth in leadership skills in areas of milestone selection, conditions of success, and self-efficacy for females in the Capita3 Leader Launch (LL) Program. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Forty females were self-selected to participate in the LL Program, a 21 day program which is organized around a highly significant career goal that each participant selects. The program is designed to guide participants through a unique and transformative process to increase the probability that each participant will achieve their selected career goal. In the fall of 2022, seventy people participated in the LL program. Participants were asked to fill out a Leadership assessment prior to participation and then again following participation in the program. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Immediately after the program, participants self-report 86% increased confidence, 85% being on track to achieving their selected milestone or an appropriate pivot, and 80% feel more equipped to navigate their external environment. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrates that the LL Program addresses barriers that are neither fully understood nor addressed by existing programs and policies for women. Future programs can use the LL Program to help females take on high visibility assignments, larger organizational roles, and leadership positions within the current organization environment.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this project was to create a professional network for the Rutgers Clinical Research Management master’s program to foster relationships between potential and current clinical research professional workforce members. A professional network provides an opportunity for its members to stay continuously engaged in the community. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Two Qualtrics surveys were created after researching the social presence of the Rutgers SHP community, similar master-level programs, clinical research professional networks, and general social landscapes. The surveys were sent through LinkedIn and email with telephone reminders to the Rutgers SHP CRM community to gather demographic information, preferred method of engagement, and desired network content. In addition, six alumni and two faculty SHP CRM members were interviewed via Zoom for further feedback. The data from these surveys was analyzed on excel and supported the creation of content and structure for the CRM Network. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Survey results indicated 70% (n=20) of respondents preferred engagement through email or LinkedIn. Engagement topics included alumni/faculty news, workforce opportunities, and networking events. A LinkedIn page and website were created to highlight members’accomplishments and activities. An electronic quarterly newsletter was developed to expand the content with alumni and faculty editorials and future opportunities to engage with the Rutgers CRM program. Further data analysis revealed that 73% (n=16) preferred in-person vs remote events. A Facebook page was created to provide a forum for casual interactions that may lead to in-person opportunities. Seven participants volunteered to join the newly formed CRM Network Advisory Committee that will develop future content and manage the CRM Network. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The CRM Network was well received by the Rutgers CRM community as a tool to foster relationships between current and future clinical research professionals. Despite data limitations (small sample size and incomplete responses), the CRM Network was created and transferred to the Advisory committee for implementation and future expansion.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Surgical training is constrained by duty hour limits, bias, and a trial-and-error learning process. Surgeon skill variation is a healthcare system disparity that can impact patient outcomes. Incorporating validated, standardized assessment tools and machine learning (ML) algorithms may help to standardize and reduce bias in surgeon education. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To support assessment tool and ML algorithm development, we are curating an annotated video registry of neurosurgical procedures. Point-of-view video of resident and attending neurosurgeons performing craniotomies is recorded via an eye-tracking headset. A Delphi panel of neurosurgeons will review the video and determine which represent expert versus trainee performance. Neurosurgery attendings will be interviewed to provide descriptions of craniotomies which will be used to develop an assessment rubric. A Delphi panel will determine what rubric components should be maintained. New craniotomy videos will be viewed by attendings in a blinded fashion while completing the assessment rubric. An online feedback platform is being developed allowing residents to prospectively track assessment data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We anticipate development of an annotated, institutional video database featuring craniotomies performed by residents and attending neurosurgeons. Using a Delphi approach, we anticipate achieving consensus on which videos reflect expert versus trainee performance. We anticipate development of a novel craniotomy assessment rubric that is both valid and reliable. Our online feedback platform will allow prospective tracking of assessment data from multiple sources and enhanced transparency in the feedback process. The video registry and assessment data will enable development of novel ML algorithms able to recognize craniotomy segments and estimate operator skill. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Building a video registry of procedures, validated assessment tools, and a prototype feedback platform enables a pipeline for ML algorithm development. Together these tools will help to standardize and optimize resident education translating to earlier operative independence, improved patient safety, and reduced bias during surgical training.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The objective of this study was to use NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools) to analyze K99 funding trends and determine if R00 to R01 or R21 achievement time correlates with the future success of an early-stage NIH-funded investigator. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: All award data were collected from NIH RePORTER. All K99 awards and funding data in this study were limited to All Clinical Departments (ACD). All researchers (n = 1,148) and awards (n = 2,022) were identified through a K99 search from FY 2007 to FY 2022 across ACD. Historic trends in K99 awards and funding from NIH Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 to FY 2022 were investigated. An R00 dataset was generated from NIH RePORTER. The K99 to R00 achievement statistics from FY 2007 to FY 2022 was investigated. NIH annual datafiles for FY 2007 to FY 2021 were aggregated to generate a master datafile of all R01 (n = 395,505) and R21 awards (n = 61,766). R01 and R21 award data were linked to the researcher previously identified through the K99 search. The connection between K99/R00 awardees and subsequent R01 or R21 awards was focused on. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: From FY 2008 to FY 2022, the number of K99 awards per year increased 123.4%, from 94 to 210. Over the same period, after correcting for inflation, the NIH K99 budget increased 127.0% while the NIH program level budget increased 17.3%. For researchers who achieved their first R01 or R21 0–3 years versus 3–6 years after the start of their R00, their average funding per year since the start of the R00 phase was $467,425 versus $290,604, respectively (p < 0.001). In summary, NIH investment in the K99 award pathway has substantially outpaced the NIH program level budget increase, and there is a strong relationship between average funding per year since the start of the R00 phase and time from R00 to R01 or R21. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our study offers additional evidence of the Matthew effect in science, where previous success generates future success. This analysis may be useful to clinical departments as they evaluate selecting new and retaining current biomedical scientists for independent research positions.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Scholarly achievement metrics are essential for academic researchers since they are used for promotion and funding opportunities. Our objective was to create awareness among pilot project PIs about how these scholarly activities are evaluated and about the need for continuous auto-evaluation. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: NIH-sponsored Clinical & Translational Research (CTR) infrastructure grants are a critical mechanism to increase scholarly activity. The Pilot Project Program Core (PPP) of The Alliance IDeA-CTR created a weighted metrics system to evaluate activities including presentations, publications, promotion, honors, & community service. We used the revised evidence-based medicine pyramid to develop the metric instrument. Pilot project PIs received the metric table and met quarterly with a PPP member to discuss progress. The top PIs were acknowledged during the Alliance Research Day with a platform presentation and a monetary award for research expenses or travel to scientific meetings. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: During our first 2 pilot project calls (2020-2022) the PPP funded 7 one-year pilot projects for ($50,000 each). We had a total of 10 PIs, 2 of the projects were MPI. Seven PIs were early or new stage investigators (ESI/NSI). Using the productivity award metric we had a total of 33 presentations, 10 publications, 12 events of community service, and 2 external grant funding. These are significant outcomes considering the pandemics impact on clinical & translational research. A total of 3 awards were given, one award per year for funding and an overall award. The activity was well received by the PIs who actively participated in the tracking of their scholarly activities using the metric. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Productivity metrics are crucial for the career development of ESI and NSI by raising awareness regarding the importance of scholarly activities in their career. This activity will help them track their productivity in an ongoing manner while becoming independent researchers.

The clinical research units (CRUs) are one of the main spaces where both translational research and science take place. However, there is a lack of information about both best practices for CRU operations and, ultimately, benchmarks to evaluate CRU performance. The Research Unit Network (RUN) was created with the purpose to enable direct communication and collaboration among CRUs. An online survey was administered to further illustrate the functionality and impact of RUN. Thirty-one individual survey responses (39.2%) were included in the final analysis. The members value RUN monthly meetings (87.1%) as the most useful aspect of this network and CRU budgeting (67.7%) and staffing (61.3%) were the most relevant topics discussed. This is followed by EPIC – Research (58.1%), delegation of authority logs, unit signatures, and policies (51.6%), COVID-19 pandemic response (41.9%), the implementation of clinical trial management system (29.0%), and protocol deviations (19.4%). The intermediate goal of RUN is to identify best practices CRUs are establishing, implementing, and sharing these experiences with the goal to adopt them in different CRUs. The network’s long-term goal is to establish standard benchmarks that can be used for evaluating the performance of CRUs across the nation.

Long-term sequelae of severe acute respiratory coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may include increased incidence of diabetes. Here we describe the temporal relationship between new type 2 diabetes and SARS-CoV-2 infection in a nationwide database. We found that while the proportion of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes increased during the acute period of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mean proportion of new diabetes cases in the 6 months post-infection was about 83% lower than the 6 months preinfection. These results underscore the need for further investigation to understand the timing of new diabetes after COVID-19, etiology, screening, and treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Pursuit of independent funding by predoctoral and postdoctoral fellows requires navigating the intricate steps in preparing extramural grant applications. The Workforce Development Core of the NJ Alliance for Clinical and Translational Science (NJ ACTS) sought to evaluate an interactive grant writing group of fellows mentored by a trained coach. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Participants meet weekly for 3 months to develop components of a fellowship application for submission to NIH and private foundations. Sessions were moderated by a senior faculty member trained as a coach by the National Research Mentoring Network. Participant grant submission and review of the program were collected annually for the period of 2019 to 2021 as well as demographics for the 2022 cohort. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Over this period, 32 predoctoral and 19 postdoctoral fellows participated in the peer review writing groups with 24 trainees currently enrolled. The peer review writing group moved to Zoom in 2020 which has enabled expansion of training to include the 3 Hub institutions and 6 additional universities. Of the 41 survey respondents, 78% submitted fellowship applications to NIH (N=28) or a non-NIH agency (N=4). Eight of these applications are currently under review or have been resubmitted for peer review. 54% of reviewed applications have been funded as NIH fellowships, diversity supplements, career grants, or non-NIH fellowships. Over 90% of participants have recommended the writing group to other trainees. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: In conclusion, a weekly grant writing group of predoctoral and postdoctoral fellows is an effective means to receive peer review of fellowship application components and support submissions for extramural funding.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Clinical research degree program accreditation brings value to university programs situated in competitive environments. While the requirements of accreditation can be burdensome and tedious, it remains important to program growth. The objective of this project was to assess the use of REDCap for the accreditation process to reduce that burden. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A review of credentialing requirements was conducted to identify required data and its sources. Initial course data from a small sample of courses was collected in Excel to better assess the order of the data collection process. REDCap was then used to create a series of data collection instruments that effectively met the program evaluation data needs and customized reports for three years of course learning outcomes. The instruments were developed for its translation to other programs. Faculty, administrators, and interns participated in 2 different types of data collection activities (excel and REDCap) and evaluated the differences between the experiences. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Data collection included 85 courses, with a range of 3-22 objectives that classified aligned assignments among 8 clinical research professional domains, 50 competencies, and 3 learning levels. Student outcomes data was also calculated and recorded. The time to complete the data collection process using the REDCap tool verses the excel spreadsheet per course was notably more efficient. User satisfaction was 100% improved using the REDCap tool with the average score of 8.5 out of a 1-10 scale. User comments supporting the REDCap process focused on improved time to complete and ease of process. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The incorporation of REDCap into data collection for program accreditation data requirements highlights the efficiency and ease of electronic data capture compared to manual entry in excel. The development of instruments makes it easy to translate to other program evaluation and accreditation needs.