Attacks on minoritized communities and increasing awareness of the societal causes of health disparities have combined to highlight deep systemic inequities. In response, academic health centers have prioritized justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) in their strategic goals. To have a sustained impact, JEDI efforts cannot be siloed; rather, they must be woven into the fabric of our work and systematically assessed to promote meaningful outcomes and accountability. To this end, the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Clinical Research Education assembled a task force to create and apply a rubric to identify short and long-term JEDI goals, assess the current state of JEDI at our Institute, and make recommendations for immediate action. To ensure deep buy-in, we gathered input from diverse members of our academic community, who served on targeted subcommittees. We then applied a three-step process to ensure rapid forward progress. We emerged with concrete actions for priority focus and a plan for ongoing assessment of JEDI institutionalization. We believe our process and rubric offer a scalable and adaptable model for other institutions and departments to follow as we work together across academic medical institutions to put our justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion goals into meaningful action.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Writing self-efficacy & self-regulation are tied to publication & grant submission” writers high in these traits are more productive. We investigated if participating in Shut Up & Write! would produce statistically significant gains in self-efficacy & self-regulation when comparing pre/post surveys. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: 47 US med students, TL1/KL2, & early-career faculty expressed interest in participating. We conducted a 12-week, 1 hr/week Shut Up & Write!-style (SUAW) activity, held on Zoom, and measured the effect using a pre-post survey adapted from the Writer Self-Perception Scale. Matched pairs t-tests (I2=0.05) to test for significant differences between pre- and post-test means were conducted on 3 subscales. The 3 subscales reflected writing attitudes (self-efficacy), writing strategies (self-regulation), and avoiding writing distractions (self-regulation). Subscales showed acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.80, 0.71, and 0.72. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 24/37 (65%) completed pre-post surveys. 81% presented as female. 60% were NIH-defined URB and/or were from MSIs. 60% previously participated in an activity similar to SUAW. Sum scale statistics for those who previously participated were significant for the self-efficacy subscale (p=0.020) and writing strategies subscale (p=0.041). Sum scale statistics for those who had not previously participated were significant for the writing strategies subscale (p=0.002). We saw no difference in the avoiding writing distractions subscale. 80% were very satisfied/satisfied with SUAW (I really loved these sessions” they helped me to identify a writing goal that could actually be accomplished in an hour.) DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We found significant differences in self-efficacy & self-regulation, building upon findings from a 2021 pilot, and providing evidence that regular participation in an activity like SUAW produces increased self-efficacy and self-regulation and may increase manuscript and grant-writing productivity

The COVID-19 pandemic had an immediate impact on the lives and work of early-career researchers. We leveraged a cluster-randomized trial and compared survey data collected over two timepoints to explore whether these impacts persisted. Although more than a year had passed, 74% of participants reported that their research was affected in multiple ways in both 2020 and 2021. These data suggest that the effects of the pandemic on early-career researchers may be prolonged. Our findings additionally serve as an impetus to identify and implement solutions to early-career challenges that undoubtedly existed before the pandemic, but which COVID-19 brought into the spotlight.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Writers with high self-efficacy perform better than writers with low self-efficacy regardless of writing ability. We investigated whether Shut Up & Write® (SUAW), a less-intensive writing intervention, produced gains in writing self-efficacy similar to those reported by intensive, longer-term interventions. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Meetings were held 2x/wk for 5 wks via Zoom, for 1 hour. Participants were encouraged to attend at least 1x/wk. The 1st few mins were devoted to a discussion of what each person planned to work on. Then, a timer was set and each writer muted themselves, shuttered their webcam, and wrote. When the alarm sounded, everyone returned to the group, and discussed what was accomplished. We measured writing self-efficacy before & after participating in SUAW using a pre-post survey design and used two-tailed paired t-tests to test for significant differences between pre- and post-test means. SUAW participants (n=23) were in 1 of 2 categories: 10 were self-selected LEADS scholars from MSIs, and 13 were medical students in a palliative care program. 86% were URB, 78% were female. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Seven (30%) SUAW participants completed both the pre- and post-survey. Individuals showed significantly higher agreement from pre-to-post on the self-efficacy item “I have a generally positive attitude toward writing” (p=0.047) using a 5-point Likert scale from “completely agree” to “completely disagree.” Most other items did not indicate significant change between pre- and post-survey. The mean of the question “How satisfied were you with this Shut Up & Write activity?” which appeared only on the post-survey (n=10) was 1.10 (1=extremely satisfied, 5=extremely dissatisfied). Anticipated result: We suspect that the benefits of SUAW are best actualized by ongoing attendance, and that benefits are cumulative. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We found that participation in SUAW promotes writing self-efficacy in early-career URB researchers. This is an exciting finding because publishing ones research is essential for academic advancement, and research supports a relationship between writing self-efficacy and writing production. This may curtail URB scientists’ rate of attrition.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The use of Human Centered Design (HCD) to improve the quality of team science is a recent application, and HCDs benefits and challenges have not been rigorously evaluated. We conducted a qualitative study with health sciences researchers trained in HCD methods to determine how they applied HCD methods and perceived its benefits and challenges. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The University of Pittsburgh offered HCD training to three cohorts of research scientists (staff as well as faculty) over a three-year period. The training was provided by the LUMA Institute, a premier HCD design firm with a highly regarded training program. We then evaluated this training by conducting 1-hour, semi-structured interviews with trainees from three training cohorts. Interviews focused on perceptions of the training, subsequent uses of HCD, barriers and facilitators, and perceptions of the utility of HCD to science teams. Data analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarkes process for thematic analysis. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We interviewed 18 researchers (nine faculty and nine staff) trained in HCD methods and identified distinct themes regarding HCD use and its perceived benefits and challenges. Trainees found HCD relevant to research teams for stakeholder engagement, research design, project planning, meeting facilitation, and team management. They also described benefits of HCD in five distinct areas: creativity, egalitarianism, structure, efficiency, and visibility. We also identified challenges, including tensions between HCD approaches and academic culture. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our data suggest that HCD has the potential to help researchers work more inclusively and collaboratively on interdisciplinary teams and generate more innovative and impactful science. The application of HCD methods is not without challenges; however, we believe these challenges can be overcome with institutional investment.

Introduction: Early team experiences can influence the professional trajectories of early-career investigators profoundly, yet they remain underexplored in the team science literature, which has focused primarily on large, multisite teams led by established researchers. To better understand the unique challenges of teams led by early-career investigators, we conducted a qualitative pilot study.

Methods: Interviews were conducted with the principal investigator and members of 5 teams led by KL2 and K12 scholars at the University of Pittsburgh. A code book was developed and thematic analysis was conducted.

Results: Seven distinct themes emerged. Interview subjects reported a high level of trust and strong communication patterns on their teams; however, the data also suggested underlying tensions that have the potential to escalate into larger problems if unaddressed.

Conclusions: This study yields a deeper understanding of teams led by early-career investigators, which can help us provide appropriately targeted training and support.

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