Objectives/Goals: The University of Utah (U of U) CTSI has partnered with the Salt Lake Center for Science Education (SLCSE), a Title I school serving grades 7–12. Goals of this partnership are to 1) bridge the gap between K12 classroom learning and real-world applications and 2) better prepare students from underrepresented populations to enter the STEM workforce. Methods/Study Population: To cultivate science self-efficacy in grade 7–12 students, experiences included interviewing a scientist for 7th graders, model organism lab visits for 11th graders, and summer research internships for rising seniors. Additional engagements on the SLCSE campus included U of U guest speakers, U of U faculty and student participation in afterschool STEM clubs, U of U graduate students’ mentorship of high school science fair projects, and U of U faculty support in establishing a zebrafish lab for biology students. All students were surveyed at the start and end of the academic year using DEVISE evaluation tools developed by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Students participating in the summer internship program also completed the mentoring competency assessment before and after their ten-week internship experience. Results/Anticipated Results: During the first year of a seven-year longitudinal study, 380 SLCSE students engaged in at least one science experience through the Utah CTSI-SLCSE partnership named BEES (Boosting Engagement through Experiences in Science). Pearson product-moment correlations were used in preliminary studies to examine relationships between experience type and student motivation and interest in STEM. Field trips to U of U STEM labs and of U graduate students’ mentorship of high school science fair projects were significantly correlated with student motivation and interest, while the interview-a-scientist experience was significantly correlated with motivation only. The Utah CTSI-SLCSE BEES Program’s impact on student STEM success continues to be assessed using surveys and student reflections. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Access to science for underserved K-12 students is a critical issue in addressing educational equity and improving pathways into STEM fields. Many students attending SLCSE are low-income minority students with limited access to role models in STEM. The BEES partnership provides impactful opportunities for students to gain access to STEM.

Objectives/Goals: Citizen Science (CS) recognizes the vital role that community members play in research, centering their unique lived experiences and perspectives across the research cycle. We aim to enhance community-engaged research (CEnR) by adapting a CS Program at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS). Methods/Study Population: The CS Program, launched in response to COVID-19, was designed/piloted for Chicago community members interested in research careers, developing evidence-based practice skills, and/or partnering with academic, community, and/or public health organizations. To inform program adaptation, we are conducting a landscape assessment, including 1) inventory/annotation of existing curricular materials, 2) review of peer-reviewed literature, 3) website extraction of existing CS programs’ key components, and 4) interviewing key informants. An Advisory Board of prior CS instructors/alumni will guide curriculum adaptation, coordination, and fidelity. We will also identify strategic internal/external UIC organizational partnerships to collaborate on establishing, developing, and conducting the program. Results/Anticipated Results: Literature describes common CS program typology as a continuum, from research done “with the people” to research conducted “by the people” (King et al, 2016). Our program will equip CS to engage across these conceptual continuums. We plan to launch the UIC CCTS CS Program by Fall 2025 and have 10 online modules with a disability justice lens. Topics will range from Critical Thinking and the Research Process to Structural Violence and Evaluation Frameworks. Grounded in liberatory pedagogy, sessions will be taught by UIC faculty, staff, and community partners, each containing a lecture, interactive activities, and assessments. Participants will earn a certificate applicable to related jobs (e.g., academic/community research), supplement community health worker training, precursor to health degrees, and more. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Through the CS Program, we aim to center community expertise and lived experience within research, foster bi-directional collaborations and relationships, and build community capacity. We are evaluating this project adaptation and implementation to create a blueprint for institutions to enhance their community-engaged research.

Objectives/Goals: This project aims to inform and develop a clinician-centered educational tool evidence-based and stakeholder-informed that fosters healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) adaptive expertise (AE) in cannabinoid-based therapies (CBT) for chronic pain management (CPM), addressing existing knowledge gaps, improving patient care and clinical decision-making. Methods/Study Population: To achieve this, the project will use a mixed-methods approach divided into three phases to evaluate existing educational resources, identify gaps, and inform the design of a curriculum to transform clinician education in CBT for CPM. It includes stakeholder mapping to engage and consult key experts for real-world insights and an environmental scan to assess and compare current educational resources qualitatively. A rigorous curriculum will be informed to be designed through an adaptive expertise and reflective practice framework, emphasizing case and problem-based learning, clinical simulations, and other pedagogical techniques. The educational tool will be pilot-tested with clinicians, measuring its impact on knowledge and decision-making flexibility through pre- and post-assessments, ensuring it fosters AE on CBT. Results/Anticipated Results: The project is expected to identify key gaps in existing educational resources, particularly AE in HCPs specializing in CPM. Through pilot testing, we anticipate improved knowledge of CBT among clinicians and enhanced ability to apply this knowledge flexibly in clinical practice. We also expect to establish core curriculum components that better support routine and adaptive expertise in chronic pain management. The pilot evaluations will guide further curriculum refinement and inform broader educational implementation. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This project addresses critical gaps in CbT education by informing the development of a curriculum that enhances clinicians’ ability to manage chronic pain with cannabinoid-based therapies. The resulting educational tool could significantly impact clinical practice, empowering patients, and HCPs to make informed decisions and improve patient outcomes.

Objectives/Goals: By synergizing our efforts, we believe this to be a fruitful collaboration for UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) and California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). With multiple levels to stem cell training, focusing on specific educational goals is integral to our pilot event. This was held on July 26th and offered an exciting and valuable day for trainees. Methods/Study Population: Leadership was comprised of leaders at the UCLA Health Alpha Clinic, Broad Stem Cell Research Center (BSCRC), Human Gene and Cell Therapy Facility (HGCTF), UCLA Campus, Clinical and Translational Research Center (CTRC), and the Santa Barbara COMPASS program. Trainees from UCLA, CSUN, and UCSB were represented. The agenda included a didactic overview of the entire translational and clinical research process from discovery in the laboratory to bedside nursing in the patient care areas. Onsite tours were conducted at the HGCTF and the CTRC with a meet and greet with the nurses. The curriculum covered the clinical research process, regulatory requirements, ethics, current clinical trials, manufacturing, quality control, and compliance. A career opportunities discussion and network sessions closed out the day. Results/Anticipated Results: Of the 13 trainees who attended the session, 10 replied to the evaluation survey. All the responding students (100%) rated the event as “excellent” and found it to be “highly valuable” to their current training program. The trainees indicated that they were “very likely” (100%) to recommend a friend to attend this type of event. When asked what they liked most about the event, they indicated that the programming was “insightful, and “inspiring” for seeing beyond their current trainee responsibilities. They valued the responsiveness to questions, sharing experiences, and mentoring for career advancement. They especially liked the tours at the HGCTF and the session with the front-line nurses. Changes for the future will include timing and length, information on graduate programs and more student interactions. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Overall, our first educational session was very well-received by both trainees and staff involved as stakeholders. Due to the success of this inaugural event, we intend to continue to draw on the expertise of this collaboration and use a similar blueprint for future events and scientific sessions.

Objectives/Goals: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) use prior to bariatric surgery may represent a novel approach to treating obesity. The objectives of this study were to describe trends in pre-bariatric GLP1 use, investigate social and clinical factors associated with their use, and evaluate differences in clinical outcomes based on preoperative GLP1RA use. Methods/Study Population: Patients who underwent bariatric surgery at three Indiana hospitals from 2018 to 2023 were identified. Patients who utilized GLP1 in the year preceding surgery were compared to those who did not. Social determinants of health included insurance, income, and unemployment. Outcomes included rates of GLP1 use, 30-day postoperative readmissions, ED visits, and percent total weight lost (%TWL) at one year. Associations between preoperative GLP1 use and outcomes of interest were evaluated using multivariable logistic and linear regressions. Results/Anticipated Results: Of 2,169 patients who underwent surgery, 293 (13.5%) utilized GLP1 preoperatively. The rate of GLP1 utilization increased threefold from 2018 to 2023. Males were more likely to receive preoperative GLP1 (20.1% vs, 12.2%, p<0.001). There were no significant differences in social determinants of health or 30-day postoperative outcomes between patients who did and did not use GLP1RA preoperatively. Similarly, there were no significant differences in %TWL at one year postoperatively between groups (median 25.5% vs. 27.3%, coefficient: -0.78, 95%CI: -2.26–0.70). Discussion/Significance of Impact: Utilization of GLP1 in the year prior to bariatric surgery has significantly increased. Preoperative GLP1 use is not associated with worse 30-day outcomes or differences in %TWL at one year postoperatively. Further work is needed to evaluate whether GLP1 dosing and duration of treatment impact postoperative outcomes.

Objectives/Goals: Our study’s objective is to evaluate RadOnc-GPT, a GPT-4o powered LLM, in generating responses to in-basket messages related to prostate cancer treatment in the Radiation Oncology department. By integrating it with electronic health record (EHR) systems, the goal is to assess its impact on clinician workload, response quality, and efficiency in healthcare communication. Methods/Study Population: RadOnc-GPT was integrated with patient EHRs from both hospital-wide and radiation-oncology-specific databases. The study examined 158 pre-recorded in-basket message interactions from 90 non-metastatic prostate cancer patients. Quantitative natural language processing analysis and two randomized single-blinded grading studies, involving four clinicians and four nurses, were conducted to evaluate RadOnc-GPT’s response quality in completeness, correctness, clarity, empathy, and estimated editing time. Response times were measured to estimate the time saved for clinicians and nurses. The study population included patient messages across all phases of care (pre-, during, and post-treatment) for those undergoing radiotherapy. Results/Anticipated Results: In the single-blinded grader study, clinician graders evaluated 316 responses (158 from human care teams and 158 from RadOnc-GPT). Results showed RadOnc-GPT outperformed human responses in empathy and clarity, while humans excelled in completeness and correctness. Sentiment analyses using TextBlob and VADER revealed RadOnc-GPT responses had a positive mean score of 0.25, whereas human responses clustered around neutral. VADER analysis indicated a high median score for RadOnc-GPT, nearing 1.0, reflecting predominantly positive sentiment, while human responses displayed a broader sentiment range, indicating sensitivity to context. Clinicians averaged 3.60 minutes (SD 1.44) to respond, compared to 6.39 minutes (SD 4.05) for nurses, highlighting RadOnc-GPT’s efficiency in generating timely responses. Discussion/Significance of Impact: RadOnc-GPT effectively generated responses to individualized patient in-basket messages, comparable to those from radiation oncologists and nurses. While human oversight is still necessary to avoid errors, RadOnc-GPT can speed up response times and reduce pressure on care teams, shifting their role from drafting to reviewing responses.

Objectives/Goals: We evaluated the implementation of a peer-facilitated research best practices training for Community Health Workers and Promotoras (CHW/Ps) at four new partner sites to increase the capacity and capability of a workforce increasingly involved in community-engaged research. Methods/Study Population: Staff were trained using a train-the-trainer model, and materials were disseminated to partners at three academic institutions and one community-based organization. Each site delivered the training virtually or in-person in English and/or Spanish. CHW/P learners at all sites completed online evaluation surveys about the impact of the training on their knowledge and skills for participating in research-related work, and two CHW/Ps from each site participated in follow-up interviews to gather feedback about their experiences. Staff completed fidelity monitoring, follow-up interviews, and three brief surveys regarding feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of implementing the training. Results/Anticipated Results: The four sites conducted six trainings with a total of 42 CHW/Ps. Two sites each conducted one in-person training in English while the other two sites each conducted two virtual trainings, one in English and one in Spanish. Staff noted facilitators to successful implementation, including providing a facilitator guide and course materials in both languages and tips sheets for navigating REDCap; using the train-the-trainer model; and compensating CHW/P learners for attendance. The primary barrier noted was not having a budget for in-person trainings (e.g., refreshments, printed materials). CHW/P learners reported positive experiences with few suggestions for improving the training. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Preliminary results suggest the research best practices training for CHW/Ps is feasible, acceptable, and appropriate for implementation by partners at academic institutions and community-based organizations, regardless of language (i.e., English or Spanish) or delivery (i.e., virtual or in-person).

Objectives/Goals: Our goal was to develop a method for creating a streamlined, Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA)-specific translational science scoring rubric to be used to differentiate between translational science and translational research projects during the pilot proposal review process. Methods/Study Population: We created a survey using the 24 Translational Science Principle-based questions sourced from Schneider et al.’s 2023 manuscript in JCTS. Survey respondents were asked to rank the questions from 1 to 24, with “1” being the question that is the most impactful for defining translational science at Penn State. The survey was distributed to our CTSA staff, faculty, and leadership who are well-versed in translational science across all CTSA Cores. The rankings were averaged per question. The five questions with the most impactful average score were selected to be used to evaluate translational science at our CTSA. Results/Anticipated Results: Nine individuals, including faculty, staff, and leadership, across five CTSA Cores completed the survey. The average ranking scores ranged from 6.1 to 20.3. The top five ranked items represented the following four Translational Science Principles: generalizable solutions, efficiency and speed, focus on unmet needs, and cross-disciplinary team science. Importantly, these five items and corresponding translational science principles reflect our CTSA priority areas, the infrastructure support we provide, and the translational research activities conducted at our CTSA. For example, team science is highlighted throughout our CTSA programming, including mini presentations during our CTSA meetings. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This method allows CTSA teams to reflect on their institutional work and share Core-specific perspectives of translational science. This CTSA-specific rubric allows for streamlined translational science pilot proposal evaluation in alignment with site specific CTSA mission and vision.

Objectives/Goals: Physical therapy (PT) is a recognized and evidence-based component of oncology care that has been shown to benefit people with various cancers, such as breast, lung, head and neck, thyroid, or prostate cancer. The goal of this evaluation was to determine the level of PT service utilization by World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program members with cancer. Methods/Study Population: The Program is a limited benefits federal program that serves responders and survivors of the September 11th attacks in New York City, the Pentagon, and Shanksville PA. Our analyses include enrolled Program members with a cancer certification. Cancer types were divided into two categories, Category A (breast, lung, head and neck, thyroid, or prostate cancer) and Non-Category A (all other cancer types). Data included medical claims, certification, and enrollment data from July 2011 to December 2023. The 2023 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code list from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used to identify claims associated with PT interventions. Our analyses describe trends in PT claims, CPT codes, cancer certifications by subtype, and number of members with Category A cancers and PT claims. Results/Anticipated Results: Since the Program’s inception in 2011, PT claims had gradually increased except for in 2020 when there was a sudden decrease, most likely due to the interruption of in-person services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. From 2021 to 2023, PT claims began to increase again. The most common types of PT interventions were therapeutic exercises, manual therapy, and neuromuscular reeducation. In 2023, the most recent year of full data available, Category A cancers made up 38% of all cancer certifications, with prostate and breast cancer being the most common. Category A cancers were evaluated together due to prior existing evidence outlining significant benefit from PT intervention. In total, Category A cancers represent over 14,000 Program members. Less than 1% of members with a Category A cancer had a PT related claim in 2023. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The mission of the Program is to provide quality and compassionate medical care and treatment to our members. Better understanding the utilization of PT services provided by the Program will allow us to increase awareness and support of interventions for members of our Program who could benefit from PT services.

Objectives/Goals: To fully understand the scientific objectives, overall financial commitment, and outcome of the pilot projects. Methods/Study Population: We evaluated pilots reported in the in the annual, interim, and final Research Performance Progress Reports (RPPRs) for Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program UM1 and UL1 grants from FYs 2021–2023 to assess research categories across the translational science spectrum. We analyzed the number of pilots involving human subjects, vertebrate animals, both, or neither; financial allocations; publication outputs; and other characteristics. Pilots reported across multiple years were deduplicated and assigned to the latest reporting year. Each pilot was classified into broad (Category 1) and specific (Category 2) areas. Descriptive statistics, including means and frequency distributions, were generated. Multi-year pilots with NA or 0 values used the most recent prior value. Results/Anticipated Results: In the period from FY 2021 to 2023, 61 hubs reported 1,811 unique pilot projects in their RPPRs, receiving a total of approximately $62 million, of which two-thirds were expended. On average, each hub conducted 30 pilots with an award size of about $35K. Just over half of the pilots involved human subjects research (HSR), while about one-third were neither HSR nor vertebrate animal studies (VAS), with the remaining focused primarily on VAS. Notably, only 13% of pilots resulted in peer-reviewed publications. Collaborative efforts were observed in one-third of the projects. The majority of pilots fell into Preclinical Research (46%), followed by Clinical Research (33%) and Public Health (20%). Limitations in data quality were identified, and ten pilots reported $0 awarded funds, which may be captured in future RPPRs. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Analysis of pilots reported in RPPRs from FYs 2021–2023 across 61 hubs shows a strong focus on HSR, highlighting collaborative efforts that enhance translational science and align with CTSA goals. Future analysis will help assess the pilots’ impact and their alignment with NCATS’ mission to expedite research translation into health solutions.

Objectives/Goals: The demands on MICHR’s Evaluation team are profuse and varied. Quarterly team meetings were used to keep track projects, identify new projects, and relay important new initiatives from MICHR leadership. The MICHR Translational Innovation team took on the task of assessing the Evaluation team’s processes to design better workflow and effectiveness. Methods/Study Population: The process included 5 stages, Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype and Test. Sixteen interviews were conducted with MICHR faculty and staff. Interviews were coded and summarized. Seventeen themes were mapped and distilled into 5 key insights. From the key insights, design principles were identified to guide a design session with Translational Innovation staff and Evaluation staff. New work processes were proposed, designed, and tested by both teams. The Evaluation team “test-drove” the prototype and iterative design sessions were conducted to determine which new elements were successful. The Evaluation team was positioned to begin utilizing the newly designed process at the beginning of MICHR’s new grant year. Results/Anticipated Results: The MICHR Evaluation team is instrumental to the development, conduct, and dissemination of Clinical & Translational Science (CTS), a primary objective of MICHR’s work. Three types of evaluation projects were identified through the design process: required reporting, CQI/program improvement, and CTS/impact evaluation. The service design process enabled the Evaluation team, and MICHR program leads to better identify and prioritize collaborations between the Evaluation and program teams that improved the quantity and quality of MICHR CTS outputs. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Generating CTS is critical to the missions of NCATS and MICHR. Thoughtfully designing processes that facilitate and increase CTS output that can be shared and duplicated across the consortium is invaluable.

Objectives/Goals: In alignment with the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) UM1, continuous quality improvement (CQI) needs to be integrated into the elements and hub evaluation. As a first step to operationalizing this process, the University of Cincinnati hub (CCTST) evaluation team developed a systematic approach to prioritizing and sequencing tasks for aligning evaluation methods with CQI. Methods/Study Population: A scoring sheet was developed to provide a framework for prioritizing and developing the sequence and timeline for supporting elements in aligning their evaluation methods with CQI. The scoring sheet assessed: 1) impact – defined as the results from completing the task and implementing enhancements; 2) effort – defined as the amount of resources (time, personnel, and materials) needed to complete the tasks; 3) reach – defined as number of individuals (e.g., CTSA employees, members, researchers, trainees, and community members) impacted by the tasks or products of the tasks; 4) urgency – defined as a task that is time-sensitive due to a deadline and has a clear consequence if not completed on time. Each component was assessed using a 3-point scale (e.g., minimal, moderate, and high). Results/Anticipated Results: In Fall 2024, the CCTST evaluation team met with respective elements to collect data on their: 1) need from the evaluation team to support aligning their evaluation methods with CQI, 2) challenges and barriers to improving evaluation and aligning with CQI methods, 3) number of hours per month available to support improving evaluation methods, and 4) current resources to dedicated to conducting an evaluation. Next, the evaluation team will transcribe the data from the meetings and code the data into the scoring sheet for each element. The scoring sheet is anticipated to produce a score that will be used to develop the sequence, timeline, and initial tasks for supporting elements in improving evaluation methods and aligning with CQI over the first year of the UM1. Discussion/Significance of Impact: CTSA hubs’ evaluation teams operating at full capacity may encounter barriers to implementing CQI efforts. This systematic approach – assessing the impact, effort, reach, and urgency to sequence evaluation and CQI alignment – can support evaluation teams by ensuring a balanced workload and optimizing operations for quality improvement.

Objectives/Goals: We operationalized our evaluation using the RE-AIM framework, by defining its dimensions as nodes within a net effect diagram in the form of radar charts to visually display group variation among nodes. This enhanced our ability to measure the reach, effectiveness, and implementation of our efforts in under-resourced Los Angeles communities. Methods/Study Population: We applied the RE-AIM framework to guide the operationalization of evaluation methods, defining the RE-AIM dimensions generally with a focus on reach, effectiveness, and implementation. We developed and defined a standardized scoring system for metrics that contributed to the RE-AIM dimensions of focus, using data from our activities such as health education workshops targeting diverse, under-resourced populations in Los Angeles. Our standardized scoring system ranged from 1 to 5, reflecting the degree of success within each metric/dimension. Scores were mapped in net effect diagrams in the form of radar charts to enable comparative analysis and visualization, highlighting a variety of grouped variables (i.e., language, locations, and adaptation). Results/Anticipated Results: The operationalized and developed scoring system allowed us to standardize assessment across the RE-AIM dimensions, making it possible to visualize our impact through net effect diagrams. These diagrams illustrated variations in reach, effectiveness, and implementation across different community engagement activities stratified by group variables, providing insights into our impact and areas for adjustment. Preliminary results suggest that the net effect diagram effectively captures both broad and nuanced impacts and serves as a viable application of the RE-AIM framework. The use of standardized scoring enhances data comparability and offers a dynamic visual tool for monitoring ongoing and future initiatives while serving as a tool to display and report our impact. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Operationalizing evaluation with the RE-AIM framework and implementing a standardized scoring system allows us to visualize and monitor effectiveness in real time. This system supports data-driven decision-making for our sustainable, impactful community engagement initiatives ultimately contributing to our goal of improving health equity.

Objectives/Goals: Evaluate use and reuse of data in biomedical fields to explore how data advances translational benefit for science and patients. Methods/Study Population: In this study, we use the metadata for 5 million data citations in the Data Citation Corpus as a source to analyze the use of datasets from biomedical fields across a number of facets, including date, affiliations, and funders. We identify examples of datasets that have been used across different research fields by analyzing the disciplinary scopes of the datasets and the publications that cite them and explore patterns of reuse of datasets beyond the original research project from which it was created. Results/Anticipated Results: The analysis will provide insights into datasets showing broad usage in biomedical fields, the patterns of data use over time, and the affiliations and funders associated with highly used datasets. The analysis will also dive into examples of datasets showing use across different fields and usage beyond the original project. The results will showcase examples of valuable datasets in translational research and serve as a basis for exploring different considerations around the impact of open datasets. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The exploration of data citations will provide insights into open data showing translational reach and an example of how the Data Citation Corpus can support evaluation of the impact of research data.

Objectives/Goals: To identify and characterize future potentially high impact research generated by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program, we evaluated the Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) of recent articles associated with the Program and conducted an initial assessment of the attributes associated with high AAS for Program articles. Methods/Study Population: We used the NIH Query, View, Report (QVR) tool to identify recently-published scientific papers that cited support from a CTSA Program grant. The unique publications identified by QVR were used to construct an Altmetric Explorer report. We examined the relationship between the AAS and other variables, including number of authors, number of grants supporting the publication, number of CTSA program institutions supporting the publication, and if the publication included group authorship. Results/Anticipated Results: Our analyses confirmed that the Program indeed supports potentially high impact research, as indicated by the highest scoring papers, across a wide range of diseases and conditions. Nearly all the highest scoring papers were focused on a specific disease or condition rather than broader methodological research, despite the disease-agnostic focus of the CTSA program. We also found that the Program significantly contributed to critical research on the once-in-a-century COVID-19 pandemic. We confirmed the entire CTSA consortium is contributing to potentially high impact research, with all institutions represented in the highest scoring publications. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Understanding the impact of the CTSA Program presents a unique challenge – the program supports biomedical research infrastructure and training programs whose outcomes and impact can be difficult to track or measure. These data offer early signals of impact and can assist evaluators with designing future evaluations.

Objectives/Goals: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common during pregnancy and postpartum, leading to adverse birth outcomes. Despite effective interventions like narrative exposure therapy, PTSD often goes untreated due limited training opportunities and lack of community support. Expanding training for PTSD is crucial to improving access to care. Methods/Study Population: Six 3-day PNET trainings were delivered to 57 participants over a 23-month period. Workshop attendees represented a variety of professions (19% Social Workers, 19% Mental Health Graduate Trainees, 18% Psychologists, 18% Counselors, 12% Doulas, 11% Physicians, and 5% Home Visitor/Parent Educators) with varying levels of specialty experience from diverse locations (2 countries and 13 states). Key workshop outcomes included participant one-week post-workshop satisfaction, perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the intervention, and pre- to one-week post-workshop perceptions of connectedness to trauma treatment and perinatal healthcare communities. Data will be explored at 6 months post-workshop to evaluate longer-term effects on connectedness. Results/Anticipated Results: The majority of workshop attendees (84%, M =  4.76, range 1–5) reported being “extremely satisfied” with the training and 98% indicated they would “recommend it to others.” Most attendees found NET to be acceptable (M  =  4.64, range  =  1–5), appropriate (M  =  4.37, range  =  1–5), and feasible (M  =  4.49, range  =  1–5) to use within their practice. Paired t-tests revealed a significant increase in a sense of connectedness to both the trauma treatment and perinatal healthcare communities from pre- to post-workshop. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Findings indicate that the PNET workshop is feasible and effective in training interdisciplinary providers on perinatal PTSD evidence-based interventions. By training a range of professionals and fostering a sense of connectedness, the PNET workshop has the potential to make effective trauma treatments accessible to underserved populations.

Objectives/Goals: Electronic health record (EHR)-based recruitment can facilitate participation in clinical trials, but is not a panacea to trial accrual challenges. We conducted a root cause analysis to identify EHR-based accrual barriers and facilitators in a pragmatic randomized trial of metformin for those with prostate cancer and glucose intolerance. Methods/Study Population: We quantitatively analyzed enrollment drop-offs among eligible patients who either did not complete a consent (with analysis of EHR-embedded consent process) or who completed a consent but were not enrolled (with analysis of EHR implementation of a Best Practice Alert). We summarized data from the EHR by eligibility, provider encounters, and alerts, and generated CONSORT diagrams and tables to trace the enrollment pathway. We supplemented quantitative findings with a thematic analysis of semi-structured individual interviews with eligible patients (n = 10) and study providers (n = 4) to identify systematic barriers to recruitment and enrollment of eligible patients. Results/Anticipated Results: CONSORT diagram analysis found that 24% of potentially eligible patients (268 of 1130) had an eligible study encounter but were not enrolled. Additionally, BPAs were not triggering for some eligible patients. Interviews revealed that study providers wanted more detailed information about which study arm their patient would be assigned to, and about next steps after enrollment, especially relating to additional lab tests and follow-up care needed. Patient interviews suggested that patients often did not remember completing the consent process and felt overwhelmed with appointments and information; patients expected providers to actively bring up research opportunities during appointments. Discussion/Significance of Impact: While pragmatic EHR-embedded trials are often characterized as lower-burden, these trials still require active engagement by providers, as well as ongoing attention from both research and informatics teams to ensure that EHR-embedded processes are functioning as designed, and that they are effective in recruiting study participants.

Objectives/Goals: The University of Illinois Chicago’s Center for Clinical and Translational Science has implemented an innovative approach to program evaluation. We blend high-impact quantitative and in-depth qualitative approaches to identify local and national impacts and areas for improvement that are not captured solely by traditional quantitative methods. Methods/Study Population: CCTS manages service requests and investigator demographics through an in-house system that our evaluation program utilizes to report on service requests, investigator satisfaction, and investigator demographics to service groups, CTSA and campus leadership, and other stakeholders throughout the year. Through this system, we are able to regularly survey and interview investigators about their experiences and solicit feedback about the service process. During interviews, we focus on questions about receiving services, recommendations for CCTS and colleagues, and plans to work with CCTS in the future. This mixed-methods approach helps us lay the foundation to expand evaluation beyond reporting and establish a robust CQI program that focuses both on CCTS staff needs and improving investigator experiences. Results/Anticipated Results: Soliciting both quantitative and qualitative feedback from investigators has enabled our service groups to make significant changes to their internal processes to ensure that investigators are aware of services and supports available. Our quantitative data show us that investigators return time and again to CCTS for services and supports. Yet the feedback we receive through short, targeted interviews also helps identify challenges that investigators experience that could improve the services they come to us to receive. We have already used this system to recommend improved marketing of existing services within certain service groups that were highly requested by investigators, which increased utilization of that service. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Our mixed-method approach to evaluation allows us to easily and rapidly identify areas for improvement within our service groups, an instrumental part of implementing a CQI program that is focused on staff-identified areas of improvement. This approach can be easily replicated by other CTSA hubs with minimal impact to existing resources.

Objectives/Goals: Dissemination and implementation scientists often conflate or confuse pragmatic trials and effectiveness-implementation trial designs. This study evaluates the barriers and facilitators affecting these scientists’ collaborative work to design, plan for, and conduct these different kinds of trials. Methods/Study Population: This is a sequential mixed-methods study. For the quantitative evaluation secondary data collection and surveys of roughly 200 investigators constituting an Implementation Science Network were carried out to identify research needs and impacts associated with the Translational Science Benefits Model. Surveys were prepopulated with respondents’ grant awards and prompts to define the study designs being used. Interviews of respondents are being conducted to identify barriers and challenges they faced in conducting different implementation trials and to develop case studies of their resultant research agendas. A peer-reviewed interview protocol designed for Clinical and Translational Research Institutes to conduct case studies of translational research is being used for this qualitative evaluation. Results/Anticipated Results: The 182 ISN members submitted 1590 research proposals since 2020, 52% of which were funded. ISN members responding to surveys (N = 30) self-identified many of these studies as being Hybrid 3 (29%), Hybrid 1 (17%), or Pragmatic trials (7%), although the largest proportion included studies classified “other” (33%), and some could not be classified (12%). Surveys of ISN members also indicated that many want to conduct pragmatic trials (36%) or hybrid trials (8%) but need more opportunities to collaborate (19%). Twelve (40%) ISN members agreed to be interviewed and another 11 (37%) indicated that they would do so in fall 2024 if available. Initial findings suggest that regular interactions with colleagues helped investigators new to the field understand how varied study designs could advance their implementation science. Discussion/Significance of Impact: These findings will show how U-M implementation scientists collaborate to conduct implementation trials. If the kinds of barriers faced by investigators differs by trial type, research supports and initiatives can be tailored to better support all implementation scientists in the CTSA Consortium.

Objectives/Goals: As translational science (TS) emerges as a field, there is a need for research organizations to understand how to develop capacity for and support the advancement of TS. To support such institutional and infrastructural change, this poster outlines a Translational Science Promotion and Research Capacity (T-SPARC) framework. Methods/Study Population: The T-SPARC framework was developed by members of the Duke University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) primarily from CTSI Pilots, Team Science, Evaluation, and Administration, all of whom had identified the need for building institutional capacity for TS at our institution. The group reviewed literature on TS to ensure grounding in current knowledge, drafted an initial TS logic model, and then determined the value of developing a framework addressing building TS institutional capacity. The group then identified other frameworks/models related to behavioral, organizational, and system change; examined scholarship addressing the building of research capacity in colleges and universities; and iterated on a TS-focused framework in multiple working sessions. Results/Anticipated Results: The resultant T-SPARC framework provides a foundation to 1) inform the development of interventions and programs advancing TS and 2) evaluate their effectiveness. It outlines: organizational levels for TS capacity building (large-scale systems, research institutions, teams, and individuals); intervention activities (policies and processes, funding, collaboration and partnership, and training); proximal outcomes (knowledge/attitudes, behaviors, resources/infrastructure, and connections); next-stage outcomes (e.g., interdisciplinary team processes, and research infrastructure); and ultimate goals (fewer translational impediments, improved public health, and health equity). It ingrates TS principles as foundational to, and outcomes of, capacity-building efforts. Discussion/Significance of Impact: T-SPARC, as a framework for building capacity in TS, provides added foundation for advancing the conceptualization and practice of TS. Ultimately, T-SPARC seeks to advance broader goals of reducing longstanding challenges in the translational research process and improving health outcomes.