OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Our objectives are to: 1) characterize opioid treatment providers in North Carolina according to payment methods accepted and ability to provide medications for opioid use disorder and 2) use geomapping technology to characterize geographic access to treatment for opioid use disorder in NC. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We will identify opioid treatment providers using resources published by SAMHSA and NC DHHS. We will characterize all providers identified according to provision of medications for opioid use disorder, payment or insurance accepted, and services provided. ArcGIS will be used to characterize geographic distribution of treatment resources after filtering for these key characteristics and determine access according to driving radius. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We anticipate that the geographic analysis of opioid treatment provider availability will reveal limited access to treatment, particularly in rural areas. We anticipate that further filtering for factors such as provision of medications for opioid use disorder--a first-line, evidence-based intervention—and payment or insurance accepted will demonstrate that the availability of evidence-based, financially accessible treatment for opioid use disorder in North Carolina is critically limited. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We anticipate that an analysis of treatment options available for opioid use disorder, particularly when considering insurance status and drive times, will clearly demonstrate the need for development and expansion of opioid treatment options, and in which areas those efforts are likely to have the highest impact.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR) Community Engagement (CE) Program fosters translational science and community-engaged research (CenR) through education, connecting, supporting, and funding efforts and opportunities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: In Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, CE partnered with the Michigan Health Endowment Fund to develop a 3-hour workshop that consisted of a panel discussion on best practices of community engagement and a presentation on community engaged nonprofit management. The workshop was designed from mapping 60 participants’ pre-workshop survey findings and reviewing themes from a planning meeting transcript with six community partners. Key themes that emerged included participatory budgeting, collaborative governance, communications, and community planning. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A mix methods post-workshop evaluation feedback survey was completed. The 9-item survey assessed workshop content, satisfaction, and knowledge gained using a Likert scale as well as opened questions about key takeaway and value added. Quantitative results to be analyzed. Qualitatively, some participants described the workshop as helpful and thoughtful about how to strengthen community engagement within their organizations. Others expressed a desire for more time. Regarding impact, CE received an uptake in consultations and inquiries into statewide pilot grants. The workshop facilitated new collaborations with philanthropic and community organizations serving the Upper Peninsula. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Lessons learned highlight trust, understanding community culture, and moving slowly in a newly formed collaboration. The approach utilized in the Upper Peninsula can inform translational methods for additional partnerships underway across the state of Michigan.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: At UNC-Chapel Hill’s CTSA hub – the NC Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS) – we conducted a participatory evaluation of a new community and patient advisory board (CPAB) to assess member experiences, and the outcomes and early impacts of their work on institutional programming related to equity and inclusivity in research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: NC TraCS staff conducted informal interviews with CPAB members to discuss how they envision success in their work, ideas for measuring progress towards their goals, and how they have seen similar work measured by others. These conversations guided the development of outcomes, indicators, and data collection methods for the CPAB evaluation plan. CPAB member satisfaction, experiences, and perceptions of accomplishments were assessed via an online survey. Concurrently, an Outcome Harvesting approach was used, through which NC TraCS staff retrospectively identified key outcomes of the CPAB’s work through team discussion of programmatic changes and review of internal documents and data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: CPAB members (n=10) were highly satisfied with meetings, group dynamics, activities and accomplishments, and 90% of members felt that NC TraCS was very responsive to their feedback. Key outcomes included: 1) co-creating a shared vision, goals, and operational policies for the CPAB; 2) co-developing a training series for research teams about patient and community engagement; 3) disseminating best practices for co-developing advisory boards; 4) providing guidance to improve NC TraCS consultations, services, and resources related to enhancing equitable participation in research (e.g., developing an Equity in Research Framework); and 5) contributing to institutional initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (e.g., improving compensation processes for research participants and partners). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Evaluations of CPABs often focus on process measures, while assessments of outcomes and impacts are lacking. Our evaluation data highlight the early outcomes and value of a newly formed CPAB. Furthermore, our approach can inform the creation and evaluation of equity-focused advisory boards within other research institutions.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The primary aim of this study is to explore the relationship between neighborhood deprivation index as measured by the Social Vulnerability Index (primary predictor) and anxiety and depression in primary caregivers of hospitalized children, measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (primary outcome). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Design: This descriptive, comparative, non-intervention, cross-sectional substudy is is a secondary analysis of survey data collected from parents of hospitalized children staying at Ronald McDonald Houses. Regression models will examine the relationship between a parent’s social determinants of health and their anxiety and depression in the context of their child’s hospitalization. Setting/Study population: Parents/primary caregivers were recruited from the following sites: RMH of the Greater Philadelphia Region, RMH of San Diego, RMH of Greater Cincinnati, RMH of the Bluegrass (Lexington, KY), and RMH of Alabama. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In the DAG below I hypothesize the associations between the variables and anxiety and depression based on what has been reported in the literature. The analysis is in progress. [blob:https://acts.slayte.com/50293cb7-4274-49bb-998d-7601dffd23cb] DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Parents of hospitalized children experience a high burden of anxiety and depression. Pre-existing indicators of social determinants of health may contribute or compound parental anxiety and depression. A better understanding of this association can lead to improved screening and interventions to better support parents and their children.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Culturally Centered Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CCCBT) is a therapeutic approach that acknowledges the effect of cultural values, beliefs, and norms on mental health. Study aims to develop a CCCBT for rural community by enhancing engagement, relevance, and outcomes through culturally tailored interventions, and evaluate its implementation. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Diverse mixed methods study with participants ages 18-65 from Partial Hospitalization Program in rural community located in Puerto Rico Mountain region. CCCBT intervention will have a span of 9 consecutive bi-weekly sessions. The study consists of 2 phases: 1. Evaluate intervention acceptability through focus groups (n=12) with repeated measures to learn about enhancing mental health outcomes, 2. Measure intervention effectiveness in reducing mild-moderate depression and anxiety symptoms using validated questionnaires (PHQ-9 and GAD-7) with a 100 participants from same region. Descriptive analysis for sociodemographic characteristics will be used to provide overview of participants characteristics. Qualitative analysis of focus groups will be obtained through feedback and content analysis. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We anticipate high intervention acceptability through positive participant feedback and cultural relevance feedback from focal groups. We expect to find significant reduction in symptoms of depression and anxiety post-intervention, demonstrating the efficacy of CCCBT in Puerto Rican rural communities. These results will support the feasibility of implementing this approach, addressing mental health disparities, and enhancing treatment engagement and outcomes in underserved populations. The study will inform future research to refine and expand this intervention in rural communities of Hispanics and/or other rural underserved populations in the US. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This study’s success will advance culturally tailored mental health care in underserved rural Puerto Rican communities, reducing disparities and enhancing treatment relevance and engagement, with potential implications for improving mental health outcomes in similar populations in the US and worldwide.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Full Spectrum Town Halls (FSTH) were organized to bring together patients, scientists, clinicians, advocates and others interested in Hidradenitis Suppurative (HS) – stakeholders across the spectrum of translational research – to infuse patient experiences and voices into designing HS research METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Rockefeller University (RU), Clinical Directors Network (CDN), and the HS Foundation organized three hybrid in-person/online HS FSTHs (2018-2023). The 2018 event focused on patients, describing the current state of HS knowledge and new research into HS biology (T2, T3). Patients shared lived experiences in testimonials and a panel discussion. Advocates described community and mental health resources (T4). The 2021 event returned research results (T2, T3) to the community and updates about treatments in the pipeline (T4). The 2023 FSTH targeted clinicians (T4) addressing a critical translational gap in HS care and presenting best practices in diagnosis, surgical, and medical treatments. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Impact on science: FSTH attendees joined a Community Engagement Studio providing feedback used to refine study variables/procedures. Attendees joined research studies that advanced understanding HS mechanisms of disease, clinical course and treatment.Impact on patient experience: Participants appreciated having a forum to hear/share experiences of shame, mistrust, misdiagnosis and hope. Feedback improved practices for privacy, consenting, and returning study results. Impact on clinical practice and care: FSTH raised awareness of stigma, need for respect and empathy, and advanced learning about in disease mechanisms, effective biologics, importance of epithelial tunnels and surgical care. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: HS is a stigmatizing, poorly understood disease. FSTHs fostered bidirectional learning among scientists, clinicians, patients and other stakeholders. Patients engaged with researchers to improve research design and participate in mechanistic and therapeutic clinical research, advancing the field.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) offers an approach for evaluating research impact on public health and society. Since its development in 2017, there has been an increased focus on science’s impacts on equity. This poster describes efforts to integrate equity into the TSBM. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Adaptation of the TSBM includes 3 phases: 1) literature scan of equity impacts, 2) community engagement listening sessions, and 3) model refinement. First, we conducted a scan of the clinical and translational sciences literature for articles that measured equity impacts associated with the TSBM. From the articles, we extracted both equity considerations related to existing TSBM benefits and potential equity-focused benefits. Next, we will present the dimensions of new and existing benefits to several community member panels engaged in research and evaluation. We will use their input to prioritize and refine adaptations to the model (phase 3). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our literature scan identified equity dimensions of the original 30 TSBM benefits and 15 potential benefits for inclusion in the model, including community partnerships, community capacity building, workforce development, and social determinants of health, among others. To ensure that community priorities also inform identification of equity impacts of clinical and translational research, we will review and refine the model through a series of community engagement sessions planned for Fall 2023. The sessions will inform final adaptations, which will result in an expanded approach evaluating the impact of scientific activities to include impacts on health equity. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The TSBM provides a framework for clinical and translational scientists to plan for, track, and demonstrate the broader impacts of their work. Including equity impacts can help increase consideration of equity in science and help to more clearly make the link between research and equity impact.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Human-centered design (HCD) provides a practical, collaborative approach to integrating diverse perspectives throughout the translational research process. We highlight two CTSAs with established HCD teams who are utilizing varied approaches to accelerate the use of HCD in health intervention design and community engagement. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CTSAs at the University of Michigan (MICHR) and the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt CTSI) have dedicated teams of human-centered designers that assist investigators with the application of HCD in their studies. MICHR’s service approach utilizes facilitated Design Sprints with study teams, guiding them from early conception of a research question through the co-design of interventions and innovations with end-users. Pitt CTSI’s training and consultation approach employs a two-day intensive training with group coaching sessions that provide investigators and research staff with skills and knowledge needed to implement HCD within translational research projects. Both hubs offer consultations on methodology for investigators interested in pursuing funding for studies utilizing HCD. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Research teams at both hubs are pursuing HCD to co-design health research interventions and mHealth technologies with end-users locally and internationally, to facilitate meaningful engagement within advisory boards and collaboratives, and to enhance team science. To date, MICHR has conducted 13 research study-focused Design Sprints with 73 participants, as well as providing consultations to 26 research teams. Pitt CTSI has trained 164 investigators and staff and provided 146 consultations with research teams. Requests for HCD training have increased at MICHR while requests for HCD service provision have increased at Pitt CTSI. Both hubs are now building capacity to enact a more holistic approach to HCD that combines service delivery and training approaches to better meet the needs of investigators. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Increasing CTSA hub capacity to support the use of HCD in translational research by offering service and training opportunities can position investigators to conduct high impact health research that elevates the voices of those most likely to benefit from interventions, treatments, and innovations.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: * Describe the Community Engaged Research Core (CERC) Researcher Training Program modules and objectives. * Examine the expansion and reach of the CERC Researcher Training Program across various institutions/organizations. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Through joint efforts from Meharry Medical College and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the Community Engaged Research Core (CERC) Researcher Training Program began as a resource to provide CERC post-docs with knowledge of the basic principles of community engaged research (CEnR). It has since expanded to reach researchers at different institutions/organizations. This series examines topics from ethics to dissemination of research findings. The purpose of this project is to describe the CERC Researcher Training Program modules and present the expansion and reach of the training series. We examined both online training requests and series evaluations to determine: (1) participant reach, (2) number of module requests, and (3) purpose for using training modules. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since its inception in 2018, the program has expanded to reach 16 institutions/organizations across the United States. On average, 45 researchers register for the training series and approximately 16 researchers participate each year. As time progresses, the number of registrants and attendees continues to increase. To date, there have been 110 online training module requests. The majority (~75%) of participants are requesting content for self-training purposes, while others are using the information to train others in their home institutions/organizations (~25%). Researchers are using modules for a range of reasons including recruitment, career development, and developing their own CEnR training. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: CEnR has the ability to make research better in how it is planned, executed and disseminated. Implementing the CERC researcher training series and expanding its reach demonstrates the desire and need to alleviate health disparities through researcher and community partnerships.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Our objective is to develop a Telenephrology dashboard for the 150,000 Veterans that obtain care through the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Our goal is to create a comprehensive and user-friendly tool for monitoring kidney health and facilitating remote nephrology consultations. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We structured our intervention according to the five stages of human-centered design: (1) Empathize, (2) Define, (3) Ideate, (4) Prototype and (5) Test. During the empathy stage, the principal investigator spent 10 hours immersed in the clinical setting observing how nephrologists approach a remote nephrology consultation. These observations were augmented by unstructured interviews with clinicians and patients to better understand the process and dynamics. Following this, a rapid ideation workshop was convened to generate creative solutions that balance technical requirements with the needs of clinicians and patients. These led to rapid prototyping and testing to identify what elements of the prototypes worked and which needed improvement. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Through the empathy and define stages, three needs were identified: (1) clarity in visualizing data, (2) accuracy of information, and (3) balancing standardization with individualization. During the rapid ideation workshop, the concept of a four-frame dashboard was settled upon. This led to the creation of five prototypes, which were tested. These were reconciled and modified to make a final product. This final product, the Telenephrology Dashboard, contains 5 elements that support nephrologists and supporting staff: (1) a graph of kidney function over time, (2) tables synthesizing lab data, (3) options to drill down events to specific times, (4) customization of views, and (5) integration of kidney disease progression models. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: A Telenephrology dashboard was created to facilitate remote nephrology consultations through a Human-Centered Design process. Our next steps include determining if this dashboard may improve end-user satisfaction, referring clinician satisfaction, access to specialist care, and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Community and other stakeholder engagement (CSE) is critical for relevant and equitable clinical research, yet implementation poses challenges. This study delineates the perspectives of scientists and diverse stakeholders regarding facilitators and challenges in CSE, its perceived value, and their recommendations for successful CSE. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Tufts CTSI Pilot Studies Program requires applicants to propose a plan for CSE while implementing the award, including which stakeholders (SHs)—community members, clinicians, and others affected by the research--will be involved and at what stages. This qualitative study assessed the experiences of both Principal Investigators (PIs) and SHs engaged in pilot projects from three cohorts of awardees (2019-21). Recruitment targeted one PI and one SH per project. Semi-structured interviews explored their CSE experiences, including facilitators, challenges, meaningfulness, perceived impact, intent to participate in CSE in future studies, as well as recommendations for funders, research support organizations, and investigators. Inductive consensus-based coding and thematic analysis was employed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Fourteen PIs from different pilot projects and a SH from five of these projects participated. Almost all PIs (92%) had over six years of experience, but two-thirds (67%) had little or no experience with CSE. Four SHs self-identified as representatives of community organizations and one as a clinician scientist. CSE was a “win-win” for both PIs and SHs, and all PIs intended to involve SHs in other research studies. Three facilitators were identified as fostering effective CSE (e.g., PI access to CSE expertise while conducting the project), while four challenges hindered it (e.g., limits on SH capacity and CSE funding). SHs advised scientists to build authentic, sustained relationships, and PIs and SHs provided three actionable recommendations for funders and research support organizations to deepen and expand CSE. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Perspectives of scientists and SHs engaged in research projects are vital for expanding and sustaining effective CSE in research. Funders and research support organizations can enhance their strategies for CSE integration in clinical and translational research by incorporating these diverse views to ensure the research achieves maximal impact.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Real-world data (RWD) may offer insights into mental health treatment as usual and illuminate targets for implementation and translation. This requires strong research-community partnerships (RCP). In this presentation, we will highlight key components of an ongoing RCP in leveraging RWD to advance translational science. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The RCP was formed to develop an infrastructure for NAMI Chicago, a community-based organization that oversees a city-wide social services helpline, to support collection of RWD data to understand whether NAMI helpline support services and referrals meet callers’ emotional and physical needs. This RCP includes three entities: NAMI Chicago, UIC’s Center for Clinical and Translational Science’s Community Engagement and Collaboration (CEC) Core, and UIC’s Institute for Health and Research Policy’s Data Management Core (DMC). From a preliminary review of case notes, this case study details concrete examples that fit into Brookman-Frazee etal. (2012)’s RCP framework to illustrate the trajectory of this partnership through its formation, execution of activities, and sustaining NAMI Chicago’s data capacity. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In the formation of this RCP, we identified our joint goal of creating a database infrastructure to link NAMI Chicago’s existing helpline data with a database co-created in REDCap through APIs. Based on the identified joint goal, we defined our roles/responsibilities that best aligned with our own individual expertise to execute the necessary operational processes. The RCP is currently executing the activities to create this data infrastructure. Barriers included delays in securing a computing environment and enablers included an established long-standing relationship between NAMI Chicago and CEC. Distal outcomes of this RCP include increasing NAMI Chicago’s capacity to systematically use RWD to better inform their practices and identify barriers in accessing social service resources in Chicago. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The identification of enablers, barriers, and the necessary operational processes and activities will outline a “blueprint” for other institutions and community organizations to successfully utilize RWD to understand mental health practices and advance translational research.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The peer-reviewed journal Progress in Community Health Partnerships (PCHP) promotes health research partnerships to improve community health. PCHP’s Writing, Dissemination and Reviewer Learning Community Pilot aims to increase stakeholders writing and reviewing for greater relevance and diversity. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Led by PCHP’s Editorial Team, Morehouse SOM, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH) and a community-academic Workgroup, the LC will guide stakeholders on scholarly writing and publish collaborative research. It builds on the 2017 Writing/Dissemination Learning Institute held by Morehouse, CCPH, and Community Based Organization Partners with the APHA Public Health Caucus. The LC begins with a Workshop [https://sites.google.com/view/pchp2023/pchpcommunity2023] alongside the 2023 APHA Annual Meeting. Wrap arounds include a PCHP Special Issue (participants work), Webinars, PCHP Reflections/Community Perspectives Article Guidelines [https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/progress-community-health-partnerships-research-education-and-action], “Beyond the Manuscript [https://open.spotify.com/show/2LiBanXAyHyOqNSeGnBPHs]” Podcast, Toolkit/Resources; and coaching. The evaluation will inform PCHP practices. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Key outcomes include successful implementation of all LI activities. The cohort (approximately 40 stakeholders representing partnerships) will increase exposure to scholarly writing and peer review, ideally publish 12+ manuscripts (e.g., PCHP special issue), increase diversity in scholarly writing, and strengthen recognition/significance of stakeholder authorship in the research community. The year 1 pilot evaluation (e.g., tracking participant authorship, documenting outcomes/lessons learned) will provide evidence to encourage sustainability, model responsiveness among other peer reviewed journals, inform PCHP, and increase diversity in scholarly writing on health disparities research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The pilot will build a sustainable model and how PCHPaddresses health disparities to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion. The LC aims to diversify framing community health research, supporting/publishing stakeholders work, and increasing diversity among reviewers, all impacting the field.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of theIntegrating Special Populations (ISP) Studiosis tointegrate communityvoice into research design and en hance diversity, equity, and inclusion in research, and disseminate findings in ways that improve health literacy and equity. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Based on the Vanderbilt Community Engagement Studio model, the ISP Studiowas designed through multiple phases, including Designand PilotStudioSessions. Stakeholders were diverse representatives of community and academic organizations serving special populations, as well asself-identified persons within special populations as defined by the NIH.Each phase of development and implementation of the Studio included an evaluation consisting of Likert scale and open-ended survey questions for process improvement and to integrate voices of the ISP community continuously. Demographic information and program outcomes were also collected via the evaluation survey. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: All Design Session (N=9) and Pilot Studio (N=10) participants indicated that the Design and Pilot were positive, relevant, bidirectionally useful, and fostered respect, trust, and inclusion. 100% of the panel strongly agreed the Studio met its goals and that the ISP Studios have potentialtobenefitspecial and under represented populations. Qualitative data and discussion on design will also be shared. Additi onaland relevant pointsincludepanelisttraining,compensation for community panelists, and ensuring accessibility. Evaluation outcomes from initial implementation of the ISP Studio will be discussed. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The ISP Studio is an innovative model that may increase engagement of special populations in the research process through co-creation and integration of lived experiences.It has the potential to improve research design, implementation, and impact.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Theater has always served as a means of reflecting and understanding the human condition. Participatory theater further offers the option for viewers to participate in and thus additionally benefit from the performance itself. We use Playback Theater for outreach and research, eliciting information to guide research, education, and engagement. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Playback Theater is a type of improvisation that involves audience members recounting personal experiences which are then enacted by a theater troupe. Playback has evolved to include storytelling as a means of expressing and understanding difficult life experiences such as violence, bullying, incarceration, disaster, illness, etc. While not intended as therapy, it has been found to provoke insight and catharsis when used by trained practitioners. We are conducting Playback theater with LGBTQ+ and African American women to elucidate health disparities related to HIV/AIDS. Black/African Americans accounted for 42.1% of cases in 2019, and African American females are 15 times more likely to develop AIDS than white females. We hope to elucidate barriers to screening and treatment to inform early intervention. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In community engagement, we employ a variety of strategies involving storytelling, since this simple act fosters multiple positive outcomes. For example, by talking about their experiences participants might find clarity about a difficult experience, facilitating coping or healing, or even letting go. By sharing their stories, others (clinicians, researchers, other patients, or the public) can learn what it is like to go through a particular illness or event. This knowledge can be used to allay patient fears or help researchers or clinicians to develop programming that better responds to needs. This novel approach to knowledge sharing also allows communication that may not otherwise be possible. Discussions about sensitive topics are enabled, often leading to shared understanding and potential solutions. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Through Playback Theater, we hope to identify and thus be able to address barriers to early screening and treatment for African American women and the LGBTQ+ population. We are also planning an event with children with cancer and their families to better understand their experiences and needs in both the clinical and familial settings.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Participants will be able to identify how partnering with state health departments for a CTSA initiative assists in meeting shared goals by building infrastructure and sharing resources and list key components of a successful county engagement process that can be replicated. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Connections IN Health is a collaborative project with the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indiana Department of Health, Indiana University Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, and community partners. We address chronic disease in Indiana with coalition-based engagement at the grassroots level, and partnering to provide technical assistance, resources, connections and evidence-based strategies to address the health challenges. Our methods of county engagement include surveying the broad community, conducting listening sessions with key community stakeholders, compiling, analyzing and sharing data, collaborating with existing local coalitions, assessing community readiness and suggesting evidence-based practices to implement. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: As a result of county engagement, local coalitions have current, local data to drive their efforts in improving local health rankings and outcomes. Community partners in eight counties have selected and implemented evidence-based strategies to manage and/or prevent diabetes, cardiovascular disease and/or stroke. Some examples include: starting a community garden with cooking classes in a food desert to provide fresh produce and nutrition/cooking knowledge, creating a mobile kitchen on hand for organizations to use to provide education and cooking skills, providing a passport for wellness at existing community events with food samples and health screenings and offering evidence-based educational programming such as Dining with Diabetes and Be Heart Smart. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Moving county health coalitions to evidence-based programming that has the greatest likelihood for success is a critical translational sciences challenge. Our rigorous and well defined approach yields significant improvement in local health coalition activities, sustaining their activities through long-term trusted relationships.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Translational Science includes the social responsibility to improve health outcomes and reduce disparities. This study aims to determine how scientists and community members perceive the social responsibility of translational science. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Methods include a series of 12 one-hour semi-structured focus groups. Six groups were held with a total of 34 scientists and four with approximately 32 community members (community focus groups still ongoing). Sample includes scientists and community members affiliated to one of three research fields: HIV/AIDS, Maternal Health, and Mental Health/Substance Use. Inclusion criteria for scientists were based on their scholarly contributions to a field. Community members included individuals who self-identified as affiliated to any above fields. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we analyzed the transcripts against existing frameworks on social responsibility. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Literature on social responsibility suggests that translational science should be relevant, usable and sustainable for end-users. Scientists and community members identified the same groups for whom research is relevant. Scientists often conceptualized social responsibility through the sustainability lens, focusing on results that might have long-term societal impacts. Due to this, they saw limitations to social responsibility in academia and funding structures. Community members often conceptualized social responsibility through the usability lens, focusing on the complexity of research use and access. They saw barriers to social responsibility in systemic disparities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Although participants emphasized different practices in focus groups, participants seemed generally interested in pursuing future discussions to develop best practices and commitments regarding social responsibility. Further discussions will take place in a deliberative dialogue activity in January 2024.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: This study utilizes a Black Feminist metatheoretical approach in conjunction with the Social Amplification of Risk Framework to: i) assess the role of communication with clinicians on Black women’s perceptions of risk and ii) outline recommendations for empowering communication that attenuates Black women’s perceptions of pregnancy risk. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 28 self-identified Black women in 2022 and 2023 to gain insights into their conceptualizations of pregnancy risk, and the role of communication with clinicians in the amplification and/or attenuation of pregnancy risk perceptions.An IRB approved flier was used for both in-person and online recruitment of participants from 12 US states.Each participant signed a consent form and received $20 as compensation for their time. Interviews were recorded and transcribed using a digital transcription tool, and then reviewed and edited to ensure accuracy. This study’s metatheoretical underpinning in Black Feminist Theory informed the use of reflexive thematic analysis in the qualitative analysis of the in-depth interviews. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This study found thatunclear communication (including insufficiently contextualized history taking), obstetric violence, anddiagnoses with insufficient explanation,led to the amplification of concerns and worries about pregnancy as well as erosion of trust in healthcare. In contrast,clinicians lessenedconcerns about pregnancy through clear communication (including appropriately contextualized history-taking), demonstration of empathy, and by fostering patient agency.The study thus highlights the importance of clinicians' clear communication,demonstration ofempathy and fostering of patient agencyas critical factors to empowering communication that attenuates Black women’s pregnancy-related risk perceptions. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Given the unjust dangers Black women face during pregnancy, this study demonstrates how patient-clinician communication influences Black women’s pregnancy risk perceptions, providing recommendations for clinician communication practices that empower Black women and attenuate their perceptions of pregnancy risk.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We aim to share information about the Trailblazer Award Pilot Grants, which support collaborative, community engaged research projects with potential to improve health equity in Indiana, and achievements of awardees in terms of publications and funded external grants. We also share plans to expand the impact of the pilot grant process. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Data on publications and funded grant applications resulting from Trailblazer Award-funded projects were obtained from progress reports completed by the projects’ principal investigators. Awardees submit annual progress reports throughout the project and five years following the close of the project. On these progress reports, awardees list the publications that they have submitted, and their publication status, and external grants submitted and funded. Because some progress reports were never submitted, and projects which began in 2021 or 2022 are not complete, and are therefore likely to have additional publications and grants result from their projects, our results likelyunderestimate the number of publications and grants resulting from these projects. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Below are a number of charts which illustrate the outcomes of Trailblazer Award projects from years 2015 through 2022, including: the number of applications received as compared to the number of applications funded; the academic institutions of the academic partners on awarded projects throughout the state of Indiana; the general topic areas of all funded projects; and the number of publications and funded grants resulting from Trailblazer Award-funded projects, as reported by awardees. We have found that, in recent years, while the amount of publications by awardees have stayed roughly the same, the numbers of funded external grants resulting from Trailblazer-funded projects have decreased somewhat. [blob:https://acts.slayte.com/8404bbca-3054-4f57-9d36-cd8d6152841b] [blob:https://acts.slayte.com/6b43bd70-fe90-494a-be1a-c091a6ab924d][blob:https://acts.slayte.com/b0e2b7f6-1604-4379-94df-efccdc2e51c2][blob:https://acts.slayte.com/c1a591a7-2a0e-4f6d-ade1-027bb389ef68] DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We will implement changes for Trailblazer projects, including hosting workshops on disseminating findings and applying for external funding, and helping awardees to form partnerships within their topic area. We believe providing these resources to awardees will increase publications and grant funding, thereby allowing their work to continue.#_msocom_1.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Many researchers aim to build trust with communities and participants. Trust building is meant to achieve greater representation across aspects of research whether in participation, or more comprehensively as partners from design to dissemination. We provide practical guidance for trust building activities and the ethical issues that can arise. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: While trust itself is inherently seen as an ethical good, often little attention is paid to the ethical aspects of trust building exercises themselves and the fact that trust can vary in type. Using a bioethical analysis of trustworthiness, we discuss how to approach trust in different relationships and settings. Explicit communication about the supports/constraints and potential outcomes of new trusted relationships is required for ethical practice. Where relationships are built without appropriate transparency and follow through, or with misunderstandings about potential shared values, priorities, or desired outcomes, significant harms can occur in the short- and long term. Using a bioethical framework and practical examples we provide guidance on how to engage in ethical trust building activities. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: While many people are good at the trust building work they do, this work is often not shared as best practices and is ascribed to individual skill. This is slowly changing and an evidence-base is being developed that can support those new to these activities. Ethical guidance to support trust building practices, especially for those new to these activities, is currently lacking. By providing both a conceptual and normative bioethical analysis grounded in practice, we provide the foundations for new activities and the necessary support for work that explores and determines best practices. This analysis provides an understanding of trust including a taxonomy and a discussion of how different types of trust can be built and can support research activities, as well as problems that can arise. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Trust building activities with communities and participants are crucial to much of translational science and research, but ethical guidance on how to engage in these activities well is lacking. We provide bioethical guidance and offer practical recommendations.