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: 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: 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: 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: 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.

Objectives/Goals: This study illuminates the efforts of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Hub to share stories of its aspirations, challenges, successes, opportunities, and impact when pursuing its complex goals, and how storytelling contributes to the narrative of the translational science work (via storytelling strategies, products, and benefits). Methods/Study Population: We utilized an environmental scan of a CTSA Hub (University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI)), including case study vignettes of its storytelling practices and products. We triangulated data from diverse data sources: grant applications, reports, and publications; public stories/news related to CTSI activities and impact; scientific publications; organizational/policy documents; and interviews with CTSI stakeholders featured in published sources. Results/Anticipated Results: TS storytelling uses and strategies include communicating the essence of research translation, promoting program utilization, engaging community, reporting to stakeholders, and evaluating for accountability, learning, and improvement. Storytelling challenges include complexity of translation; balancing the scientific rigor with an engaging narrative; identifying appropriate stories that resonate with diverse stakeholders and are at an appropriate level of maturity; and building capacity using storytelling. Facilitators include supportive infrastructure to integrate stories; leadership endorsement of storytelling as a valuable strategy; capable cross-functional teams of communicators, administrators, and researchers to facilitate the integration of data into storytelling. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The environmental scan provides evidence and lessons learned on leveraging storytelling as a useful tool for communicating CTS goals, actions, and findings, engaging stakeholders, building a narrative around scientific discoveries, evaluating and improving programs, and addressing health disparities in translational science.

Objectives/Goals: Campylobacter is a foodborne pathogen, causing gastroenteritis in humans. Untreated infections can cause colorectal cancer. With rising antibiotic resistance, alternative therapies like E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) are urgently needed to control infections in humans. Our study aims to evaluate the effect of EcN supernatant on C. jejuni in vitro. Methods/Study Population: The efficacy of EcN CFS on the growth of C. jejuni was evaluated in LB and minimal media (M63) using agar-well diffusion assay. We also evaluated the impact of these supernatants on the biofilm formation and pre-formed biofilms, as well as on the adhesion, invasion, and survival of C. jejuni in human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells. Additionally, we examined the effects of EcN CFS on the expression of genes associated with virulence factors, biofilm production, and quorum sensing of C. jejuni using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Each of the experiments was repeated at least twice, and the results were evaluated using two-way analysis of variance. Results/Anticipated Results: Our results showed that EcN supernatants grown in both LB and M63 media exhibited a high zone of growth inhibition of Campylobacter in agar media. The EcN CFS significantly inhibited C. jejuni growth when co-cultured in liquid media. The supernatants also demonstrated a significant reduction of pre-formed biofilms by up to 82% and inhibited biofilm formation by 75%. Pretreatment of HT-29 MTX human intestinal cells with EcN supernatants led to a significant (p Discussion/Significance of Impact: Our study demonstrates that E. coli Nissle 1917 cell-free supernatant significantly inhibits C. jejuni growth and virulence. This suggests that EcN-derived bioactive compounds could be promising antibiotic alternatives to combat C. jejuni infections. This study will bridge the gap between basic and translational research.

Objectives/Goals: Aims are to identify the gaps and discrepancies between cancer care teams at Princess Margaret (PM) and primary care providers (PCPs). To ensure the transition from hospital care at PM into the community integrates the expressed needs of PCPs and cancer specialists. To ensure PCPs have the necessary resources to provide high-quality care to patients. Methods/Study Population: Phase 1 is the preparation phase, which consists of searching the literature and conducting contextual inquiry with experts in relevant fields, such as cancer survivorship and primary care. This phase is crucial to the planning of this project as the information gathered will be used to define the problem space and outline the scope of the project. Next (phases 2 and 3) we aim to create and distribute surveys to PCPs to gather data on current protocols and resources. We plan to distribute this survey by emailing PCPs and accessing PCP networks. Upon completion of the survey, we will review the data and assess which areas need further investigation. Then, we will create an interview guide keeping in mind the areas that need to be supplemented and aiming to validate the need. Results/Anticipated Results: A resource that presents guidelines for PCPs to assist in them taking on follow-up care responsibilities for low-risk cancer survivorship patients. These guidelines may include information such as communication pathways between PCPs and the PM Cancer Care team, expected follow-up care measures, and timeframes for follow-up care. The development of this guideline will assist in alleviating the burden on the PM Cancer Centre system as it will facilitate low-risk patients transitioning back to family care. Discussion/Significance of Impact: There is an increasing demand for oncology services post-cancer treatment at the PM Cancer Centre and the current cancer model follow-up care is not sustainable by oncologists alone. There is a need to explore innovative personalized pathways to follow-up care based on an individual’s needs and integrate family doctors.

Objectives/Goals: The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) offers a key framework for demonstrating the real-world health outcomes of research. This study uses a mixed-methods approach combined with the TSBM to show how researchers from Case Western Reserve University’s Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) have advanced health equity or improved public health in the USA and globally. Methods/Study Population: Using the TSBM indicators, we surveyed 72 former CTSC KL2 Program trainees and 469 CTSC Pilot Program awardees for documented evidence that their research led to demonstrated health benefits. We used purposive sampling of the survey responses to obtain examples highlighting research that led to advances in health equity as well as international public health improvements. We conducted in-depth interviews with six investigators to assess the populations impacted and the scope of their contributions. For each investigator, we examined how their publications informed both national and international policy. Through this approach, we will present specific case studies highlighting research that led to advances in health equity as well as international examples of public health improvements. Results/Anticipated Results: Among KL2 Scholars, we achieved a 40% response rate (29/72), with 90% (26/29) reporting 86 significant benefits across the four TSBM areas. For Pilot Program awardees, 18.5% responded (87/469), with 40% documenting 136 benefits. Several different types of translational science benefits resulted in improved health and health equity for several diverse national and international beneficiaries, including racial and ethnic minorities (e.g., Blacks, Hispanics), potentially vulnerable populations (e.g., pregnant women, victims of intimate partner violence, individuals on Medicaid, infants), international populations (e.g., people from low-resource countries with genetic disorders or parasitic infections), as well as people from rural areas and professions at high risk of developing cancer. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Leveraging KL2 and Pilot Grant successes, the TSBM shows how research improves public health and health equity for underserved populations. It streamlines outcome reporting, enabling researchers to demonstrate their societal impact while providing funders and policymakers with clear, data-driven evidence of the value of translational science.

Objectives/Goals: Our objective is to examine patient and community perspectives on hospital actions that signify accountability to healthcare equity; part of our overall goal is to identify equity measure concepts representative of community perspectives and priorities for future hospital accountability programs. Methods/Study Population: We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of secondary data – 32 focus group transcripts from our hospital’s Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA). A tri-annual CHNA is required of nonprofit hospitals to maintain tax exemption. Diverse participants were recruited from our hospital’s large catchment area. Coding focused on responses to 6 pertinent questions. We adapted the National Committee for Quality Assurance, “Health Equity Measurement Framework for Medicaid Accountability” which consists of 5 domains (access, clinical, experience, structure, and social) to guide the development of our a priori coding tree and subsequent analysis. Two coders double-coded 25% of transcripts. The multidisciplinary research team, including community partners, met iteratively to extract and refine themes. Results/Anticipated Results: We organized our analysis by our conceptual framework’s 5 measurement domains. The “access” and “experience” domains were the most salient for participants. We defined “access” by four sub-domains: financial access, physical access, communication access, and navigability; and “experience” by two subdomains: inclusivity and accomodation. Beyond discussing concepts within these measurement domains, participants debated the “scope” of the hospital’s role with regard to healthcare equity. While some did not think “it was the hospitals” responsibility to give people access to good jobs or fair pay, education…, “other participants felt that healthcare involves not just addressing peoples’ physical health but. their housing… because how can someone take care of their health when they are homeless?” Discussion/Significance of Impact: When asked about hospital accountability to healthcare equity, “access” and “experiences” of care are the most salient measurement domains for patients and communities. The “scope” of the hospital’s role is debated. Policy and health system leaders can apply these perspectives to equity measurement initiatives.

Objectives/Goals: Although eHealth tools like websites, apps, and wearables are widely available, underserved groups often do not benefit equally. This gap is due to usability challenges and overlooked structural, physical, and psychosocial barriers. Additionally, high costs and licensing issues make these tools hard to sustain and share. Methods/Study Population: This case study presents lessons learned over eight years of designing and disseminating a user-centered educational website on human papillomavirus (HPV) and the HPV vaccine for Hmong parents and teens (Hmong Promoting Vaccines, www.hmonghpv.com [http://www.hmonghpv.com]), a community-based participatory research project. Results/Anticipated Results: Our community-driven approach revealed four key principles for creating and sustaining culturally tailored eHealth tools for underserved groups: * Engage stakeholders like community members, legal teams, and developers early and keep them involved. * Discuss dissemination and sustainability goals from the start. * Explore commercialization options, balancing sustainability with protection for underserved groups. * Identify and use academic resources to discuss commercialization, ownership, copyright, and intellectual property of such eHealth interventions. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The Hmong Promoting Vaccines case study highlights the need for an inclusive approach to designing sustainable eHealth tools for underserved communities. Early stakeholder engagement, careful planning for dissemination, and balancing commercialization with protection can reduce health disparities and create fairer digital solutions.

Objectives/Goals: Our pilot study tests the hypothesis that a hospital-based oral health education and referral program will increase patient knowledge of the importance of oral health, engagement with dental health services, and create a reproducible model to improve access and utilization of routine oral health care services and treatments. Methods/Study Population: Participants recruited for this study will include a pool of eligible patients at an urban university affiliated teaching hospital, 18 years or older, who upon initial screening, reported having not seen a dentist within the past 12 months. Enrolled participants also reported having some form of dental insurance coverage. Our project plans to recruit fifty hospitalized patients from ten inpatient units. Once consented and enrolled, participants will receive a brief education on oral health and be assisted in scheduling a dental appointment with one of the providers from our dental referral network. The dental referral network will consist of local dental providers who agree to treat our study participants. Tracking of ongoing participant dental care engagement will be tracked over a six-month period. Results/Anticipated Results: We anticipate no issue recruiting the 50 planned hospitalized patients. One, the eligible hospitalized patient pool is large, two, data from previous study indicates that a large percentage (~57%) of hospitalized patients at our facility are not receiving adequate dental services and supports. We anticipated that the number of participants who attend their post-discharge dental appointments will be less than 70%. This number reflects averaged rate of missed dental appointments among other populations and considers that our population may have more barriers to appointment attendance. Due to the high prevalence of unmet dental needs among our study population, we anticipate that providers will report patients were seen for many standard dental procedures (cleanings, extractions, fillings, etc.) Discussion/Significance of Impact: The results of this study demonstrate the feasibility of 1) developing and maintaining a dental provider network and 2) utilizing hospital-based teams to promote inpatient engaging with regular oral hygiene and dental appointments. These results show how inpatients visits provide a valuable opportunity to engage adults with unmet dental needs.

Objectives/Goals: Some children with asthma benefit from care from asthma specialists: allergist/immunologists or pulmonologists. However, a limited supply of specialists poses access problems for some children. Our objective was to describe the state of specialist care for pediatric asthma in Maine. Methods/Study Population: Using Maine all-payer claims data for April 2018–April 2021, we identified children with asthma meeting criteria for subspecialist referral based on NIH Expert Panel Report criteria. We determined which of these children had encounters with an allergist-immunologist or pediatric pulmonologist during the study period and performed logistic regressions to determine what demographic traits were associated with receipt of care. Results/Anticipated Results: Among children meeting criteria for specialists referral, 33% had an encounter with an asthma specialist. Specialist encounters were associated with younger age (p<0.001) and male sex (p = 0.003). Encounters were negatively associated with Medicaid insurance (versus commercial, p<0.001) and living in more rural areas (RUCA codes 4–10, p<0.001), lower childhood opportunity index (high or less, <0.001), and longer travel time to pediatric asthma specialists in Maine (<0.001). Discussion/Significance of Impact: Specialist care for children with complex or severe asthma is an evidence-based practice that is not equally accessible to all children in Maine. This may restrict their access to specific asthma therapies such as allergic desensitization and monoclonal antibodies.

Objectives/Goals: Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of patients initially listed with inactive status on the liver transplant waitlist to identify if disparities exist and compare the prevalence of initial inactive status listings across transplant centers. Methods/Study Population: This was a retrospective cohort study of candidates waitlisted for liver transplant between March 1, 2023 and February 12, 2023, utilizing the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, a national database including all solid organ transplant candidates. 224,736 candidates were included in analysis, and covariates included race, ethnicity, sex, age, body mass index, primary payer, MELD at listing, and etiology of liver disease. Results/Anticipated Results: Totally, 8,131 (3.62%) candidates were initially listed for liver transplant with inactive status. Although there were statistically significant differences between those listed initially with active status and those listed initially with inactive status in each covariate, these differences did not reach clinical significance. Of the 151 transplant centers, 128 listed any patients with an initial inactive status, with inactive status listings compromising 0–49.36% of total listings by transplant center. There is significant variation between listing centers in the practice of listing with initial inactive status by both liver disease etiology and across different eras of liver allocation policies. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Despite no significant clinical difference in the characteristics of patients listed with initial inactive status, there is significant variation across transplant centers of the prevalence of listing with initial inactive status. Subsequent investigations will focus on understanding these differences in listing practices between centers.

Objectives/Goals: To reduce cervical cancer in the USA, it is essential to identify the reasons underlying the low HPV vaccination rates. This study aims to identify knowledge and beliefs about HPV vaccination among women in rural areas. The knowledge gained from this study will directly lead to developing an education tool tailored specifically for women in rural areas. Methods/Study Population: We conducted a cross-sectional study from November 2022 to July 2023. We recruited women (n  =  141) who visited a mobile health unit in rural North Louisiana. The inclusion criteria were women aged 25–64 years who spoke English, had not undergone a total hysterectomy, and had no history of cervical cancer. Data collected included sociodemographic characteristics, sexual history, awareness and knowledge of HPV infection, cervical cancer, genital warts, and HPV vaccination, the perceived risk of acquiring genital HPV infection and developing cervical cancer, and the willingness to receive an HPV vaccine. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate participant responses. Written informed consent was obtained before completing the self-administered questionnaire. Results/Anticipated Results: Our findings showed significant gaps in HPV vaccine knowledge and uptake. Approximately 40% of the participants were unaware of the HPV vaccine, 96.5% had never received it, and 91.4% had never been offered it. However, 42% indicated a willingness to consider vaccination if it were offered. Factors influencing their decision to vaccinate against HPV included a family history of cervical cancer (44.7%), having multiple sexual partners (48%), and engaging in unprotected sex (61.7%). Furthermore, there was significant uncertainty surrounding the vaccine, with 65.2% of participants unsure about its safety, 66% unaware of potential health risks, and 47.5% uncertain about its effectiveness in preventing HPV. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Our research emphasizes the need for tailored behavioral interventions to address knowledge gaps about the HPV vaccine. Low HPV vaccination rates in rural areas contribute to health disparities in cervical cancer. Implementing educational interventions in healthcare settings can enhance vaccination rates and mitigate the risk of cervical cancer.