Objectives/Goals: The Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) pathway aims to increase the number of health science professionals participating in CTR in their careers throughout the WWAMI Region (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho). Methods/Study Population: The first cohort of thirty-one students started in January 2024 and were organized into three groups that met weekly. One in-person group of students in Anchorage, AK; one in-person group in Seattle, WA; and a group of students from across the WWAMI region convened virtually. Students completed a year-long series of elective courses addressing fundamental concepts of designing, conducting, and presenting the results of a research project. Over the summer between year 1 and year 2 of medical school, students dedicated 8 weeks to full-time research activities under the supervision of their research project mentor. In Fall 2024, students prepared and presented research posters at regional poster sessions and abstracts and oral presentations for submission to the Western Medical Research Conference in January 2025. Results/Anticipated Results: The ultimate goal of the CTR pathway is to increase the number of medical providers across the WWAMI region with significant awareness, interest, and experience in research. Many students hesitate to engage in research due to a perceived lack of necessary skills. The CTR pathway addresses this gap by equipping students with the research competencies needed to participate confidently in scientific inquiry. Feedback from the inaugural cohort has been overwhelmingly positive, with many students highlighting how the CTR pathway enhanced their confidence and knowledge, empowering them to execute their proposed research projects successfully. Our second cohort of students joined the CTR pathway in January 2025. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The CTR pathway positions early medical students to engage in research more deeply during their medical training and prepares them to seek additional training opportunities toward a career in research. The majority of students in the first cohort were located at regional sites and many have interest in practicing in rural or underserved areas.

Objectives/Goals: The goal of this poster is to 1) describe the development of a graduate certificate program for community-engaged research for health (CEnRH) in a Clinical and Translational Science Awards-funded institution; 2) describe the initial impact of the program; and 3) discuss strengths, implications, and potential improvements for the future. Methods/Study Population: The CEnRH graduate certificate is a 12-credit, postbaccalaureate program offered at the University of Cincinnati co-created by faculty from the Community Engagement and Translational Workforce Cores of the CCTST with community partners. The goal is to support learning about community-engaged research (CEnR) and enhances capacity for academic-community partnered research. Student demographics are collected as part of university registration. Quantitative course evaluations are collected each semester. Program evaluations including qualitative data are collected from students enrolled in the program during and upon completion of the certificate. Results/Anticipated Results: The CEnRH curriculum includes 3 existing courses/electives in the College of Medicine and Psychology and three new courses in social justice and action research methodologies. Notably, the committee advocated for a scholarship to cover tuition for the certificate program to promote access for community partners. Since the fall of 2022, 17 students have enrolled in the CEnRH program, including 9 Faculty/Staff within CCTST institutions, 2 University of Cincinnati PhD Students, 5 Fellows, and 1 Community Member (who receives the scholarship). Notably, 24% of these students are from underrepresented minority backgrounds. Impact and evaluation data, as well as lessons learned, will be presented. Future directions for the CEnRH program will also be discussed. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The CEnRH is an impactful program for trainees, faculty, and staff who are planning to conduct CEnR, while also strengthening research capacity among community partners and advocates. This certificate program may be especially valuable to academic researchers as more funding agencies require community and stakeholder engagement in their proposals.

Objectives/Goals: Clinical research professionals (CRPs) are vital to the conduct of clinical research and require ongoing, high-quality training to be effective. This poster will explore participating CRPs’ assessments of the impact of the inter-institutional Research Professionals Network (RPN) Workshops on their work and ability to perform their roles. Methods/Study Population: The RPN Workshops are a consortium of four academic medical centers and their affiliates that collaborate to host peer-led workshops for CRP continuing education. CRP presenters and attendees include a wide variety of roles, responsibilities, and levels of experience. From September 2023 to December 2024, workshop attendees received bi-annual evaluations to assess the workshop impact, including skill application and understanding of topics. Responses from these bi-annual evaluations, along with monthly session evaluations, were analyzed to identify key outcomes on the workshops’ impact in regard to participating CRP application of learnings and confidence in their role. Results/Anticipated Results: Preliminary review of the bi-annual RPN Workshop Impact Survey data, alongside monthly workshop evaluation responses from workshop participants, revealed attendees indicated that they valued the topics presented. Key findings indicated that CRPs’ participation in the workshops: reinforced their existing practices,tncreased their confidence in knowledge and/or skills discussed, enhanced their collaboration with CRPs from other institutions, and more detailed results of the analysis will be presented. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Overall results demonstrated increased confidence in CRP roles. Participants valued the inter-institutional collaboration, which is facilitated by the sharing of best practices and diverse perspectives within the workshop format.

Objectives/Goals: The Clinical Research Education in Genome Science (CREiGS) program was developed to address the need for faculty and trainees conducting biomedical research to gain foundational training in genome science and accelerate the clinical adoption of genomic medicine. CREiGS, funded by NHGRI, offers comprehensive training in genomic analysis and statistical computing. Methods/Study Population: CREiGS targets a diverse pool of medical/doctoral students, postdocs, and faculty from academic institutions nationwide. The hybrid program included an 11-week online phase and a 3-day in-person phase, focusing on genomic science, statistical analysis and R programming, rigor and reproducibility, and engaging diverse populations in genomics research. Advanced special topics lectures included: decision analysis for genomics research, bioethical engagement of indigenous communities in genomics research, elucidating gene networks for advancing human health, etc. Strategies for recruiting diverse participants and ensuring an inclusive learning environment were informed by the Diversity Recruitment External Advisory Board. Participants’ skills were evaluated via pre- and post-course surveys. Results/Anticipated Results: Of 187 participants over 5 cohorts, 68.4% were female and 47.0% from underrepresented groups. The cohort spanned career stages, with 35.3% students, 34.2% postdocs, and 30.4% faculty, most of whom were at the junior level. Competency evaluations showed improvements in all core competencies of the course: (1) independently carrying out small-scale research improvements, (2) confidence collaborating with statisticians, bioinformaticians, and other genome science experts, (3) applying appropriate statistical methods for the analysis of genetics and genomics data, (4) accurately interpreting findings from genome research studies, (5) critiquing the internal/external validity of genome research studies, and (6) effectively engaging diverse populations and community stakeholders. Discussion/Significance of Impact: CREiGS successfully provided inclusive, high-quality, genomic and statistical training, to diverse scientists enhancing their research capacity and methodologic competency. Findings from longer term evaluations examining the contribution of CREiGS to participants’ genome science-related scholarly productivity are forthcoming.

Objectives/Goals: This study objective is to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of burnout in practicing radiologists, with a focus on personal as well as systemic factors. It aims to identify and assess the existing strategies to mitigate burnout, enhance radiologist performance, and improve the quality of patient care. Methods/Study Population: The present study is a systematic review that summarizes existing literature on burnout in radiology, examining its prevalence, risk factors, and effect on diagnostic accuracy, decision-making, and job satisfaction. The review will synthesize validated evidence for emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and professional fulfillment. The review discusses trends and solutions that have emerged from analysis of data within differing countries, subspecialties, and career stages, focusing on elevated risk of burnout in radiologists. It also assesses downstream effects on patient care quality such as missed diagnoses and increased medical errors. The review also discusses potential strategies for mitigating these negative effects on healthcare delivery. Results/Anticipated Results: The anticipated results of this review are expected to reveal significant variability in burnout rates across radiology subspecialties and practice settings, with prevalence ranging from 33% to 88% (Fawzy et al., 2023). Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization emerge as the most reported symptoms as consistently highlighted in previous studies. Major contributors such as workload, administrative burdens, and technological isolation (e.g., remote work and reduced face-to-face interaction) are anticipated. Radiologists in high-demand areas like interventional radiology and those in private practice may show higher burnout levels than those in academic settings. Protective factors, like exercise, supportive environments, and work-life balance, are expected to reduce burnout levels. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This study calls attention to the importance of addressing radiologist burnout as a key institutional priority. Early and effective interventions are essential for improving job satisfaction, reducing medical errors resulting in enhanced patient care. Addressing burnout is crucial for maintaining a sustainable and effective radiology workflow.

Objectives/Goals: The National Research Mentoring Network Coordination Center (NRMN CC) received funding from NIH to create an Online Community of Practice (OCoP) for Research Managers (RM). These RM contributed to advancing the research on the science of mentorship in STEMM. In a Proof of Concept, RM explored various aspects of their mentorship research support work. Methods/Study Population: An OCoP met 18 times across the 5-year grant to share experiences working to advance the science of mentorship in STEMM. Topics, frequency, and length of meetings were selected based upon several needs assessments surveys from the RM community. RM were invited to join the OCoP based on their roles as the point people for administrative activities in research projects (e.g., finances, budgets, training, and project management). RM often supervised staff, collected data, monitored IRB protocol compliance, and conducted research. RM played a pivotal role in the gathering and sharing of common measures across the 11 U01 studies to allow for greater confidence in research findings on mentorship (McConnell, 2021). Results/Anticipated Results: Our primary goal was to provide a supportive community for RM contributing to mentorship research and data sharing. The results from several needs assessments exemplified a request for this support from the community to engage in an OCoP focused on their professional development. Therefore, the OCoP served as a starting point to explore the duties, functions, roles and responsibilities of RM, and extended into providing professional development. Although the number of RM attending decreased as the grant entered the no-cost extension phase, a subgroup of RM expressed interest in continuing the OCoP to focus on dissemination of research findings, further supporting the need for this community. Discussion/Significance of Impact: RM supported 11 research projects and contributed to the data collection for over 6,000 participants. Few opportunities exist to create an OCoP for large scale data collection on experiences with mentorship in STEMM. RM were pivotal in their role with the NRMN to enhance the training and career development of individuals from diverse backgrounds.

Objectives/Goals: A limited number of Hispanic researchers compete successfully for NIH career development and research grants. We adapted an established K Club model from the University of Pittsburgh with high success rates to Hispanics in Puerto Rico (PR). The K to R Club’s goal is to increase the successful submission of K- and R-type NIH grants in the HCTRECD Program. Methods/Study Population: K to R Club is an inviting environment that exposes scholars to established funded investigators in PR from all career stages. It creates a forum to discuss different grant mechanisms and explains the selection, submission, and review process. The Club promotes the right mentor selection and mentoring team. It facilitates networking with principal investigators local/external to share their success stories, career development experiences, and grant submission tips. It offers mock review sessions of sections of the grant proposal to provide feedback from invited established investigators during the grant writing process. The Club meets 1–2 times per month in-person or virtual for 1 hour and anonymous evaluations were submitted after each session. Results/Anticipated Results: K to R Club 1st year had 11 sessions with 15 invited speakers. Sessions included: 1 Kickoff, 2 funding opportunities, 2 coaching, 7 successful stories of Diversity Supplement, and F99/K00, K22, K23, K99/R00, R01, and R21 awardees. The highest attendance was for the Kickoff (48). Evaluations response rates ranged from 15 to 62 with the highest participation from women (78% vs. 22% men). Most respondents were PhD (45%) and MD (29%). K to R Club sessions were rated as excellent (84%), 74% agreed that the sessions changed their knowledge very much, and 78% reported it changed their ability to apply for funding very much. Interest in submitting NIH supplements in 12 months was higher (68%) vs. 6 months (48%). Interest in requesting mock reviews for K or R grants in 6 months (91%) vs. 12 months (17%). Discussion/Significance of Impact: The 1st year of the K to R Club had an active attendance and increased the interest in submission of NIH grants. We are working on strategies to increase evaluations’ response rates to improve and address future session needs due to the low response rates recorded. Currently, the semester is full of mock review sessions for grant applications (4 Ks and 1 R01).

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.