People with lived experience of incarceration have higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared to people without history of incarceration. Research conducted unethically in prisons and jails led to increased scrutiny of research to ensure the needs of those studied are protected. One consequence of increased restrictions on research with criminal-legal involved populations is reluctance to engage in research evaluations of healthcare for people who are incarcerated and people who have lived experience of incarceration. Ethical research can be done in partnership with people with lived experience of incarceration and other key stakeholders and should be encouraged. In this article, we describe how stakeholder engagement can be accomplished in this setting, and further, how such engagement leads to impactful research that can be disseminated and implemented across disciplines and communities. The goal is to build trust across the spectrum of people who work, live in, or are impacted by the criminal-legal system, with the purpose of moving toward health equity.

We conducted a literature review to identify commonly used recruitment and retention strategies in research among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors 15-39 years of age and examine the effectiveness of these strategies based on the reported recruitment and retention rates. We identified 18 publications published after 2010, including 14 articles describing recruitment strategies and four articles discussing retention strategies and addressing reasons for AYA cancer patients dropping out of the studies. In terms of recruitment, Internet and social networking strategies were used most frequently and resulted in higher participation rates of AYA cancer survivors compared to other conventional methods, such as hospital-based outreach, mailings, and phone calls. In terms of retention, investigators used monetary incentives in all four studies and regular emails in two studies. There was no association between the number of strategies employed and the overall recruitment (p = 0.09) and retention rates (p = 0.33). Future research and planned studies testing recruitment and retention strategies are needed to identify optimal, modern communication procedures to increase AYA participation and adherence. More education should be provided to AYAs to increase their knowledge of research studies and strengthen the connection between AYA cancer survivors and their health providers.

We conducted a survey study of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) at the member institutions of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, to determine the demographic and linguistic characteristics of CRCs around the network, and any perceived impact of those characteristics on their duties. A total of 53/74 CRCs completed the survey. Most respondents identified as “female,” “white,” and “not Hispanic/Latino.” Most respondents felt that their race/ethnicity and their ability to speak a language other than English would positively impact recruitment. Four female respondents felt that their gender hindered their recruitment efforts and their sense of belonging within the research team.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: (1) Provide an innovative tool used to accelerate and evaluate T3-T4 research; (2) describe the collective capacity building tool (CCBT) methodology—both programmatic and evaluative applications; and (3) share insights about the process and outcomes of community-engaged research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Academic and community-based partners complete the assessment together at the beginning and conclusion of their Community Engagement pilot projects. Further, they are encouraged to use the tool and the associated insights/priorities that emerge as the basis for data-driven coaching with Community Research Liaisons throughout the 12-month grant cycle. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Pre/post results with 4 cohorts of pilot grantees consistently demonstrated the most positive change in relation to 1 item: overcoming previously identified barriers to community engagement (eg, language, mistrust, scheduling conflicts). Other key findings: (1) networks of reciprocal ties expand, providing structures to support dissemination of information and interventions. (2) Partners leverage expanded networks to pursue follow-on funding and extend the scope/reach of their efforts geographically and/or with new populations. (3) Projects enhance trust in the research process by developing group processes that facilitate the respectful sharing of diverse (often alternative) viewpoints and through culturally-responsive project implementation. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The CCBT can be used at multiple points in time to help project partners achieve the deliberate integration of CBPR principles in practice and advance community-engaged translational research efforts for sustainability and scalability. The CCBT is sensitive enough to document the iterative nature of partnership development and CBPR. An example: a great deal of variability was found in how formally partners defined roles. Further, partner roles often changed as projects evolved. Still, results indicated a general trend toward achieving greater clarity in partner roles over time. Further, the tool captured set-backs due to partner turn-over and partnerships regaining momentum after new staff came on board. Results have strong face validity: more mature partnerships reported stronger community connections and previous successes to build upon. Perhaps most importantly: the tool and associated process was well-received by academic and community-based partners alike.

Latinos constitute a hard-to-reach minority population in Iowa. We used respondent-driven sampling (RDS) to supplement random digit dialing to recruit Latinos for a community physical activity intervention. RDS yielded a 59% increase in Latino participation in just 2 months, with few demographic differences between RDS and random digit dialing groups. RDS may increase recruitment of underrepresented populations and strengthen community engagement; however, it is not a quick fix for underperforming recruitment methods.

Persistent barriers exist to engage rural providers in research and training. Provider shortages exacerbate these challenges, leading to a scarcity of time and limiting motivation to participate in research. We present application of an innovative engagement model to increase rural primary care provider participation in research. Using our Community Engagement and Research Core, we demonstrate that fundamental principles of training and expertise, attention to efficiency and multitasking, and commitment to community are important for addressing provider recruitment barriers. We encourage other Clinical and Translational Science Centers to provide similar services to their local investigators to enhance provider engagement in research.

Participants in the leadership breakout session at the Clinical Translational Science Awards (CTSA) virtual 2020 conference discussed and ranked six recommendations in terms of feasibility, impact, and priority for advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts to elevate underrepresented populations to leadership positions in CTSAs and their broader institutions. A thematic analysis of chat and polling data identified challenges and opportunities to achieve DEI goals, with the three most promising recommendations as: cross-institutional Principal Investigator (P.I.) action-learning workgroups, transparent policies for recruiting and promoting underrepresented minorities (URM) leadership, and a clear succession plan to nurture and elevate URM leaders. Suggestions are made to improve DEI in CTSA leadership and allow for greater representation in the translational science field.

Despite the disproportionate burden of Alzheimer’s disease in older adults of color, the scientific community continues to grapple with underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical research. Our Center of Excellence for Alzheimer’s Disease (CEAD) collaborated with a local community partner to conduct community engagement (CE) studios to effectively involve our community of diverse older adults in the early planning stages of a clinical trial. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, the in-person studio format was adapted to allow for virtual, real-time participation. Our objective is to describe the process and feasibility of conducting virtual CE studios in an older adult population. Ninety percent of participants were non-Hispanic Black community-dwelling woman aged 60 years and older. The overall background and proposed clinical trial design was presented to the participants who then made recommendations regarding potential recruitment strategies, the use of culturally relevant language to describe the study, and logistical recommendations to improve participation and retention among community members. Our CEAD successfully conducted virtual CE studios during the COVID-19 pandemic, by partnering with a community-based organization, to engage community stakeholders about clinical trial design. CEADs are in a unique position to implement CE studios to better support patient access to clinical trials.

One challenge for multisite clinical trials is ensuring that the conditions of an informative trial are incorporated into all aspects of trial planning and execution. The multicenter model can provide the potential for a more informative environment, but it can also place a trial at risk of becoming uninformative due to lack of rigor, quality control, or effective recruitment, resulting in premature discontinuation and/or non-publication. Key factors that support informativeness are having the right team and resources during study planning and implementation and adequate funding to support performance activities. This communication draws on the experience of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Trial Innovation Network (TIN) to develop approaches for enhancing the informativeness of clinical trials. We distilled this information into three principles: (1) assemble a diverse team, (2) leverage existing processes and systems, and (3) carefully consider budgets and contracts. The TIN, comprised of NCATS, three Trial Innovation Centers, a Recruitment Innovation Center, and 60+ CTSA Program hubs, provides resources to investigators who are proposing multicenter collaborations. In addition to sharing principles that support the informativeness of clinical trials, we highlight TIN-developed resources relevant for multicenter trial initiation and conduct.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goal of the eResearch platform is to make consenting for clinical trials more convenient, accessible, and faster while retaining an ethical and informed consenting process. eResearch e-consent also allows for enhanced standardization and efficiency for research collaborations across academic research institutions, which, ultimately, helps drive discovery of better health care for our patients and communities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The UMN’s CTSI and AHC Information Systems developed software, called eResearch Suite, for electronic consenting. The eResearch Suite includes viewing a consent, a “Check Your Understanding” quiz to assess comprehension of critical study details, and a signature block that captures the participant signature electronically and with an automatic date and time stamp. The eResearch Suite also has the capability to randomize participants, track participants via a master list, collect participant data, collect internal study data, and generate emails to participants. The eResearch Suite platform is written in Ruby on Rails. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We have pilot tested the eResearch platform with one study thus far. Preliminary results of the study show that all participants consented via eResearch, with 64% of participants consenting remotely via eResearch before their first study visit. Participants e-consented using various devices including desktop computers, tablets, and smart phones. Participants also filled out surveys and questionnaires before their study visits, which saved the study team time and money. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: eResearch electronic consenting (e-consenting) changes the way potential participants consent for studies. e-Consenting is important because it allows individuals, or their Legally Authorized Representatives, to consent remotely. This may be faster, more convenient for people, reduce coercion, increase comprehension, and allow for consenting information or process to be shared with an individual’s family/friends. In acute and emergent settings we anticipate eResearch e-consenting will result in significant reduction of consent time by replacing faxed and paper consent with e-consent available via email and mobile devices. This allows legally authorized representatives to sign consent remotely, reduces the time physicians spend faxing consents, and allow them to avert more focus back on their patients. Time savings, whether for consent or study visits, may also result in a cost savings for studies.

The potential utilization of a cold-contact approach to research recruitment, where members of the research team are unknown to the patient, has grown with the expanded use of electronic health records (EHRs) and affiliated patient portals. Institutions that permit this strategy vary in their implementation and management of it but tend to lean towards more conservative approaches. This process paper describes the Medical University of South Carolina’s transition to an opt-out model of “cold-contact” recruitment (known as patient outreach recruitment or POR), wherein patients can be contacted so long as they do not express an unwillingness to receive such communication. The work highlights the benefits of this model by explaining how it, in many ways, supports and protects autonomy, beneficence, and justice for patients. The paper then describes the process of standing up the recruitment strategy, communicating the change to patients and the community, and documenting study team contact and patient research preference. Data supporting increased access to potentially eligible patients of greater diversity as well as initial researcher feedback on perceived success of POR is also shared. The paper ends with a discussion of next steps to enhance the POR process via more detailed data collection and reengagement with community stakeholders.