OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1.Assess changes in clinical research workforce landscape at Duke 2.Optimize and evaluate efficacy of a tier advancement process for clinical research career progression at Duke 3.Implement CRP engagement as a change management mechanism for workforce innovation METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We evaluated 857 clinical research positions at Duke to understand changes in the workforce (demographics, numbers in each position and tier) since implementing the tier advancement process in 2016. To understand the efficacy of the tier assessment process, data from a subset of this population (n=84) who underwent the advancement process was examined for success rate. Individual employees and their managers were surveyed to understand their perception of the advancement process and identify areas for improvement. We also describe implementation of multiple mechanisms of community engagement to manage expectations around the tier advancement process and to provide opportunities for employees to self-manage their career planning, including portfolio planning and leadership opportunities. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Whereas the clinical research workforce has grown by 5.5% since tiering began (2016, n=810; 2018 n=857). Nearly 13% of that growth has been in managerial or senior positions (2016, n=111; 2018 n=127). Distributions across job classifications changed only slightly, representing realignment of positions with study-level responsibilities over department-level responsibilities. Notably, clinical research nurses (CRNC & CRNC Sr.) was the only category including tiered and non-tiered positions to drop overall numbers between 2016 (n = 136) and 2018 (n=115), representing a shift in the workforce from research nurses to research coordinators. General demographics (gender, age) remained largely the same. A total of 359 positions have been hired during this time frame, nearly half of which were entry-level positions (175/359): 47 of these positions represent expansion of the workforce. Of 359 new hires since 2016, 271 currently still work in one of the research roles. Of the 84 employees who underwent the tier advancement process, 84% (43/51) succeeded in tier 2 advancement, 70% (14/20) succeeded in tier 3 advancement (CRC, CRNC, and regulatory coordinators), and 77% (10/13) of research program leaders (RPLs) succeeded in achieving tier two, which is the highest tier for this group. Fifty-five employees (65%) and 32 managers responded to a voluntary feedback survey. Overall confidence in the process improved in both groups from 2016 to 2018, most notably with managers. Both groups indicated a 10 hour reduction (employees = 35hr, 2016 and 25hr 2018; managers 25hr, 2016 and 15hr 2018) in time required to complete the tier advancement process. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The use of objectively-assessed competencies is an important step in the development of a workforce. By 1) maintaining alignment with industry standards for competencies, 2) upholding high standards, and 3) offering a consistent approach to career growth, Duke is working to develop and maintain a workforce that supports high quality research. Since the implementation of standardized job classifications and competency-based tier advancement, the positions have undergone rigorous competency-based needs evaluation. This leads to better matched jobs to study needs as well as increased standardization across the clinical research workforce. We believe that the subtle workforce shifts represent alignment of our positions with the business needs of our clinical research enterprise. Additionally, approximately 15% of our clinical research workforce has taken advantage of the opportunity to advance their own careers. We have made significant improvements in the following tier advancement processes: standardization of assessments, scoring guides, and modes; changes from LMS to a REDCap delivery of the knowledge assessments; streamlined the utilization of electronic documentation; and additional guidance for employees and managers regarding portfolio inclusions. These improvements have increased satisfaction and acceptance with the advancement process and were made possible through strategic communication across the workforce. Regular town hall meetings and focus group feedback sessions have included the clinical research community in discussions of WE-R initiatives and provided a much-needed feedback loop for process improvement and change management. Moreover, inclusion of WE-R discussion in our Research Professional Network events has provided opportunities to discuss career advancement strategies as well as volunteer opportunities to grow and demonstrate leadership competencies.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Our overall goals are: 1. To engage, inform and educate children and families on clinical research and increase their understanding of the goals and process of participation in research studies/clinical trials; 2. To Increase participation of children, especially those who are disproportionately underrepresented, in clinical research in the Western New York region and beyond. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The University at Buffalo Clinical Translational Science Institute conducted meetings in schools, community coalitions while holding focus groups with children with chronic conditions and their families and community health workers to identify the general perceptions of research. These conversations then informed the development of a children’s activity book about research. Completed in 2017, our “Sofia Learns about Research” activity book presents research in a non-threatening way by presenting a child with asthma who walks through the process of learning about research, being recruited and participating in research. The book explains basic concepts about research coupled with fun games and the possibility to color. Over 1,000 copies of the activity book have been disseminated to second to fourth graders via afterschool programs, community events, and medical practice waiting rooms. Recipients of the book are directed to short surveys to provide feedback on the book and their perception of research. The parents are also given the option to sign-up for the Buffalo Research Registry in order to be contacted about research opportunities. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Response has been very positive, with parents and community participants saying “It’s not just a storybook. The activities keep kids entertained while learning new concepts.” In children informally polled via a brief questionnaire pre and post story reading at an afterschool program, there was an increase in those interested in participating in a research study. In a recent event sponsored by the CTSI Community Engagement Core and other UB organizations, a group of fifty children from diverse background colored with enthusiasm several activity pages and obtained stickers for their “Research Passport”. In a recent teacher focus group we learned that the book content may fit the Science Curriculum and plan on reading sessions in inner-city schools after approval from the district. A pilot reading activity in a Montessori program revealed that second grade children were able to understand and complete the activities in the book. We are obtaining further feedback form teachers and parents in order to design simple protocol to be submitted for IRB approval to obtain more formal feed-back and outcomes in future readings. In parents and focus groups several respondents have indicated its relevance to older populations and English-language learners as well. The book has recently been translated into Spanish and Arabic through a partnership with the International Institute of Buffalo, which “welcomes, connects and empowers the foreign born”. Some of the book’s images have been modified in order to be sensitive to the readers’ culture and we are in the process of collaborating with the International Institute to disseminate it to their clients. We are in the initial phase of planning a mobile application which we anticipate will significantly enhance dissemination. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This presentation will describe the development process, the underpinning concepts and our plans and current progress towards a more formal community and school dissemination and evaluation. This project was made possible by Team Science in that the expertise of a millennial pre-medical student and an anthropologist with high community involvement was coupled with that of a senior clinical translational researcher. Moreover, much research and attention was devoted to the creation of images that are culturally inclusive. To this end, with the exception of the cover page, we have intentionally created the book in black and white so that the child may use his/her imagination and color the way he/she sees the protagonists and the environment. Great attention was devoted to names of the protagonists with the names of the two main characters being among the most common in the world in numerous countries. Also, the book lends itself to a mobile application which will allow the reader to change colors and shapes of the protagonists to fit his/her cultural background. We are in the early planning stages and will share our progress as part of this presentation. We have strived to disseminate the book with a broad approach in our community. This phase is being followed by a more formal dissemination phase via libraries, schools and community events. This part of the project exemplifies the challenge between wanting to disseminate the book broadly while obtaining formal feedback and outcomes in compliance with regulations protecting the anonymity and/or confidentiality of children and families. Therefore for this second phase of dissemination IRB approval is being sought in order to collect more quantitative and qualitative data on the impact of the book. We have already conducted a focus group with teachers to overcome the challenges around informed consent, especially in the public school system. Our initial findings suggest this resource will improve knowledge and perception of research among children and their families. To our knowledge most of the materials explaining research to children are geared to older children and are often sponsored by pharmaceutical companies for a specific trial. If successful, this book can have a profound impact in reaching out to children outside of the research and medical environments, with the ultimate goal of increasing the child’s and family’s willingness to participate in clinical research and clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Rockefeller University Center for Clinical and Translational Science (RU-CCTS), Clinical Directors Network (CDN), and Carter Burden Network (CBN), a multi-site senior services organization serving East Harlem, NY, formed a community-academic research partnership to characterize the health of the CBN seniors (many who are racial/ethnic minorities, low-income, and suffering from multiple chronic conditions) and to explore the use and associations of a measure of overall health status and frailty in this population. A simple validated measure of health status could standardize and streamline community-based translational research to study the impact of CBN’s services on health outcomes. The CCTS-funded Pilot Project aims to: 1) Engage CBN seniors and stakeholders in priority-setting, joint protocol development, research conduct, analysis and dissemination; 2) Characterize the health status of the CBN seniors using validated measures; 3) Establish an electronic database infrastructure for current and future research; 4) Understand how health and senior activities information can be used to implement programs to improve senior health and well-being. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: 1) We used Community Engaged Research Navigation (CEnR-Nav) methods to facilitate partnership development, and to engage CBN seniors and stakeholders in each step of the research; 2) Research staff conducted recruitment, informed consent, and physical assessments (e.g., pulse, blood pressure, BMI); and administered validated surveys to collect health status information. 3) Data were captured on a REDCap-based platform. The primary outcome, frailty, was measured by the validated Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). 4) Secondary outcomes include the association of use of services/activities with the primary outcome. Research participants consented to sharing of their health, demographic and services utilization data compiled by CBN staff and the NYC Department for the Aging (DFTA). DFTA provided comparison datasets of de-identified health and demographic data for clients attending other NYC DFTA-funded senior centers. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 1) 43 residents and stakeholders engaged in partnership-building, study design and implementation. 2) 218 participants from two senior centers were enrolled. Mean age, 68 ± 11 years; 58% Hispanic; 33% African American, 23% White, 1% Asian, 18% Unknown, 17% Other; 69% reported <$20000 annual income; 40% had not completed high school; 30% scored as moderately or severely frail; 83% were overweight or obese; and 33% reported a history of diabetes. 84% had uncontrolled high blood pressure; many participants were previously aware of their hypertension diagnosis. 3) A REDcap database was developed to store historical and prospective data. 4) Across frailty categories, there was a significant difference in utilization of non-meal (p = 0.0237) and meal services (p = 0.0127) and there was an inverse proportional relationship between the number of meal and non-meal visits, and frailty. Additional associations among health status measures (e.g., SPPB, demographics, biological measures: pulse, blood pressure, BMI; psychosocial and nutritional scales) and CBN service utilization (i.e., meals vs. non-meals activities) will be presented. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: We developed a community-academic research partnership, infrastructure and capacity, built through our Community-Engaged (CEnR-Nav) model, to conduct a pilot study characterizing the health status and services utilization of low-income minority seniors. Our pilot study identified an urgent health priority, uncontrolled hypertension in 84% of CBN’s seniors. We then leveraged the team’s expertise and CBN’s meal services program to develop a research proposal for external funding to conduct a community-based multi-component intervention study. Replacement of a typical Western diet with the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet has been proven to reduce blood pressure in hypertensive and normotensive individuals in as little as 14 days, yet effective implementation has been lacking, and it is relatively untested in community-living seniors who receive their meals in settings such as CBN. We are also exploring mechanistic questions that relate to blood pressure control, such as the impact of the DASH diet on inflammation, which may lead to a better understanding of the underlying mechanism of action of the DASH diet. Our community partner, CBN, was awarded the DHHS-ACL nutrition innovation grant to conduct this 2-year study with CDN and RU-CCTS. The resulting study developed out of the community engaged pilot study represents a unique combination of community-centered care, within an implementation science framework (with embedded mechanistic measures under development). This is an example of the novel, full-spectrum approach to translational research that the RU-CCTS/CDN Community Engaged Research Core has been developing over the last decade. The research to characterize CBN clients’ health status is now being extended to address cardiovascular health by way of intervening on diet quality and food insecurity, a key component of the social determinants of health, in partnership with agencies outside of the healthcare delivery system. The outcomes of the DASH Diet implementation study will also serve to inform the broader aging service provider network and the healthcare community about the impact of senior center congregate meal composition and services on health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Our overarching theoretical framework is the health belief model (HBM). Guided by HBM, we aim to identify rural adults’ perceived barriers and motivations to participating in research. Specifically, our research questions are listed below. RQ1: What socio-cultural factors influence rural tobacco users’ intentions to a) participate in research studies and b) undertake tobacco cessation? RQ2: What bio-psychological and behavioral factors influence rural tobacco users’ intentions to a) participate in research studies and b) undertake tobacco cessation? RQ3: How do rural tobacco users perceive citizen scientists as disseminators of a) tobacco cessation and b) recruitment messages? METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: In Phase I of this multi-stage project, we are conducting in-depth interviews with approximately 30 tobacco users in rural Florida. The interview consists of semi-structured questions and multiple validated questionnaires. Specifically, we ask a series of questions about participants’ barriers to participating in research. Additionally, we include questionnaires on participants’ tobacco use history, nicotine dependence, motivation to quit, and willingness to participate in research studies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This study consists of two main phases. Data collection for Phase 1 of the study is ongoing, and we will discuss these recent findings. We anticipate data collection and data analysis to be finalized by May, 2019. Beginning in August 2019 through August 2020, we will focus on Phase II, which entails designing and implementing an intervention to increase rural tobacco users’ willingness to participate in research. Given existing literature on other underrepresented groups in research, we anticipate that rural tobacco users will express that logistical barriers, such as transportation and time, prevent them from participating in research. Additionally, we anticipate these individuals may have socio-cultural barriers to participating in research, including distrust in the medical system and apprehension over discipline-specific terminology. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The results of this formative research will be critical to our development of a targeted intervention to increase rural tobacco users’ participation in research. Additionally, our interdisciplinary and community-based approach in this study acknowledges the importance of involving the target population in the research process, which is in line with NIH’s updated model of translational research. We will discuss the process of collaborating with extension agents in rural counties in Florida to reach underrepresented communities.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Deaf communities in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) struggle to organize, advocate, and reach social and health equity in their nations. In the Dominican Republic (DR), the health and social status of Deaf citizens is unclear, which obfuscates action and advocacy based on data. A set of successful pre-existing US-DR partnerships that function well but were not previously connected, organized around submission of a community-based NIH research grant and pilot work to support it. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Adapting the Partnership Synergy Framework for this purpose, we evaluate the partnership, its evolution, and its experience in implementing formative research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our experience showed the local Deaf community organization easily recruited and interfaced with the Deaf community; presence of a trusted external organization facilitated entry of the PUCMM-UR research team; and stakeholders are enthusiastic about the partnership, its outputs, and the ability to recruit Dominican Deaf citizens into research. The partnership organized around production of an R21 to the Fogarty International Center (NIH), including Human Subjects certification, budget and scope of work negotiation, and inclusion of preliminary data. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The engagement of Deaf communities globally is virtually non-existent in clinical and translational research. This partnership in the Dominican Republic shows that partners can organize around common goals and identify logistics required to produce pilot data and an NIH grant.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goal of the study was to assess the acceptability of a culturally targeted narrative video and identify potential avenues for dissemination in a sample of bilingual community health workers who provide services to the Latino community in the United States. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We piloted the video in a sample of bilingual community health workers who provide services to Latinos (n=31). After watching the video, participants filled out a survey. The survey captured sociodemographic data (e.g. education), their role and experience working with Latinos (e.g. patient navigators), acceptability of the video (e.g. general satisfaction, length of the video, amount of information), and potential dissemination (e.g., dissemination channels, preferred settings to watch the video, and preferred context). Three open ended questions captured information about how the video could be useful for the Latino community, what they liked the most from the video, and suggestions for improvement. Data was entered in SPSS version 25. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the survey, and content analysis to summarize the feedback from the open-ended questions. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Participants (n = 31) had an average age of 46 years (SD=16.99), all self-identified as Hispanic or Latinos, most were female (90.3%), and worked as patient navigators (29%) or community outreach workers (25.8%). The video’s general acceptability was very high. Participants reported high ratings for overall satisfaction, how much they liked the video, enjoyed it, and considered it to be interesting (all means >9.6, range 1-10). Most participants strongly agreed or agreed that the length was adequate (80.7%), that the information presented was very helpful (100%), that the video could be useful for the Latina community (96.8%), and that they would share the video with women at-risk of HBOC (100%). The highest endorsed channels for dissemination were Facebook (90.3) and YouTube (87.1%). The highest endorsed settings were community centers (100%), churches (96.8%), and hospitals (80.6%). Most participants (90.3%) considered that the best context to watch the video would be with relatives, followed by watching with other women at-risk of HBOC (71.0%), friends (71.0%), and lastly by oneself (41.9%) DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This study represents a multidisciplinary approach to intervention development that aims to reduce well-documented knowledge gaps and disparities in the use of GCRA among at-risk Latinas. A culturally targeted video has the potential to reach underserved populations with low literacy and English proficiency and it can be widely disseminated. The video was well received by community health workers who reported high acceptability. These findings are promising given that community health workers could play a key role in the dissemination of the video if it is proven to be efficacious.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Approximately 80% of adolescents do not meet the current national guidelines of engaging in 60 minutes or more of physical activity daily. Physical activity is widely recognized as being beneficial for healthy growth as well as important for good mental health and fitness. Interventions are needed that promote and encourage physical activity among this population to reduce the risk of obesity and to encourage maintenance of a healthy weight. Since adolescents enjoy digital technologies, robotic-assisted platforms might be a novel, innovative and engaging mechanism to deliver physical activity interventions. The objective of this study was to assess the potential acceptability of robotic-assisted exercise coaching among diverse youth. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This was a pilot study that used a cross-sectional survey design. Adolescents ages 12-17 were recruited at 3 community-based sites. We obtained written informed consent from participants’ parents and guardians as well as assent from participants. We demonstrated the robotic system human interface (also known as the robotic human trainer) to groups of adolescents. We delivered the exercise coaching in real time via an iPad tablet placed atop a mobile robotic wheel base and controlled remotely by the coach using an iOS device or computer. After the demonstration participants were asked to complete a 28- item survey that included questions about socio demographics, smoking history, weight, exercise habits, and depression history. The survey also included the 8- item Technology Acceptance Scale (TAS). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Participants (N = 190) were 55% (103/189) male, 43% (81/190) racial minority, 6% (11/190) Hispanic, and 28% (54/190) lived in a lower-income community. The mean age of participants was 15.0 years (SD=2.0). Approximately 25% (47/190) of participants met national recommendations for physical activity. Their mean body mass index (BMI) was 21.8(SD_4.0) kg/m2. Of note, 18% (35/190) had experienced depression now or in the past. The mean Technology Acceptance Scale (TAS) total score was 32.8 (SD 7.8) of a possible score of 40, indicating high potential receptivity to the technology. No significant associations were detected between TAS score and gender, age, racial minority status, median income of participant’s neighborhood, BMI, meeting national recommendations for physical activity levels, or depression history. Of interest, 68% (129/190) of participants agreed that they and their friends were likely to use the robot to help them exercise. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This pilot survey study demonstrated that among a racially and socioeconomically diverse group of adolescents, robotic-assisted exercise coaching is likely acceptable. The discovery that all demographic groups represented in this sample had similarly high receptivity to the robotic human exercise trainer is encouraging for ultimate considerations of intervention scalability and reach among diverse adolescent populations. Next steps include a study to assess the impact of robotic-assisted exercise coaching on adolescents’ exercise and health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Our goals in developing adaptations to the Community Engagement Studio model have been to: (1) enable investigators to consult with as broad a range of community “experts” (stakeholders) as possible, (2) make Studio participation feasible for stakeholders from rural and frontier areas, (3) create a safe environment for stakeholders from communities facing health disparities, who have had low participation in research, and (4) enable stakeholders to speak in the language in which they are most comfortable. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We have used several strategies to enable investigators to gain input from stakeholders in rural and frontier areas. If the research focuses on rural populations, we hold the Studio at a central location, usually at a restaurant in a private room, if this is available. If the investigator wants to hear from both rural and urban residents, we use videoconferencing via Skype or FaceTime when individuals have enough bandwidth to support it and/or feel comfortable using this technology. For those who have dial-up or no internet access, we provide a conference call line Trusting relationships are essential to creating a safe space in which stakeholders from communities facing health disparities can provide consultations to researchers. When an investigator wishes to consult with stakeholders from one racial/ethnic community, we contract with a leader or trusted member of that community to recruit appropriate stakeholders. The Studio is co-facilitated by a CCET staff member and a community leader in the community’s preferred language, with the leader translating for the CCET staff member. For Studios that involve stakeholders from multiple communities and that are conducted in English, we provide translators, if appropriate. Stakeholders using translation may be present in the room with other Studio participants or may be on the phone. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Of the 35 Studios we have held, five have been held in rural locations and another five have included one or more rural/frontier stakeholders participating via phone or videoconferencing. Six Studios have been co-facilitated with community leaders and four others have included translators. Almost all Studios we have held in English have included individuals representing diverse communities. Anonymous surveys completed at the end of Studios show that participants report the following on 5-point Likert scales:. The facilitator managed the allotted time so that my voice was heard (67% strongly agree; 33% agree). The relevant experts were present at the Studio (78% strongly agree; 22% agree). I was satisfied with the Studio session (78% strongly agree; 22% agree). The Studio process was worth my time (89% strongly agree; 11% agree). The feedback provided by the community experts will improve the research project (68% strongly agree; 44% agree). Participants were also asked what they felt was their contribution to the research project. Among the most common themes were: increased researcher’s understanding of the community, increased researcher’s sensitivity to the community, provided feedback on the feasibility of the project, provided ideas on recruiting research participants, provided ideas for how to use the project results to benefit the community, and provided ideas on how to inform the community about the project. All participants said that they would participate in a Studio again. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Studies at all stages in the research life cycle can be strengthened through consultations with community experts. These stakeholders can inform needs assessments, provide input on study design, supply critical information on supports and barriers to research participation, review study instruments for readability and cultural appropriateness, provide feedback on recruitment and educational materials, and inform dissemination of research results, among others. These consultations provide the most benefit to researchers when they include the voices of as broad a range of stakeholders as possible. We have shown that it is feasible to include stakeholders who live in rural and frontier areas in Studio consultations. We also have developed successful methods for holding Studio consultations with stakeholders who are members of communities facing health disparities and who speak multiple languages. This expanded representation in Community Engagement Studios strengthens research studies.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Over 80% of CTSA programs have a community advisory board (CAB), an effective strategy to increase community engagement (CE) in research. Little is known about how the research discussed with CABs aligns with community priorities (i.e., bi-directionality). This program evaluation assessed the health topics presented by researchers to the CABs linked to our CE Program at all three Mayo Clinic sites (MN, AZ, and FL) for relevance to local community needs. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Two coders classified Mayo researcher presentations to our CABs from 2014-2018 for relevance to needs identified in the local 2013 and/or 2016 County Health Needs Assessments and specific topic(s); with high levels of agreement (Kappa=0.90). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Overall, of the 65 presentations 41 (63%) addressed one or more local health needs (47% MN, 60% FL, 80% AZ). Cross-cutting health topics addressed at 2 sites were physical activity/obesity/nutrition and mental health. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Findings were shared with our CABs to obtain input on future directions. The FL and AZ CABs are systematic in seeking out or initiating research projects that address local health needs, an approach the MN site is interested in adopting. Ultimately, it is important to demonstrate improved health outcomes with CTSA-based CE research strategies. Understanding community health needs and depth of researchers in those areas may help to focus priorities for demonstrating such outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Fifty percent of adolescents have tried an illicit drug and 70% have tried alcohol by the end of high school. Further, despite 7-9% of youth 12-17 meeting criteria for a substance use disorder only 1 in 10 actually receive it. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence based process that facilitates early identification and treatment for adults and adolescents in community (primary care) facilities. Despite the documented effectiveness of SBIRT, no research has examined the implementation of SBIRT in school settings by school-based mental health personnel. The purpose of the present study was to identify facilitators and barriers to SBIRT implementation by school-based personnel in secondary schools. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Participants included 30 school and community service providers including: teachers, school counselors, school psychologists, school administrators (principals and central office staff), city council members, school board members, community mental health services providers as well as state level individuals from the department of Adolescent Substance Use and the Office of Drug Control Policy. Interview guides were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify facilitators and barriers regarding the following: inner setting, outer setting, individuals involved, and intervention (SBIRT). The six-phase framework of Thematic Analysis (TA) was employed to analyze the data. We specifically used the deductive method to analyze the data with a pre-determined theory in mind (CFIR) to move to hypothesis building, and coding the data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Contrary to research conducted outside of the schools under the auspices that schools do not have the time or interest in providing school-based substance use interventions, several themes emerged identifying a receptivity, willingness, and eagerness to provide these services. Specifically, school-based mental health professionals (i.e., school counselors, school psychologists) being aware of adolescent substance use in their schools, but not knowing how to appropriately handle such disclosures. Further, school-based mental health personnel indicated that they would want additional training on how to identify and provide services to adolescents with substance use needs. School-based administrators also indicated a receptivity to addressing substance use with an acknowledgement that schools would need to move from a punitive model for substance use infractions to a treatment model. Some identified barriers to implementation included lack of awareness of community treatment settings for referrals and anonymity or lack thereof of substance use screening. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: While the data analyzed come from a limited sample in one school district, the present study found that schools could be potential settings for the early identification and intervention of adolescent substance use. Findings from this study contribute to our understanding of school and community receptivity to school-based interventions. Future research should identify training needs of school-based mental health personnel to assist in the early identification and prevention of substance use disorders.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Clinical trials (CTs) play an important role in developing new treatments, expanding or refining treatments that are already available, and/or identifying behavioral changes that can prolong or improve the lives of subjects. CTs are also conducted to understand normal human physiology, pathophysiology, and factors associated with health outcomes. Results from CTs are then used to determine the safety and efficacy of medications or treatment. CT participants should reflect the diversity of those receiving the treatments because, exclusion of specific populations in CTs may potentially result in knowledge gaps for clinicians and regulators. Historically, women and geriatrics have been underrepresented as CT participants. For women, this is the result of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action in 1977 which restricted women with childbearing potential from participating in phase I and early phase II CTs after thousands of birth defects resulted from thalidomide usage during pregnancy. While the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s 1992 and 2001 reports documented an increased female inclusion in later stages of CTs, earlier phases of CTs were still lacking. Likewise, older adults and geriatrics have been excluded in CTs arbitrarily or to avoid adverse events associated with drug-drug interactions and comorbidities. Over the past few decades, the FDA has worked to address this issue and increase diversity and transparency in CTs. In 2015, the FDA’s Action Plan for Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) Section 907 called for improved CT inclusion and reporting of demographic subgroups (sex, age, race, and ethnicity), highlighting three priority areas: quality, participation, and transparency. This research examines the current state of female inclusion in phase I and II CTs (2016 to 2017) and geriatric inclusion in phase III CTs (2010 to 2017). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To assess female representation in phase I and II CTs, data from 2016 CTs was extracted from clinicaltrials.gov. The average percentage of male and female participation in trials recruiting for males and females was determined; CTs conducted in only males or females (due to sex specific disease states) were excluded. The data was further differentiated into investigator-initiated and industry-sponsored trials to determine any differences in sex representation. Data from 2017 CTs on clinicaltrials.gov will be extracted and analyzed as well as 2016 to 2017 data from FDA novel drug approvals. To assess geriatric representation in phase III CTs, geriatric subsections of drug labels from novel drug applications approved between 2010 to 2017 were assessed for geriatric-specific information based on four areas: 1) reporting of CT including geriatrics, 2) reporting of percentage of CT participants ages 75+, 3) providing geriatric dosage recommendations, 4) determining product safety and efficacy for geriatrics. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: It is mandatory that all US CTs are registered on clinicaltrials.gov with the exception of Phase I studies, and results posted within 1 year of CT completion. In 2016, 916 phase I and 713 phase II CTs were registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Of these registered CTs, 4% of phase I and 9% of phase II CTs posted results. Of these, phase I studies included more males than females. Of these, phase I studies showed higher percentage of males (58%) than females (42%). In phase I/II, phase II, and phase II/III CTs, females were represented at a higher levels than males by 8-20% (Table 1). Phase I industry-sponsored and investigator-initiated trials and phase II/III investigator-initiated trials included less females than males (Table 2); all other types of CTs had more female than male subjects (Table 2). Preliminary findings will be expanded to include 2017 CTs and a wider pool of clinical trials will include all those associated with FDA novel drugs approved in 2016 and 2017. Of the 250 labels of novel drugs approved from 2010 to 2017 assessed for geriatric inclusion, 74% reported a CT including geriatrics, and 55% reported including CT participants ages 75+. Further, 31% provided geriatric dosage recommendations and 62% indicated insufficient evidence to determine product safety/efficacy for geriatrics (Figure 1). There was no consistent increase following the 2015 implementation of FDASIA section 907 in any of the four areas examined (Figure 2). Labels providing geriatric dosage recommendations were consistently the least fulfilled area across all years analyzed (Figure 3). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: A lack of inclusion of specific populations in CTs can lead to serious complications. For example, in 2013, the FDA required a lower recommended dose for women for drugs containing the sedative-hypnotic zolpidem (i.e. Ambien) due to persisting next morning drowsiness; the FDA arbitrarily recommended the dosage be halved from 10 mg to 5 mg as it found that women appeared to eliminate zolpidem from their bodies more slowly than men. Additionally, $35.7 million is spent annually on hospitalization from adverse drug reactions in the elderly. And, although government acts and initiatives have called for greater inclusion of certain populations like females and geriatrics in CTs, there is no penalty for exclusion. Problems like these may be avoided if these specific populations are included in CTs so that drugs can be properly studied. It may be preliminary to make conclusions about female representation in phase I clinical trials because it is not mandatory to register all phase I trials on clinicaltrials.gov, but further investigation will be conducted into FDA summary reports. Preliminary findings indicate that efforts to include female subjects may be effective in the subset of studies that reported their results. As of 2017, 51.3% of the U.S. population over 18 years old is female (U.S. Census Bureau). Early clinical trials often help to establish safety and dosing for phase III trials. Thus, it is pertinent that the inclusion rate is reflective of the general population at all clinical trial stages, not just pivotal, phase III trials. It would be prudent to monitor this trend as more studies report their results. Given that the average US life expectancy is now 78 years and that elderly population is expected to double in coming decades (NIH, 2016), there is an urgent need to include this population in current and future clinical research. Geriatrics, particularly those age 75+, use more than a third of total prescription and over-the-counter medications sold in US (Merck Institute, 2014), but is severely underrepresented in CTs. The effects of polypharmacy and changes in drug metabolism with age increase the need for specific drug dosage recommendations for geriatrics. As there was no discernable difference in drug labels fulfilling areas examined before and after 2015, FDASIA implementation may not have impacted geriatric inclusion in CT for drugs approved between 2010 to 2017. As many of these CTs began prior to FDASIA 2012 signing and 2015 implementation, the legislation’s full impact may occur in future years. Nonetheless, inadequate language currently found in geriatric drug labels can create challenges for clinicians when prescribing these medications for geriatric patients, potentially contributing to adverse drug events.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1. To assess the acceptability and feasibility and of an online self-assessment version of the Community REsearch Activity Assessment Tool (CREAT), an instrument to measure research capacity of CBOs. 2. To elicit CBO perspectives on their research and knowledge generation activities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Thirteen CBOs who had previously partnered with an academic course on practice-based community health research were contacted and asked to participate in the field testing of the CREAT and provide feedback on areas of strength and areas for potential improvement. Eleven organizations completed the field testing, which began and ended with an in-person semi-structured interview with the online self-administration of the CREAT in the middle. The semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded with questions pertaining to topics such as: strengths and challenges of previous academic research partnerships, perceptions around the importance of research within the organization, thoughts and reactions to the CREAT, and general feedback about the CREAT. Results from the self-administered CREAT were used to test a scoring algorithm. Semi-structured interviews are being transcribed, pre-post responses to questions of strengths and challenges in engaging in research partnerships will be compared, and overall qualitative transcripts will be coded using grounded theory. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Anticipated Results: The CREAT was acceptable and self-administration was feasible. Average time for completion of the online CREAT was 41 ± 13 min, and respondents did not need assistance from the interviewer to complete the online instrument. Suggestions for improvements focused on word choices and scale options. Respondents were aware of the importance of research activities for their CBOs, particularly for optimizing programmatic quality and services. Access to staff and financial resources were key barriers to strengthening research capacity, and respondents noted that engaging in research partnerships can also bring in additional resources. Interview transcription is still in progress along with the refinement of the codebook for the qualitative data collected. In alignment with objectives/goals outlined above, the results will be separated into the following four sections: CBO Research and Knowledge Generation Activities, Acceptability of the Tool, Feasibility of the Tool, and Refinement of the Tool. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The online, self-administered CREAT instrument is acceptable and feasible for CBO respondents. Availability of a validated tool to assess research capacity of CBOs, developed and refined with input from community researchers, will support targeted research capacity building for CTSAs, community organizations and partners, thus strengthening collaborations. Translational scientists, public health systems and community health improvement depend on CBOs as partners in community-engaged research (CEnR). The CREAT will allow community members to more fully contribute their expertise to the development, implementation and evaluation of interventions, and to develop more equitable partnerships with researchers.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To build capacity for community engaged, translational research in faculty across the university. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Each year, the Community Engagement Research Core (CERC) of the Penn State CTSI invites applications for one to two Community Engagement Faculty Fellowships. Applicant teams are comprised of a junior or mid-level investigator seeking to expand their work into the CEnR arena under the mentorship of a senior investigator with expertise in community engaged scholarship. The fellow must develop a plan for the mentoring year, including a timeline, activities to be undertaken together, knowledge to be acquired, deliverables, and a budget. The funding supports two course releases or the clinical equivalent for the fellow, and a small budget to support the mentor’s research program. Proposals are evaluated using NIH scientific merit criteria. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We are in our second year of the fellowship program. Two highly qualified fellows are currently working with established community-based mentors. The 2017-2018 fellowship team showcases how an effective mentor-fellow partnership can help move a fellow’s work along the translational spectrum. By working with her mentor, our first fellow’s research has expanded from basic discovery science in a university hospital to development of a neonatal intensive care unit intervention to be employed with parents in the community. The 2018-2019 scholar, who utilized the community engagement research core (CERC) of the PSU CTSI in preparation of a PCORI grant, has since received the PCORI award and is working with her mentor to bring her innovative mental health screenings to the public schools. We are currently evaluating applications for the third year of the program, and please to have engaged applicants from across several Penn State campuses and disciplines. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The fellowship is enjoying early success in terms of fellow productivity, expanding translational research expertise, and fueling interest across the Penn State campuses in community engagement research. Future work will focus on sustainability planning for this type of program, metrics for tracking success, and plans for integrating fellows into a growing community of engaged scholars at the university.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To translate a behavioral theory–informed, evidence-based, face-to-face health education program into an mHealth lifestyle intervention for African-Americans (AAs). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This mixed methods study consisted of 4 phases, using an iterative development process to intervention design with the AA community. In Phase 1, we held focus groups with AA community members and church partners (n=23) to gain insight regarding the needs and preferences of potential app end users. In Phase 2, the interdisciplinary research team synthesized input from Phase 1 for preliminary app design and content development. Phase 3 consisted of a sequential 3-meeting series with the church partners (n=13) for iterative app prototyping (assessment, cultural tailoring, final review). Phase 4 was a single group pilot study among AA church congregants (n=50) to assess app acceptability, usability, and satisfaction. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Phase 1 focus groups indicated preferences for general and health related apps: multifunctional; high-quality graphics/visuals; evidence-based, yet simple health information; and social networking capability. Phase 2 integrated these preferences into the preliminary app prototype. Feedback from Phase 3 was used to refine the FAITH! App prototype for pilot testing. Phase 4 pilot testing indicated high acceptability, usability, and satisfaction of the FAITH! App. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This study illustrates the process of using formative and CBPR approaches to design a culturally relevant, mHealth lifestyle intervention to address CV health disparities within the AA community. Given the positive perceptions of the app, our study supports the use of an iterative development process by others interested in implementing an mHealth lifestyle intervention for racial/ethnic minority communities.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The National HIV/AIDS strategy aims to increase retention in care (RIC) to reduce HIV transmission and mortality. Previous studies have evaluated clinic-level interventions such as appointment reminders and peer navigation. However, few studies have investigated the association between multiple clinic-level factors and RIC among PLWH across the United States. We conducted a multi-site cohort study to identify clinic-level factors associated with RIC in the United States from 2010-2016. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We included PLWH with at least one HIV primary care visit from 2010-2016 at seven sites of the Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) Network of Integrated Clinical Systems (CNICS). Individual-level data collected as part of routine clinical care were abstracted from the electronic health record. Clinic-level data were gathered through a survey and included questions on site characteristics (i.e. clinic volume) as well as services available at the site during each year of the study: peer navigation, RIC posters/brochures, laboratory test timing, flexible scheduling, appointment reminder types, and stigma support services defined as intensive HIV education and advocacy regarding support to address stigma at outreach visits. RIC was defined as ≥2 encounters per year, ≥90 days apart, observed until death, administrative censoring (December 31, 2016), or loss to follow-up (no visit for >12 months with no future visits). Poisson panel regression with robust error variance, clustering by site and adjusting for calendar year, age (modeled with a cubic spline), sex, race/ethnicity, and HIV transmission risk factor, was used to estimate incident rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for RIC. Clustering by site has been shown to absorb for clustering that could occur at the individual level as well. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Among 21,046 patients contributing 103,348 person-years, 67% of person-years were RIC. Text appointment reminders (IRR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.03-1.24) and stigma support services (IRR=1.11; 95% CI:1.04-1.19) were significantly associated with RIC. RIC disparities in individual-level patient characteristics were observed even after accounting for clinic-level characteristics. Older patients were more likely to be RIC demonstrated through year comparisons due to the use of a spline; for age 50 years (IRR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.06-1.08) and 60 years (IRR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.13-1.17) compared to 45 years. Female PLWH were more likely to be RIC compared to males (IRR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.05) and Hispanic PLWH were more likely to be RIC compared to white, non-Hispanic PLWH (IRR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.05-1.13). Although commonly found to be associated with worse RIC, Black race and injection drug use were not associated with RIC in this population. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: In this multi-site US cohort study from 2010-2016, availability of text appointment reminders and stigma support services at a clinic were associated with approximately 10% higher probability of RIC than at clinics without those services. RIC disparities persisted with respect to individual-level characteristics of age, sex, and race/ethnicity even after accounting for these clinic-level factors. Prospective studies examining the impact of these clinic-level factors and individual-level uptake of these services on RIC are needed.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Community-engaged research can provide important input to researchers to understand the impact of health services on diverse communities. In emergency (911) dispatch research, most studies have focused on specific health conditions, especially on identifying and managing those conditions remotely and identifying the most appropriate resources to send. Community-engaged research can add a needed component to these studies, identifying not only what happens when someone calls 911, but who calls and who doesn’t, what barriers community members encounter when they call, and what they expect from their 911 service. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A recent study published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science outlined a method for identifying and evaluating the needed competencies and readiness of individual researchers to do effective community-engaged research. The investigators involved in an ongoing study on community attitudes toward 911 propose to use the methods outlined in that study to receive feedback from their Community Advisory Board on their own competencies and readiness. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: It is anticipated that 13 people will be involved in providing feedback to the investigators, including all official member of the Community Advisory Boards and all supportive academic staff and faculty. The feedback will be gathered using a survey instrument developed from the recently-published study and will include questions about the purpose of the research, openness to feedback, communication, cultural sensitivity, community presence, power sharing, recognizing partner contributions, and developing community capacity. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Identifying the most appropriate resources to send to any given emergency is the primary role of the emergency dispatcher. However, they are also public servants, providing care and comfort in a time of stress to members of many diverse communities. As such, it is critical that they understand the needs and expectations of those communities, as well as the barriers they face in calling 911. The proposed study adds value to an ongoing community-engaged research project by providing feedback about readiness and competency to the investigators.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Background: The importance of engaging community in research and fostering community-academic research partnerships is increasingly acknowledged by Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutes. However, forming and maintaining such collaborations is often hampered by numerous challenges. It is critical to investigate the barriers to effective community-academic partnerships and to develop novel approaches to overcome these barriers. Objective: To explore community and academic perspectives of the challenges faced by community-academic research partnerships and potential solutions to these identified challenges. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Methods: In an effort to explore creative approaches to address these issues, the Community Engagement Program at the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR), the CTSA site that serves Michigan, hosted a retreat to elicit the input of community members and academics from across the state. There was a mix of participants ranging from those with established community-academic partnerships to others who were new to community-engaged research and in early stages of forming partnerships. At the retreat, attendees were randomly divided into groups and asked to answer the specific question, “What are your barriers to partnering in research?” After each group identified a set of barriers and reported their findings to the entire room, attendees were asked to work again in their small groups to discuss potential solutions to these barriers. Ideas for solutions were also shared with the entire room. As part of the process of brainstorming about these questions, attendees were asked to document their ideas --- for both barriers and solutions --- on post-it notes which were then grouped by category. Artifacts from the retreat were saved digitally and transcripts made from these records. The findings were then analyzed to identify common themes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Results: Eighty-six participants attended the retreat from across the state of Michigan. Forty-three represented community organizations that focus on addressing a wide array of social determinants of health issues. The remaining forty-three participants represented various academic institutions. The most frequently mentioned challenges to community-academic partnerships were related to communication and relationship building. To overcome barriers in these areas, participants noted that it is critical to collaboratively and explicitly identify shared goals, values and norms in the early stages of partnership development. This was closely linked to the need for additional funding to help foster and strengthen relationships by allowing partners to spend time together to both work and socialize informally, preferably in face-to-face settings. These were deemed crucial for building trust and common ground. In addition, more equitable funding and role distribution --- including shared leadership and governance of research projects between community and academia--- that recognizes and supports the true costs of involvement in research for community members was viewed as important. Other frequently noted issues on the part of community members were the need for greater respect for community partners and for more training opportunities to build capacity within communities to participate in research. Participants from academic institutions emphasized that the current requirements and timeline for promotion in academia make it harder for them to participate in community-engaged research, especially as early career researchers. They maintained that wider recognition of the value of community-engaged research is necessary and that this requires the support of home departments. Finally, participants underscored the importance of building infrastructure to better connect potential partners from the community and academia by making it easier to identify common interests and reciprocal strengths. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Conclusion: The problems faced by community-academic partnerships may be alleviated by working with community and academic members to identify potential solutions. Further work is needed to systematically examine barriers and the efficacy of solutions to enhance community-academic partnerships. Acknowledgements: We thank all attendees of the MICHR Community Engagement retreat for their participation in this activity that explored barriers to effective community-academic partnerships. Their honest and frank feedback was essential to broaching sensitive topics related to partnership development, and to identify realistic and practical solutions. We also thank all members of the planning committee and our colleagues in the Community Engagement Program for their work on bringing together community and academic members for this retreat. This project was supported by grant number UL1TR002240 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS:.Outline the development and purpose of the partnership brokering database in REDCap. Provide an overview of the tool and how it works. Discuss how this tool facilitates partnership-brokering activities and discuss plans for future use METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) is a secure, web-based application developed at Vanderbilt University to assist with systematic data management of small and medium sized projects. CCH utilized REDCap to build a custom data management warehouse entitled the Partnership Brokering Tool. Information compiled in various formats (handwritten notes, spreadsheets, etc.) over the past 10 years by CCH staff, was then systematically organized and entered into the Partnership Brokering Tool. The tool captures information such as individual contact information, organizational affiliation (academic, community, faith, government etc.), research interests (35 categories - asthma, diabetes, heart disease, etc.), communities of foci (children, elderly, LGBTQ, ethnicity, etc.), and target geographic community served (Chicago north, south, suburban, Illinois, etc.). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Data was compiled on 451 community groups and organizations and 77 partners in academia thus far. Community organizations represent a range of community sectors including advocacy and policy groups, community-based, faith-based organizations, foundations, media, schools, etc. throughout the Chicagoland area. Data analysis activities are underway, however, results will also be shared regarding characteristics of the communities these organizations serve including:. Age range. Special populations (as defined by the CSTI grant). Underrepresented racial and ethnic communities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The Partnership Brokering Tool has provided a format for CCH to systematically gather information about the relationships staff have cultivated with community groups and organizations. Unlike an email management system, this REDCap project is highly useful in capturing the parameters of our partner pool, identifying partnership gaps, and matching individuals interested in collaborating with researchers or community organizations that have a particular skill set or research interest. The Partnership Brokering Tool has also facilitated stakeholder engagement dedicated to guiding the centers’ overall goals, objectives, and programming. Finally, utilizing REDCap has streamlined efforts in reporting quantitative and qualitative data about these organizations. In the next phase of this project, CCH will utilize the database to assess the nature of the relationship between CCH and community groups and organizations.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goals in this project were two-fold:. Develop metrics that assessed community engagement support the center provides, and. Systematically document the fluid and time-intensive nature of providing community engaged research support, as well as key outcomes. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CCH utilized REDCap software in combination with Excel, to create and implement a data collection system to monitor and report on the full spectrum of engagement activities offered by the center. Center staff collaborated in identifying relevant metrics, developing the data collection instruments, and beta-testing instruments with real examples. This facilitated the integration of contextual factors (defined as factors such as the history, size, and diversity of the community, the organizational mission, the structure and size of the CE team, the number of years a university has been supporting community-engaged research work, etc.). Taking a collaborative approach in developing the center’s evaluation plan offered the added benefit of facilitating staff/faculty buy-in, building staff capacity, and engaging the team in understanding concepts related to performance measurement versus management. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Key benefits of these engagement tracking systems include: consolidating data into a central location, standardizing tracking processes and critical definitions, and supporting more automated reporting systems (e.g., dashboards) that facilitate quality improvement and highlight success stories. Data were compiled and reported via on-line dashboard (REDCap and Tableau) to help center leadership and staff analyze:. Quality improvement issues (How quickly are we responding to a request for support? Are we providing resources that meet the needs of community partners? Academics? Community-academic partnerships?);. Qualitative process analysis (In what research phase are we typically receiving requests for support (e.g. proposal development phase, implementation phase, etc.)? What types of projects are applying for seed grants? After the seed grant ends, are the community-academic partnerships continuing to partner on research activities?);. Outcomes (Are new partnerships stemming from our support? Are supported research projects leading to new policies, practices, programs?). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: There is a gap in the literature regarding meaningful, actionable, and feasible community engaged metrics that capture critical processes and outcomes. This project identified many more relevant metrics and demonstrates that it is worthwhile to take a collaborative, inclusive approach to identifying, tracking, and reporting on key process and outcome metrics in order to convey a more comprehensive picture of community engagement activities and to inform continuous improvement efforts. Community engagement centers across CTSIs offer a similar range of programs and services. At the same time, much of the community-engaged research literature describes metrics related to community-academic grant submissions, funds awarded, and peer-reviewed publications. Experts that work in the arena of providing community engagement support recognize that these metrics are sufficient in understanding the spectrum of engagement opportunities. Community engagement (CE) teams nationally can utilize these metrics in developing their evaluation infrastructure. At the national level, NCATS can utilize the metrics for CE common metrics related to these programs and services. Critical to this process:. Leveraging resources that will facilitate collecting generalizable data (national metrics) while allowing sites to continue collecting nuanced data (local programs and services). Gathering input from CE teams, stakeholders, and researchers to further refine these metrics and data collection methods. Utilizing REDCap, Tableau and other resources that can facilitate data collection and analysis efforts.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To examine rural-urban disparities in prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in veterans receiving care at the VA and to determine the extent to which demographic factors and obesity levels contribute to identified disparities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A retrospective serial cross-sectional analysis was employed. A stratified weighted random sample of veterans who received care at a VA facility was selected each year for 2007 through 2012. Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes were based on resident zip code. Diabetes was defined by two or more primary or secondary ICD-9 codes for diabetes (250.xx) within a 12 month period. Data were analyzed using complex survey-specific procedures. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Diabetes prevalence 2007-2012 was lowest in urban (20.5%-21.0%), followed by highly rural (21.1%-22.1%) and rural (22.3%-23.0%) areas with the prevalence being significantly higher on the insular islands (31.0%-32.4%). In 2012, 41% of urban, 43% of rural and highly rural and 30% of insular island veterans were obese. Relative to urban areas, the odds ratio for prevalent diabetes was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.12) for rural veterans, 1.19 (95% CI: 1.16, 1.23) for insular island veterans, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.02) for highly rural veterans. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Prevalence of diagnosed diabetes is high in veterans residing in rural, highly rural and urban areas, but markedly higher on the insular islands. Understanding the burden of disease and factors driving disparities provides information required to develop targeted interventions.