Search

The prioritization of English language in clinical research is a barrier to translational science. We explored promising practices to advance the inclusion of people who speak languages other than English in research conducted within and supported by NIH Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. Key informant interviews were conducted with representatives (n = 24) from CTSA hubs (n = 17). Purposive sampling was used to identify CTSA hubs focused on language inclusion. Hubs electing to participate were interviewed via Zoom. Thematic analysis was performed to analyze interview transcripts. We report on strategies employed by hubs to advance linguistic inclusion and influence institutional change that were identified. Strategies ranged from translations, development of culturally relevant materials and consultations to policies and procedural changes and workforce initiatives. An existing framework was adapted to conceptualize hub strategies. Language justice is paramount to bringing more effective treatments to all people more quickly. Inclusion will require institutional transformation and CTSA hubs are well positioned to catalyze change.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The NC Translational and Clinical Sciences (NC TraCS) Institute’s Latine Community Review Board (CRB) provides expertise to researchers seeking to culturally adapt interventions and improve language access in clinical and translational science. Early efforts aimed to expand CRB membership, build member capacity, and assess CRB impact. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Founded in 2021, the NC TraCS Latine CRB is an advisory group of natively Spanish-speaking, Latine North Carolinians who contract with research teams (RTs) to review Latine community-facing study materials (e.g., decision aids, scales, recruitment scripts) and provide feedback for improving or validating materials’ linguistic accuracy and cultural relevance. Bilingual staff facilitate members’ review of materials, use focus group methods to solicit feedback, and report key findings and suggested revisions to RTs. In 2023, we recruited new age-, gender-, and racially diverse members; and implemented process and impact evaluation, via (1) post surveys of RTs and (2) assessment of members’ experiences and visions for growth utilizing the Focused Conversation Method (Top-network, 2021). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since 2021, NC TraCS has conducted 11 Latine CRB review sessions to support 7 research studies. Current CRB members (n=8) report that (1) their work effectively supports Latine inclusion in research; (2) increased group size and diversity help ensure study materials are comprehensible to heterogenous Latine populations; and (3) an hourly member compensation rate equal to the hourly rate of TraCS’ staff accurately represents member contributions. Members also cited that they value open communication, continuous improvement, communication via email and group chat, periodic programming meetings, and RT updates on study outcomes. Post-session RT surveys to date (n=3) show that RTs would recommend this program to other researchers (pending survey responses from RTs this year will provide additional impact data). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Early data highlight the value of fairly compensated, bilingually coordinated input from diverse Latine community members for improving studies’ inclusion of heterogeneous, multilingual communities. Our approach can inform the development, growth, and continuous improvement of multilingual review boards at other research institutions.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: UNC-Chapel Hill’s CTSA implemented a community feedback session (CFS) service to help researchers gather actionable, authentic, and constructive feedback on their projects from community experts. Simultaneously, we conducted an ongoing, participatory evaluation process to improve the experience for researchers and community members. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Informed by the Community Engagement Studio model (Yoosten, 2015), a CFS is a 2-hour consultative session that includes facilitated discussion with community experts around topics or questions posed by a research team. UNC-Chapel Hill’s CTSA staff conducted 7 CFSs during the pilot phase of the service and collected evaluation surveys from researchers and community experts. We held a data party – a participatory evaluation method – to analyze and interpret survey data. Resulting recommendations were used to improve CFS materials and processes. We conducted 11 CFSs after the pilot phase, then analyzed survey data again to gauge improvement and make further adjustments to the service. We also surveyed researchers three months after their last CFS to assess the impact of community experts’ feedback on their studies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since January 2022, 108 community experts have participated in 18 CFSs spanning 9 research projects. Data party interpretations of pilot evaluation data yielded several changes in service delivery; since those changes were instituted, all researchers have highly rated the service, unanimously recommending it to colleagues. Researchers praised well-structured sessions and productive engagement, citing direct benefits to their work and significant impact on recruitment processes 3 months post CFS. Community experts also echoed satisfaction, with 100% finding CFSs worthwhile and 95% desiring to participate again, emphasizing the sessions' supportive atmosphere. A community expert reported that the sessions 'made me feel seen and allowed for a greater understanding of what I have been dealing with.' DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The CFS model allows research teams to elicit rapid and meaningful community input, which is key to improving research relevance and impact. Ongoing participatory evaluation of the service ensures continuous improvement, yielding more meaningful interactions and studies that reflect the perspectives of people affected by the research.

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

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Community-based participatory research is a “gold standard” methodology, yet many researchers lack the experience or resources to implement this approach. To make engagement more accessible, we developed and implemented a 3-part training series highlighting engagement as a spectrum with many options to meaningfully engage partners. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Staff at UNC-Chapel Hill’s CTSA and Cancer Center collaborated with patient and community partners to co-develop training content, structure, and delivery. Sessions were free and open to the public and covered key components of research engagement and its benefits, debunked common myths and misconceptions about engagement, outlined specific methods along the spectrum of engagement (from low to high touch), and described nuances of building and maintaining partnerships. Partners determined how to best incorporate their perspectives, developed content (including videos, audio clips, and quotes), and co-presented with UNC staff. Evaluations were collected after each session and feedback was incorporated into future iterations. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 194 individuals from over 20 institutions have participated in the training. Of all survey respondents to date (n=74), 93% were very or extremely satisfied, 77% felt the training was very or extremely relevant to their work, and 76% were very or extremely likely to use information learned in the next year. Most helpful parts of the training were differentiating research engagement from participation; explaining engagement as a spectrum with varied methodologies; providing tools and resources to implement different approaches; and hearing directly from community co-presenters about their experiences engaging in research. Based on feedback, we created a workshop for researchers to develop engagement plans and an additional training for partners to build capacity and knowledge about engaging in research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Engaging partners who are impacted by research can be instrumental to the success of a study. This training can help researchers identify engagement approaches that align with their goals, experience, and resources, as well as the interests and capacity of potential partners, and can serve as a model for those interested in training co-development.

The COVID-19 pandemic raised the importance of adaptive capacity and preparedness when engaging historically marginalized populations in research and practice. The Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics in Underserved Populations’ COVID-19 Equity Evidence Academy Series (RADx-UP EA) is a virtual, national, interactive conference model designed to support and engage community-academic partnerships in a collaborative effort to improve practices that overcome disparities in SARS-CoV-2 testing and testing technologies. The RADx-UP EA promotes information sharing, critical reflection and discussion, and creation of translatable strategies for health equity. Staff and faculty from the RADx-UP Coordination and Data Collection Center developed three EA events with diverse geographic, racial, and ethnic representation of attendees from RADx-UP community-academic project teams: February 2021 (n = 319); November 2021 (n = 242); and September 2022 (n = 254). Each EA event included a data profile; 2-day, virtual event; event summary report; community dissemination product; and an evaluation strategy. Operational and translational delivery processes were iteratively adapted for each EA across one or more of five adaptive capacity domains: assets, knowledge and learning, social organization, flexibility, and innovation. The RADx-UP EA model can be generalized beyond RADx-UP and tailored by community and academic input to respond to local or national health emergencies.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We sought to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted community and stakeholder engagement in research from both researcher and stakeholder partner perspectives and to identify challenges, strategies, and other facilitators affecting their experience, including those related to virtual engagement. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten researchers and eight stakeholder partners who conducted or collaborated on stakeholder-engaged health research during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 onwards). Potential participants were identified purposively and through snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed for analysis. The transcribed data were qualitatively analyzed through an iterative process involving memoing and consensus coding using inductive and deductive codes. We reviewed memos and code reports to identify and describe key categories and themes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The challenges and facilitators identified varied based on factors such as geographic scope of the partnership (local vs national) and previous engagement type (virtual vs in-person). Many challenges were related to virtual engagement, such as dealing with distractions, limited access to Internet, or difficulty forming relationships online, or to wellbeing and personal circumstances, such as feeling burnt out, managing increased caregiving responsibilities, or concern about risk of illness if conducting in-person activities. Facilitators identified included having strong existing partnerships, utilizing strategies to enhance virtual engagement, adapting activities to manage risk of in-person interactions, and showing support to stakeholder partners. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: By better understanding challenges and facilitators affecting experiences of both researchers and stakeholder partners engaging in research during the COVID-19 pandemic, we can develop strategies and resources to better support research partnerships during future health emergencies.

Abstract Introduction: The extent to which Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs offer publicly accessible online resources for training in community-engaged research (CEnR) core competencies is unknown. This study cataloged publicly accessible online CEnR resources from CTSAs and mapped resources to CEnR core competency domains. Methods: Following a search and review of the current literature regarding CEnR competencies, CEnR core competency domains were identified and defined. A systematic review of publicly accessible online CEnR resources from all 64 current CTSAs was conducted between July 2018 and May 2019. Resource content was independently reviewed by two reviewers and scored for the inclusion of each CEnR core competency domain. Domain scores across all resources were assessed using descriptive statistics. Results: Eight CEnR core competency domains were identified. Overall, 214 CEnR resources publicly accessible online from 35 CTSAs were eligible for review. Scoring discrepancies for at least one domain within a resource initially occurred in 51% of resources. “CEnR methods” (50.5%) and “Knowledge and relationships with communities” (40.2%) were the most frequently addressed domains, while “CEnR program evaluation” (12.1%) and “Dissemination and advocacy” (11.2%) were the least frequently addressed domains. Additionally, challenges were noted in navigating CTSA websites to access CEnR resources, and CEnR competency nomenclature was not standardized. Conclusions: Our findings guide CEnR stakeholders to identify publicly accessible online resources and gaps to address in CEnR resource development. Standardized nomenclature for CEnR competency is needed for effective CEnR resource classification. Uniform organization of CTSA websites may maximize navigability.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The extent that Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs offer resources accessible online for training in community-engaged research (CEnR) core competencies is unknown. This study cataloged CEnR resources accessible online from CTSAs and mapped resources to CEnR core competencies. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Eight domains of CEnR core competencies were identified: knowledge/perceptions of CEnR; personal traits necessary for CEnR; knowledge of/relationships with communities; training for performing CEnR; CEnR methods; program evaluation; resource sharing and communication; and dissemination and advocacy. A systematic review of CEnR resources accessible online from CTSAs was conducted between July 2018 and May 2019. Resource content was independently reviewed by two reviewers and scored for inclusion of each domain of CEnR core competencies. Domain scores across all resources and inter-rater reliability in scoring domains were assessed using descriptive statistics and Cohen’s kappa coefficients. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Overall, 214 resources available from 24 CTSAs were eligible for full review. Scoring discrepancies for at least one domain within a resource initially occurred in 51% of resources. “CEnR methods” (50.5%; 108 of 214) and “Knowledge of/relationships with the community” (40.2%; 86 of 214) were most frequently addressed and “Program evaluation” (12.1%; 26 of 214) and “Dissemination and advocacy” (11.2%; 24 of 214) were least frequently addressed domains. Additionally, challenges were noted in navigating CTSA websites to access CEnR resources, and CEnR competency nomenclature was not standardized. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our findings guide CEnR stakeholders to identify CEnR resources accessible online and gaps to address in CEnR resource development. Standardized nomenclature for CEnR competencies is needed for effective CEnR resource classification. Uniform organization of CTSA websites may maximize navigability. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESCRIPTION: In addition to the funding information listed previously (see above), within the last three years, R.J. Piasecki has been employed as: Project Coordinator, CEnR Online Learning Project, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing (Current) Temporary Employee (Doctoral Student Intern), Michigan State University Institute for Health Policy (Current) Clinical RN, Intrastaff at the Johns Hopkins Health System (Past) Research Data Analysis Assistant, Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services (Past - contracted)

The early initiation of an intensive statin regimen with delayed inititation of a less intensive regimen in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is compared. Results reveal that among patients with ACS, the early initiation of an aggressive simvastatin regimen indicated a favorable trend toward reduction of major cardiovascular events.

Tests were conducted to check the efficacy of the combination of enoxaparin and tirofiban in comparison with unfractionated heparin and tirofiban in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS). It was found that in patients receiving tirofiban and aspirin enoxaparin is a good alternative when compared to unfractionated heparin.