Search

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Translational researchers often require the use of informatics methods in their work. Lack of an understanding of key informatics principles and methods limits the abilities of translational researchers to successfully implement Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) principles in grant proposal submissions and performed studies. In this study we describe our work in addressing this limitation in the workforce by developing a competency-based, modular course in informatics to meet the needs of diverse translational researchers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We established a Translational Research Informatics Education Collaborative (TRIEC) consisting of faculty at the University of Utah (UU) with different primary expertise in informatics methods, and working in different tiers of the translational spectrum. The TRIEC, in collaboration with the Foundation of Workforce Development of the Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), gathered informatics needs of early investigators by consolidating requests for informatics services, assistance provided in grant writing, and consultations. We then reviewed existing courses and literature for informatics courses that focused on clinical and translational researchers [3–9]. Using the structure and content of the identified courses, we developed an initial draft of a syllabus for a Translational Research Informatics (TRI) course which included key informatics topics to be covered and learning activities, and iteratively refined it through discussions. The course was approved by the UU Department of Biomedical Informatics, UU Graduate School and the CCTS. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The TRI course introduces informatics PhD students, clinicians, and public health practitioners who have a demonstrated interest in research, to fundamental principles and tools of informatics. At the completion of the course, students will be able to describe and identify informatics tools and methods relevant to translational research and demonstrate inter-professional collaboration in the development of a research proposal addressing a relevant translational science question that utilizes the state-of-the-art in informatics. TRI covers a diverse set of informatics content presented as modules: genomics and bioinformatics, electronic health records, exposomics, microbiomics, molecular methods, data integration and fusion, metadata management, semantics, software architectures, mobile computing, sensors, recruitment, community engagement, secure computing environments, data mining, machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence and data science, open source informatics tools and platforms, research reproducibility, and uncertainty quantification. The teaching methods for TRI include (1) modular didactic learning consisting of presentations and readings and face-to-face discussions of the content, (2) student presentations of informatics literature relevant to their final project, and (3) a final project consisting of the development, critique and chalk talk and formal presentations of informatics methods and/or aims of an National Institutes of Health style K or R grant proposal. For (3), the student presents their translational research proposal concept at the beginning of the course, and works with members of the TRIEC with corresponding expertise. The final course grade is a combination of the final project, paper presentations and class participation. We offered TRI to a first cohort of students in the Fall semester of 2018. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Translational research informatics is a sub-domain of biomedical informatics that applies and develops informatics theory and methods for translational research. TRI covers a diverse set of informatics topics that are applicable across the translational spectrum. It covers both didactic material and hands-on experience in using the material in grant proposals and research studies. TRI’s course content, teaching methodology and learning activities enable students to initially learn factual informatics knowledge and skills for translational research correspond to the ‘Remember, Understand, and Apply’ levels of the Bloom’s taxonomy [10]. The final project provides opportunity for applying these informatics concepts corresponding to the ‘Analyze, Evaluate, and Create’ levels of the Bloom’s taxonomy [10]. This inter-professional, competency-based, modular course will develop an informatics-enabled workforce trained in using state-of-the-art informatics solutions, increasing the effectiveness of translational science and precision medicine, and promoting FAIR principles in research data management and processes. Future work includes opening the course to all Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs and publishing the course material as a reference book. While student evaluations for the first cohort will be available end of the semester, true evaluation of TRI will be the number of trainees taking the course and successful grant proposal submissions. References: 1. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016 Mar 15. 2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Translational Science Spectrum. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. 2015 [cited 2018 Nov 15]. Available from: https://ncats.nih.gov/translation/spectrum 3. Hu H, Mural RJ, Liebman MN. Biomedical Informatics in Translational Research. 1 edition. Boston: Artech House; 2008. 264 p. 4. Payne PRO, Embi PJ, Niland J. Foundational biomedical informatics research in the clinical and translational science era: a call to action. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA. 2010;17(6):615–6. 5. Payne PRO, Embi PJ, editors. Translational Informatics: Realizing the Promise of Knowledge-Driven Healthcare. Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 2015 edition. Springer; 2016. 196 p. 6. Richesson R, Andrews J, editors. Clinical Research Informatics. 2nd ed. Springer International Publishing; 2019. (Health Informatics). 7. Robertson D, MD GHW, editors. Clinical and Translational Science: Principles of Human Research. 2 edition. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2017. 808 p. 8. Shen B, Tang H, Jiang X, editors. Translational Biomedical Informatics: A Precision Medicine Perspective. Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 2016 edition. S.l.: Springer; 2018. 340 p. 9. Valenta AL, Meagher EA, Tachinardi U, Starren J. Core informatics competencies for clinical and translational scientists: what do our customers and collaborators need to know? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Jul 1;23(4):835–9. 10. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J, Wittrock MC. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Abridged Edition. 1 edition. New York: Pearson; 2000.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Title V Cooperative Project between the University of Puerto Rico- Medical Sciences Campus (UPR-MSC) and Universidad Central del Caribe (UCC) has trained US, GS and F (participants) of HSPs to engage them in CTR. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: First stage of the training sessions (TS) dealt with the theory of CTR. After TS and responding to their research interests, as answered in a questionnaire, the participants formed a CTMT, under the mentorship of a well-established CT researcher. This, as a prelude to their hands-on experiences in Intensive Development and Experiences in Advancement of Research and Increased Opportunities (IDEARIO), for which a research proposal is needed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Five (5) CTMTs were formed in different research areas – cardio, neuro, liver, renal, Zika–, as submitted in their research concept papers.Eight (8) CT researchers are currently mentoring 2 US, 7 GS and 6 F of HSPs through the CTMTs. They have submitted a research proposal, as a bridge between the theory in the TS and the practice in IDEARIO. Five (5) proposals were received and 2 of them approved, while the other 3 are in the evaluation process. We will present the composition, research topics, development of research and the feedback of participants in IDEARIO and CTMTs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The CTMTs and their respective proposals are effective strategies for the mentoring of US, GS and F in CTR.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The primary goal of the project was to conduct a narrative review of the published literature to identify and summarize best practices for developing oncology-focused research and training experiences for AI/AN undergraduate, graduate and professional students. A secondary goal was to identify methodological limitations and areas for future research related to rigorous educational program evaluation. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION:. Published literature was searched using databases relevant to oncology (PubMed, Web of Science) and sociology (PsychINFO, SocIndex). The bibliographies of identified relevant papers were searched for additional references by title. Search terms included synonyms and commonly used terms for three general areas: (1) target population (e.g., American Indian), (2) training area (e.g., oncology), and (3) educational program (e.g., undergraduate). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS:. A current total of 107 original publications and 33 review papers that are relevant to the project goals have been identified. Key areas of program development and implementation relate to advertising and recruitment; didactic curriculum in research methods, cancer health disparities, and professional development and career planning; research immersion experiences through shadowing, networking, application of research skills, and opportunities to develop oral and written communication skills; ongoing career development support; mentoring by faculty, advanced trainees, and peers; and culture-specific enrichment. Important areas for program evaluation relate to measures of reaction, knowledge, practice and long-term outcomes. Evaluation design approaches include observational and experimental designs with recommendations for identifying relevant control groups. Strategies to ensure complete long-term follow-up are also summarized. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT:.Successful programs address barriers related to perceived lack of abilities, lack of AI role models, limited culture-specific enrichment, and limited mentoring and ongoing career development support. Program directors should work with local tribal and community leaders when creating a new program. A high degree of coordination is needed to create a bicultural program to interest students in a research career and avoid the creation of barriers hidden to the program director. There are opportunities to improve the rigor of educational program evaluation in this setting by including measures beyond self-reported reaction and knowledge to focus on educational program enrollment and completion and long-term career outcomes. Methodologic challenges include identification of relevant control groups for comparison and the use of experimental designs.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The aim of this program is to provide early support to motivated medical students interested in a career as a physician-scientist in a framework of competency-based medical education. The CTSA creates an opportunity to provide clinical research education and protected time for research for medical students in clinical and translational research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This physician-scientist experience offers research opportunities in a wide variety of research disciplines, focused on clinical and translational investigations. The program offers both five-month and one-year blocks of protected research time. The five-month option is integrated into the four- year medical curriculum. The one-year option requires enrollment in an established Master of Clinical Research degree. Both options provide research experience under the mentorship of a physician-scientist. The five-month option aligns with UME competencies categorized under the six ACGME Domains of Competence. The one-year option includes coursework in research design, biostatistics, research ethics, data management, scientific communication, and proposal development within the CTSA-based education program. All students in the program attend a bimonthly journal club and seminar series starting in year one and extending through the research experience. This includes discussion of the importance of mentorship, selecting a residency, scientific writing and presentation, and personal narratives of physician-scientists and their pathways to this career. All students will be followed to determine career outcome. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2018, 67 students entered the program 46% selected the year out, and 56% selected the 5-month option. Students selecting this program constitute about 10% of the medical student population overall. We have had 17 graduates of the program to date. 55% of the cohort is women which parallels the OHSU medical student population. Long-term follow-up of at least 10 years will be needed to determine career outcomes. We assess student productivity by traditional measures of submitted abstracts, manuscripts, and presentations as well as longer term outcomes such as career orientation in medicine such as entry into a research-oriented residency and ultimately into an academic medicine or research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The OHSU physician-scientist experience successfully matches medical students with a diverse set of research mentors focused on the CTSA. Although institutional structures determine the variety of specific research opportunities, the integration of physician-scientist training into a CTSA-based training program expands the reach of training programs such as the TL1.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS:. The study aims to understand the characteristics of junior investigators who are supported by the CTSI, their knowledge of CTSI services and resources, as well as the perceived effectiveness of CTSI research training and career development. The primary outcome is scientific productivity that enhances career development and promotion. The secondary outcome is to inform and improve CTSA research training and career development, not only for the UCLA CTSI hub but also for the CTSA Program nationally. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION:. The study sample includes post-doctoral and junior investigators who have received UCLA CTSI support between 2011 and 2017 (n=319). These junior investigators conduct research at our four partner sites (UCLA-Westwood, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, The Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science). The CTSI administered the LSAS and the Career Development module in 2018 using Qualtrics, a subscription software for collecting and analyzing survey data. In order to reduce the burden on the survey respondents, the survey team pre-populated their previously reported publication in the Qualtrics survey system. Qualtrics sends customized email invitations containing a link to start the LSAS survey and subsequently automated sequences of reminder messages for non-responders and partial completers. The survey team initiated telephone call-backs and engaged partner site leaders to achieve a high response rate. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS:. Preliminary results show a response rate of 83% (n=264). Respondents include K-to-R workshop participants (n=192), core voucher co-investigators (n=38), Training Program in Translational Science (TPTS) trainees (n=82), and junior investigators who participated in two or more of these activities (n=48). Trainee characteristics include degree, gender, and partner site location. The distribution of advanced degrees among the junior investigators include: PhD (29%), MD (55%), MD/PhD (13%), or other degree (3%). Forty-four percent (44%) respondents are male and 56% are female. Seventy-two percent (72%) have a primary appointment at UCLA-Westwood, while 28% have academic appointments at the partner institutions. Twenty-five percent (25%) received CTSI research training and 49% received CTSI career development support. Regarding scientific productivity, 58% reported having at least one peer-reviewed publication and 29% reported subsequent grant funding. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT:. We are in the process of identifying the predictors of scientific productivity and the characteristics of the junior investigators most significantly correlated with productivity using multiple logistic regression analysis. We will analyze qualitative responses to examine the facilitators and barriers to conducting research at the CTSI and explore ways to improve administrative and clinical research processes. The significance of this research is to inform research training and career development programs within our CTSA hub and the CTSA Program nationally.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: In an effort the increase awareness and enhance knowledge and skills in relation to communication in science at Mount Sinai, the Communication in Science summer workshop series aimed to provide an accessible, workforce-wide lecture series to promote key concepts and skills related to communicating science. Delivered by faculty and invited speakers, a series of seven workshops delivered over a 4 week period covered topics such as communication in teams, storytelling and TED talk principles, and community engagement. The aim of each session was to offer “top tips” that participants could apply to their practice. Evaluation of the workshop series aimed to determine participant satisfaction and self-perceived changes in knowledge and skills in relation to science communication. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A total of 375 participants registered to attend the workshop series from a range of backgrounds including post-docs, faculty, residents, staff and students at Mount Sinai. Attendance at the workshops ranged from a high of 119 and a low of 33 participants, with as many as 41% of attendees joining the session via live-streaming. Participants were emailed an online survey at the end of the workshop series, asking for satisfaction feedback on each individual workshop and an overall impression of the workshop series. Participants were asked to rate the satisfaction criteria related to content, gained knowledge and skills, presentation style and whether they found the session of value for each workshop, using a Likert scale from 1 - 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Participants were also asked to provide an overall rating for the summer workshop series as a whole. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 35 participants responded to the survey. Mean responses to the survey questions were:. The content of this session is important to my work = 4.09 (range 3.77 – 4.45). This session increased my knowledge or skills 4.03 (range 3.56- 4.62). The presenters delivered this content clearly = 4.16 (range 3.78 – 4.67). Overall I found this session valuable = 4.13 (3.78 – 4.61) Participants were also asked to provide an overall rating for the summer workshop series as a whole on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = poor, 10 = excellent). The mean response was 8.36, indicating a high level of satisfaction with the program. Qualitative feedback indicated that the sessions were successful in increasing awareness of this topic. One participant reported that “these sessions inspired me to think differently, and in a way that can potentially allow me to communicate with the non-science community”. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The high number of registrants for this summer workshop series indicates a perceived need for education and training on Communication in Science at Mount Sinai. Sessions that focused on TED talk principles and storytelling in science were particularly well attended and well-reviewed, suggesting a particular interested in these topics. There was, however, a discrepancy between registration and attendance numbers, which going forward we will seek to better understand. One explanation is that recording and posting the sessions on YouTube allowed participants to review content asynchronously at a time and location convenient to them, which may have deterred people from attending in person. Following the popularity of this program, future plans are underway to provide an ongoing program of learning in relation to Communication in Science.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Determine the effectiveness of a curriculum designed to teach doctoral students to use implementation science theories, models and frameworks in optimizing scientific, social, political, cultural and organizational impact METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Analysis of Integrated Final Projects across three cohorts of doctoral students (N=30) to identify sub-disciplinary knowledge integration and application. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Integrated Final Projects indicate that the integration of IS, Program Theory and Research design within semester two yields application of integrated, sub-disciplinary knowledge to research design, identification of mechanisms of action and the address of barriers and facilitators to implementation of findings. Future analysis will be conducted to determine the degree to which dissertations reflect a similar level of sub-disciplinary integration and focus on implementation within the appropriate service setting. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Training future translational researchers to understand and use implementation science theories, models and frameworks can potentially result in narrowing the science-to-service gap.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1.Identify barriers to pursuing research for physician trainees 2.Develop a sustainable pipeline of physician-scientists at Duke 3.Coordinate physician-scientist development programs across the School of Medicine under one central Office 4.Provide infrastructure and resources for all physician-scientists 5.Increase the number of MDs and MD/PhDs who pursue, succeed, and are retained in research METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To establish a baseline understanding of the needs and concerns of physician-scientist trainees at Duke, we conducted focus groups using a standardized interview guide and thematic analysis. Findings from these focus groups were used to develop a framework for support, leading to the creation of the Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) housed centrally within the Duke School of Medicine. The OPSD integrates programs and resources for multiple populations including medical students, residents, fellows, junior faculty, and faculty mentors. Pipeline programs will also be developed to enhance research engagement in targeted student populations prior to medical school. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 45 students and faculty participated in the focus groups and structured interviews (1st year medical student, n=11; 4th year medical students, n=11; residents/fellows, n=13; junior faculty, n=11). While participants raised a number of specific issues, one key message emerged: non-PhD MDs in basic research felt they lacked opportunities for directed training. Moreover, they felt the need to teach themselves many critical skills through trial and error. This has led to perceptions that they cannot compete effectively with PhDs and MD-PhD scientists for research funding and positions. Consensus recommendations included: better guidance in choosing mentors, labs, and projects; central resource for information relevant to physician scientists; training specifically tailored to physician scientists conducting laboratory-based research; improved infrastructure and well-defined training pathways; and assistance with grant preparation. To-date, over 90 students, residents, and fellows have been identified who identify as laboratory-based physician scientists. Additional efforts are underway to identify and characterize the broader range of physician-scientist students and trainees at Duke. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our planning study revealed specific steps forward toward developing a robust community of physician-scientists at Duke. As a first step, the Dean of the School of Medicine has appointed an Associate Dean of Physician-Scientist Development to oversee a new Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) being launched in December of 2018. The OPSD will offer four primary programs. 1) A concierge mentoring program will assist new trainees in identifying research areas of interest and mentors. Trainees will receive periodic contact to provide additional support as needed and promote success. 2) A physician-scientist training program is being created to provide training specific to laboratory research skills as well as career and professional development training to complement existing clinical and translational research programs. 3) Integrated training pathways will provide additional mentored research training for those pursuing research careers. Pathways will capitalize on existing resources from R38 programs, while pursuing additional R38 and R25 support. 4) An MD-Scientist funding program has been developed to provide additional research funding and protected time for students pursuing a second research year. Through the support and programming offered by the OPSD, we anticipate decreased perceptions of barriers to pursuing a physician-scientist career and increased satisfaction with training opportunities. Over time, we expect such support to increase the number of MD students pursuing research as a career and the number of residents, fellows, and MD junior faculty remaining in research careers.

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: Leadership is an essential and recognized team science competency. To support the development of leadership skills at Mount Sinai, the LEAD (Leadership Emerging in Academic Departments) program, launched in 2016, delivers a structured 12-month blended learning program for junior faculty. The program aims to promote personal and professional leadership capacity, skills and behaviors. Following a competitive application process, 24 participants each year are selected to participate. In its second year, the challenge for the LEAD program leadership is to support alumni in fostering a culture of leadership that extends beyond the 12-month program. In order to promote a leadership community of practice and offer continued support to junior faculty, the LEAD Alumni program aims to bring former LEAD participants together to maintain motivation, share challenges and successes, meet with mentors and role models, and foster an ongoing community of practice that seeks to embed evidenced-based leadership culture at Mount Sinai. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The previous two cohorts of LEAD participants were approached to volunteer for the LEAD Alumni Forum working group. Four LEAD alumni came forward to form a self-selected working group. With input from the program leadership, the alumni working group is tasked with organizing regular events that bring the 48 previous LEAD participants together. The events provide the opportunity for individuals with expertise and a passion for leadership to create a supportive environment. This ultimately seeks to increase the transfer and utilization of leadership skills in practice, and promotes a culture of leadership. These alumni events also provide the opportunity for alumni to interact with senior leaders at Mount Sinai, thereby learning from role models within the organization. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Evaluating learning transfer and culture change is challenging, so a number of proxy measures will provide insight into the success of the Alumni Forum. Firstly, the number of LEAD Capstone projects implemented in practice, and the success of these initiatives, will provide insight into transfer of leadership learning to practice. Secondly, participants will complete a validated survey tool, Leadership Programs Outcome Measure (LPOM), which explores self-reported leadership change at a personal, organizational and community level. Finally, participants will be followed up in the long-term to track promotion, awards, and other formal or informal leadership positions assumed following engagement in the LEAD program and the subsequent LEAD Alumni Forum. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: It is hoped the LEAD Alumni program will enhance the ability of participants to implement leadership knowledge and skills to practice, which may subsequently advance organization and culture change. Fostering a community of practice will further the reach of the LEAD program and as the number of LEAD alumni grows, and the Alumni Forum may provide the supportive environment that allows these individuals to have real impact.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The study aims to determine the current clinical research training interventions of MD-PhD programs and how effective they are in promoting clinical research self-efficacy. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A national survey of MD-PhD trainees was conducted in 2018 to identify clinical research training methods and self-efficacy for clinical research skills. MD-PhD program directors and coordinators from 108 institutions were asked to distribute the survey to their students. Responses were received from 61 institutions (56.5%). Responses were obtained from 647 MD-PhD students in all years of training, representing 17.9% of the 3613 possible participants at the 61 medical schools represented. No compensation was provided for this study. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The primary methods of clinical research training reported by students included didactics, mentored clinical research, didactics plus mentored clinical research, didactics plus clinical research practicum, and didactics plus mentored clinical research plus clinical research practicum. A quarter of all participants reported having no clinical research training. Clinical research self-efficacy was then correlated with the amount of clinical research training. Students exposed to no clinical research had the lowest self-efficacy in clinical research skills and students experiencing didactics plus mentored clinical research plus clinical research practicum had the highest perceived self-efficacy in clinical research domains. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This is one of the first studies assessing clinical research training methods for MD-PhD students and assessing their efficacy. We found that of all students questioned, 25% mentioned had not received any type of clinical research training. The remaining students identified 5 research training methods that institutions currently use. This work highlights the importance of clinical research experience students need to improve their self-efficacy, a major influence on research career outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The purpose of this study was to summarize the existing literature on clinical research competencies and determine what competency assessments currently exist. We also wished to assess which competencies should be included in a research competency assessment tool and to evaluate the validity of current competency assessments. We also examined whether these competency assessments can be used for the purposes of formative and summative evaluation. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Prior to conducting our search of the literature, we first compiled a list of search terms (e.g., clinical, research, training, competencies) that could be used to locate articles. We then entered these search terms, in various combinations, on several relevant databases. We evaluated abstracts of the articles revealed by this search to determine whether they met three criteria. The first criterion was that the subjects of the article must be clinical investigators or clinical investigators in training. Relevant disciplines included medicine, public health, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, and other related fields. The second criterion was that articles should focus on research-based (as opposed to clinical) skills. The last criterion was that research-based competencies (or related terms like skills, abilities, mastery, knowledge) must be assessed in some way. If the abstract suggested that the article met all three criteria, the full article was retrieved and analyzed in-depth. To identify articles that eluded literature search, we then examined the reference section of these articles and examined articles that cited these articles. When no additional articles could be located, the search for articles stopped. Once a pool of potentially eligible articles was identified, the articles underwent peer review by several researchers experienced with clinical research and competency-based education and assessment. Articles that were unanimously judged to meet the criteria were included in the systematic review. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Approximately 75 articles were selected and reviewed for eligibility. After peer review, we found that only a small fraction of these articles met our criteria for inclusion in the systematic literature review. Our preliminary findings suggest that there are few assessments of clinical research competency and that many of these assessments are poorly validated. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The findings of the present study suggest that the validation methods used thus far are limited and so the validity of many of these assessments is effectively unproven. Future research on assessments of clinical research competency ought to address these limitations by sampling clinical researchers, using more rigorous validation methods, and by confirming hypothesized factor structures in new samples. The use of better-validated instruments may enhance measurement of trainees’ knowledge and skill levels for the purposes of formative and summative assessment.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Our primary objective was to understand the relationship between incident or recent stressful events and adherence to HIV care in the context of other person, environment, and HIV-specific stressors in a sample of Black women living with HIV (WLWH). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Thirty in-depth interviews were conducted with Black women living with HIV who receive care at an academic HIV primary care clinic in the Southern region of the United States to elicit stressful events influencing adherence to HIV care. Semi-structured interview guides were used to facilitate discussion regarding stressful events and adherence to HIV care. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were independently coded using a theme-based approach by two experienced coders, findings were compared, and discrepancies were resolved by discussion. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Participants described frequently experiencing incident stressful events including death or serious illness of a close friend or family member, and relationship, financial, and employment difficulties. Furthermore, participants reported experiencing traumatic events such as sexual and physical abuse during childhood and adolescents. While experiencing traumatic events such as sexual and physical abuse during childhood and adolescence may be distressing, these events did not influence adherence to HIV care. However, incident stressful events as defined above did influence adherence to HIV care for some participants, but not for others. For participants who reported that stressful events did not influence adherence to HIV care, factors such as personal motivation, access to social support, and adaptive coping strategies facilitated their engagement in care. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Experiencing stressful events, incident or traumatic, is common among Black WLWH and have the potential to negatively influence adherence to HIV care. Thus, Interventions aimed at identifying and addressing stress, social support, and coping are essential to improve adherence to HIV care behaviors.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of a junior faculty mentoring program on change in confidence in key academic skills. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Department of Medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center enrolled 33 mentees over three years (2015-2018) in a mentoring program that consisted of monthly interactive seminars focused on topics related to building academic careers, works-in-progress, and pairing of each mentee with a mentor. Mentees were asked about their confidence in key academic skills prior to and after completing the program. Confidence levels were assessed on a seven point scale, ranging from 1 (weak) to 7 (strong). Mean confidence levels were compared between pre and post surveys using independent samples t-test. Matching was not accounted for because not all individuals who completed the pre survey also completed the post survey and vice-versa. Of those mentees who completed both pre and post surveys, confidence scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test, with similar results to those reported here. Each mentoring session was evaluated by those in attendance at the end of each particular session with possible scores of 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (excellent). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: On average the mentees had a fair level of confidence in all nine areas assessed at baseline, with the exception of how to get funding (2.4 ± 1.7). Confidence increased in all areas assessed, and except for how to write a paper (p=.05) all represented a significant increase in confidence (Table 1). Evaluations of each of the mentoring sessions were high, with mean values ranging from 4.3 to 4.9 on the five point scale. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This mentoring program significantly improved mentees’ confidence in identifying their own professional values and goals, as well as knowing how to turn education into scholarship, work with a mentor, integrate work and life, and give a presentation.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This project presents the implementation of research tracks instructional design using a learning management system (LMS). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: On January 2018, a Novel Methodologies in Health Disparities Research Symposium was held, with participation of local and national collaborators. The purpose was to identify the most important areas of knowledge, essential skills, available online resources and conferences associated with each research track. The recommendations provided contributed to the instructional design of novel methodologies research tracks aiming to improve health disparity research. The LMS includes general documents, instructional materials and assessment instruments, among others. Scholars are required to comply with 30 contact hours. The content and strategies utilized will be evaluated. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Active scholar participation through the LMS is expected. Evaluation results will reflect the strengths and challenges of the implementation of instructional design. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This strategy will engage scholars in an active learning experience enhancing their career development as independent researchers to eliminate health disparities.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This project will present the analysis assessing which of the admission criteria is a useful tool to predict completion of all program requirements METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: All admission criteria from graduates (2003-2016) will be analyzed. Outcomes will be measured according to the scholar’s performance during the two-year of studies and its success in completing on time all program requirements. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses will be used to determine potential association in each criteria and in the total score. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We expect that the PPC and total score will be correlated with a higher rate of successful outcomes. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: A systematic admission process should lead to timely program completion.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To identify the most frequently reported barriers/constraints and resources by junior faculty in achieving their goals at a large medical school in the Western United States. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We reviewed 222 individual development plans (IDPs) from 26 departments in an academic medical center for content regarding constraints and resources to achieve activities and barriers and/or resources to achieve new goals. The content and quality of the IDPs included was ascertained using quantitative data analysis as well a review of open-ended qualitative questions. In addition to analyzing the content, the quality and percent completion of data filled out for each field in the IDP was also assessed to help identify gaps with departments in successfully completing and submitting their IDPs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Junior faculty indicated the following barriers: time/time management (55%); work/life balance (32%); funding (8%) and other (5%). Junior faculty also indicated that they had resources to help them achieve their goals, including: mentors (60%); collaborators (26%); colleagues (6%); other (8%). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The barriers in goal achievement (e.g., time/time management & work/life balance issues) at this academic medical setting suggest that further resources regarding time management and work - life balance need to be developed and disseminated in order to assist faculty in achieving their objectives. This project also reinforces the importance of having a robust mentor or mentoring team for junior faculty. Mentors and administrators should work collaboratively with junior faculty to identify resources to improve time management and work-life balance.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: -Transmit learning and wisdom from past scholars -Predispose new scholars towards a receptive attitude -Normalize struggle and failure on the road to success -Encourage a community of accomplishment and celebration -Connect the scholar METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The exit presentations were given by NCATS funded junior faculty in the CTSI KL2 Scholars Program who had graduated. All KL2 Scholars take part in the K Scholar Multidisciplinary Seminar Series that meets weekly during the academic calendar. The departed scholars returned for the presentations the following semester. The audience was made up of KL2 who had started with a later cohort, the CTSI KL2 program is a 3-year program, and newly appointed scholars. Scholars were given 12-15 minutes to cover: 1) What was learned, 2) Accomplishments on specific aims, 3) Next steps for project and career, and 4) Recommendations for other scholars. Presentations were collected and reviewed for recurring themes. Themes were grouped and quotes were included to identify nuance. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: From the 17 exit presentations, six themes were identified: 1) Don’t miss the forest for the trees (x10) – “the KL2 program helps to fill in gaps scholars don’t realize they have – it is about more than just the research project, trust in the process and let the program help keep you on track.” 2) Diversify and keep an open mind (x7) – “focus is important but diversifying research and reorganizing priorities is ok.” 3) Don’t be discouraged by failure (x6) –” perseverance is key, all success comes on the heels of many failures.” 4) Importance of building network inside and outside of Scholar program (x6) – “importance of exploring and establishing collaborations” 5) Learn to say no and yes (x5) – “protect your time but be open to opportunities” 6) Seek advice and criticism but don’t follow blindly (x4) DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The use of exit presentations for graduating KL2 Scholars is a useful tool in transmitting wisdom and enhancing subsequent KL2 cohorts. The Scholar’s experience and trajectory, share personal insights and recommendations to help other Scholars get the most out of their KL2 experience, give the community a chance to celebrate the Scholar’s accomplishments, and provide the Scholar with a sense of closure in their KL2 journey. Within the exit presentations, six common themes emerged relating to best practices on making good use of resources and guidance, and learning to interact and navigate within networks and responsibilities in a mature way. Scholars in the audience benefit from hearing the insights and advice from their predecessors. The identification of themes helps the program to understand where it adds value.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Emergency (911) dispatchers are the first link in the chain of care for the estimated 240 million emergency calls made each year. Yet even as emergency medicine, public safety, and public health have seen increasing study, emergency dispatch has very seldom been included in that research. Part of the reason is that, while emergency medicine is connected with hospital physicians and public health with university departments, emergency dispatch is largely invisible, not represented in university programs, and staffed by professionals without research training–and often without higher education or academic degrees. The purpose of our Dispatch Research Workshop is to engage these professionals in guided research projects of their own design, with the ultimate aims of both engaging more emergency dispatchers in research and increasing the field’s overall capacity to generate evidence-based practice. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The workshop is help in tandem with a national Emergency Dispatch conference. Participants are recruited through advertisements in professional journals and relevant social media sites. The workshop is co-led by members of a partnership between the nonprofit organizations the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch and the UCLA Prehospital Care Research Forum, along with the dispatch data aggregation company FirstWatch. The Workshop occurs over two eight-hour days, and participants generally have no research experience or background. By the end of the second day, groups have developed research questions and methods, begun to write IRB proposals, and created data collection and analysis plans. Throughout the remainder of the year, research mentors support the completion of the project, and completed projects are presented at the following year’s conference and submitted (if desired) for publication. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: During the first two years of the workshop, 36 attendees participated (17 the first year and 19 the second). Three successful attendees of the first workshop helped lead the second as research mentors. Three research projects were completed from the first year; all three were presented as posters and are now being prepared for publication as manuscripts. Four projects have emerged from the second year’s workshop. Assessments and one-on-one interviews with participants at the end of each workshop have led to continuous change and improvement in the delivery of the material, as well as the outline of a year’s worth of support materials, which is currently in development. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Developing a true evidence base for practice in emergency dispatch will serve all of our communities, and feedback from our participants (as well as significant existing research in practitioner-engaged research) indicates that those who participate in research have a better understanding of the value of evidence-based practice, are more likely to adopt it, and are more likely to raise questions and test theories in their own professional life. Also, providing these practitioners the opportunity to conduct and publish research raises their stature and the stature of their profession, helping it achieve its rightful place alongside other professions in public safety and health.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: INTRODUCTION: Many of the innovative therapies used in regenerative medicine, such as additive manufacturing and stem cell engineering, rely on novel technologies and techniques for which standards for safety, efficacy, and quality have not been fully explored and established. As these therapies and technologies develop at a rapid pace, there is a need for the development of scientifically-based metrics to assess whether new treatments are effective and safe for clinical translation. Research and development of such standards is known as “regulatory science,” and is needed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support the creation of the evidence-based guidances and regulations that are used in review of product submissions. As outlined by the FDA’s description of their Centers for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSIs) and the Association for Clinical and Translational Science’s (ACTS) Regulatory Science Working Group, here is a need to train investigators and clinicians to conduct regulatory science research to support successful clinical translation of regenerative treatments. OBJECTIVE: To develop a course to expose scholars to regulatory science concepts, to empower them to apply these concepts to their personal areas of research, and to challenge them to engage in the dialogue surrounding regulatory science on a national level. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: METHODS: The “Introduction to Regulatory Science” course was developed jointly by the Yale-Mayo CERSI and the Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS) in 2017 as a didactic in-person survey course. The course objectives included exposing scholars to the ideas of regulatory science and affairs; reviewing the FDA’s Priority Areas for Advancing Regulatory Science; and determining what safety, quality, and efficacy concerns may need to be addressed when using new technologies, such as those used in regenerative medicine research. To meet these intended learning objectives, the course addressed one FDA Priority area each week, with a team of experts providing one-hour of lecture and discussion each class session. Regenerative medicine-related topics included a bioethics of stem cell therapy development, evaluation of additive manufacturing as an emerging technology, and the application of cGMPs to the manufacture of new therapies. Assignments and assessments included a quiz each week, which served as a knowledge check of that week’s lecture content, and a final paper analyzing regulatory concerns associated with a technology or product of the scholar’s choosing. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: RESULTS: The course was first delivered as an elective in 2017, with an enrollment of 8 scholars and 3 auditors. Scholars enrolled included 7 trainees and established investigators from Mayo Clinic Rochester and one from Arizona. Of the 8 scholars enrolled, 7 completed the post-course survey. Scholars strongly agreed that the “course objectives were met” (7/7) and that the “course was well worth the effort I put into it” (7/7). Five scholars stated that they learned “a lot” during the course; two said they learned “an incredible amount.” Scholars unanimously gave the course a grade of “A.” Qualitative feedback was positive, indicating that the team-taught and in-person course design choices were highlights for trainees. The course is currently in its second delivery (2018), with an enrollment of 16 scholars across Mayo Clinic Rochester, Arizona, and Florida. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: CONCLUSIONS: The developed course was successfully piloted and well-received. Scholars reported that they agreed that the course aims were achieved, and indicated that they would like to see additional coursework to continue to learn how to engage in regulatory science. Next steps include utilizing course feedback to iterate on the current course, expanding course delivery to include scholars at the Yale site of the Yale-Mayo CERSI, and the creation of a second course.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Scholars and faculty in the Clinical and Translational Science (CTS) track of our institution’s biomedical science graduate school reported a lack of satisfaction with our learning management system (LMS); specifically, they reported frustration with the amount of time spent locating learning assignment guidelines, course readings, and submission portals. As a result, we created a new master template to address their concerns. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A new template was created within the LMS based on scholar and faculty feedback. Surveys and other tools have been used to determine student and faculty satisfaction as well as measure secondary outcomes of time spent in the online learning space. Some key changes include a redesigned menu and submission portal. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: There was an increase in satisfaction with the new LMS template. Next steps include systematically rolling out the new template, with continued solicitation of feedback from all stakeholders. All courses in the CTS track will be converted to the new template by summer quarter 2020. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The strengths of this project include the multidisciplinary team-based approach to improving course satisfaction and usability, as well as the use of innovative technologies. Additionally, the analytical capabilities of the LMS will be maximized in the new template, which was a shortcoming of the previously available template.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Early career researchers at Mount Sinai have access to a wide range of resources and support. It can, however, be challenging for new investigators to know where to find information and who to ask for help. To address this issue, an Emerging Investigators website was conceived to bring together resources, provide educational support and foster a community of early career investigators at Mount Sinai. In order to ensure this resource effectively meets the needs of this cohort of researchers, and to determine the scope and content of the proposed website, a series of focus group interviews were undertaken with early career researchers at various stages of their careers. The aims of these focus groups were to 1) explore the self-perceived challenges faced by early career researchers that could be addressed through education and / or support, 2) explore the self-perceived learning needs of early career researchers that are not currently being addressed at Mount Sinai, 3) determine the website content that early career researchers would find valuable to support them in their development. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A convenience sample of early career researchers at Mount Sinai were contacted for participation (N = 20). A total of 13 participants responded and three focus groups were conducted, one with the KL2 scholars (N=4), one with TL1 postdocs (N=4) and one with PORTAL students (N=5) during Spring 2018. Participants were initially asked to consider the challenges that early career researchers face. They were subsequently asked to consider which of these challenges they thought could be addressed through education or support. Participants were then asked to consider what they wished they knew more about in relation to research knowledge, skills or behaviors. Participants were finally asked to discuss the resources or support they thought would help them to manage the challenges or meet the learning needs they identified. The interview questions were semi-structured to allow the conversation to flow, and to allow the participants to discuss issues of importance to them. At the end of the discussion, participants were asked to rank their top priorities for inclusion in an Emerging Investigators website, up to a maximum of 3 per person. Focus group sessions lasted between 1 and 1.5 hours. All key points were captured by the participants on flip-chart paper and sticky notes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Interview data was transcribed and thematic analysis was used to identifying patterns or themes within the data. A theoretical thematic analysis was conducted, driven by the specific research questions. Each segment of data that was relevant to the research questions or captured something interesting was coded. These codes were examined and further grouped into six key themes that were consistent across all three focus groups. These themes were categorized as: Mapping the research pathway, Research skills, Personal development, Mentorship, Community of Practice and Opportunities at Mount Sinai. Within each of these themes, more specific codes align directly with learning needs for early career investigators at Mount Sinai. When asked to prioritize topics for inclusion in the website, the pre-doc PORTAL students selected research skills that included statistics, navigating the IRB and writing and publication, as well as mapping the research landscape at Mount Sinai. Both the post-doc TL1s and the KL2s also selected some research skills such as scientific writing and conference presentation, but also prioritized personal development and “soft skills” such as leadership, management, collaborating with others and finding a work-life balance. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The themes articulated by the focus group participants have formed the basis for developing the Emerging Investigators website. Each of the key themes will be reflected in the learning and resources provided on the website. The prioritization of topics differed between groups, reflecting the different stages and levels of experience of these researchers. As a result, the website provides key learning and “top tips” suitable for all levels of early career researchers, but with links to further reading and resources for those at a more advanced level who are interested in learning more. In addition, the reported need for communication, collaboration and social interaction with peers and other researchers across Mount Sinai resulted in the addition of further web-based resources such as a discussion forum, a blog to feature research and provide a sounding board for research efforts, and a calendar of events targeted specifically at early career researchers. The focus groups provided much valued insight to underpin this project and ensure that a valuable resource is created that will meet the needs of early career researchers. The website is currently under development with a view to launch a pilot site in early 2019.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The objective of this session is to support and encourage novice, unpublished researchers to turn their poster content into a manuscript publishable in a scholarly journal, by showing them concrete steps to follow and research study reporting standards to use as a template. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We will cover the following topics: choosing a journal, finding the journal’s requirements, locating the reporting standard for the study type (e.g., CONSORT for randomized trials), and structuring the manuscript appropriately per International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: It is anticipated that by the end of the session, attendees should be able to: Select an appropriate journal; Organize a manuscript according to ICMJE guidelines; Compose a manuscript based on the applicable reporting standard (e.g. CONSORT). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Providing novice researchers with information and resources that demystify the process of writing a manuscript suitable for a scholarly journal, is expected to bolster their confidence and increase the likelihood they will create and submit publishable manuscripts; thereby improving the dissemination of research findings and increasing research impact.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) put in place a KL2 program in 2007 and introduced an 18-month Translational Research Academy (TRA) in 2010. The TRA provides education and leadership development training, research support services, mentoring, and networking opportunities to 15-20 early-career clinical and translational researchers, including those receiving KL2 awards. The KL2 and TRA programs make up the Mentored-Career Development Core that is administered by the Wake Forest CTSA Education Program. Over the years, the program administrators have collected feedback from the graduates on what they liked and did not like about the programs. However, a comprehensive evaluation to understand the impact of the trainings on helping scholars advance their research and their research careers was not conducted. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess if and how the KL2 and TRA programs are helping scholars advance their research and career in research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 11 selected CTSI scholars from both KL2 and TRA programs. The interviews focused on 4 key areas: expectations coming into the program, role the program played in their career development over time, what else could/should have program done to support them and their research, and which of the other CTSI services were valuable in their career development. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Even though scholars joined the program as an early-career researcher, the amount of experience in research they had varied and so did their areas of interest. The participants in the program also included both clinician and basic researchers. Scholars came into the program with different level of expectations and drive to use this program as a platform to lift their research careers. The conversations during these interviews gave an insight on career trajectories that the scholars have taken before and after joining the academy. For example, among the scholars that had graduated from the programs, 5 of the 6 had received a career development award, all 6 had their own grants to support their research, 3 had received professional promotions, and all 6 have an administrative leadership role they play, in addition to focusing on their research career. The information on where the scholars were at the beginning and the pathway they have taken to get to where they are now allowed us to better understand what aspects of the program was most valuable. The scholars noted that sessions around grant writing and developing specific aims were very helpful. Among the services provided, having a grant editor support was something that everyone noted as the most important service to them, even after leaving the program. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The impact of the interviews and candid feedback provided by the scholars have been immensely valuable to program administrators to really understand the impact the program (and which components specifically) is having for the scholars. Looking at the career trajectories of the scholars, it was noted that scholars coming in to the academy with some experience doing research and ability to continue engaging in research benefited the most from what the program had to offer. Scholars that were still very early in their research career gained knowledge but were not always able to apply it because they were not working towards a grant at the time. Using the data on career trajectories, recommendations for improving the program, and other CTSI services that were most valuable, the program administrators decided to redesign the curriculum. The new version of the program is now tailored for scholars who have research experience and are working towards a career development grant such as a K or R. This will allow them to have a curriculum that is more intense and hands-on with an expectation that the scholars will submit the application towards the end of the program. A separate program is being developed for early-career researchers who are still setting their foot into t field to provide them basic research competencies through ad hoc courses and seminars.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Current translational research moves beyond bench to bedside and includes translating scientific evidence to clinical practice and into the community settings (T1-T5). This progression is dynamic, involving patient-physician, community, and academic organizational structures and translational strategies. However, basic and clinician scientists are often unprepared and/or ill equipped to successfully conduct community-engaged research which may aid in more efficient translation of their research findings. The recognized need for such training was the impetus for our course which was originally designed and implemented through the innovative and sustainable joint academic-community partnerships of Morehouse School of Medicine and Emory University with the support of Georgia Institute of Technology. Since that time the course has evolved with the recently added partner, University of Georgia. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Initially developed and implemented in 2008, the course continues through the Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance, Community Engagement and Research Program (GaCTSA/CERP), a Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) (UL1TR002378). The course is an introduction to community-engaged research concepts/methods. This includes behavioral science; community engagement principles; clinical translational research partnerships; and strategies in planning, implementing, evaluating, and disseminating community-engaged research to address health disparities. The course is open to the four GaCTSA academic institutions’ faculty, MD, PhD, MS in Clinical Research, and the Graduate Certificate in Translational Science students. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Students received scholarly and hands-on training in community engaged research through faculty- and community member-led didactic lectures/interactions, team science activities, and a final assignment involving work with a community-based organization. From 2008-2017 over 230 students have matriculated through this course and many are now involved in community-engaged translational research. Most students in the class were MD/PhD students (33%), however 21% were junior faculty, attending physicians (21%), or fellows/residents/ postdocs (15%). Evaluations over the years indicate that most students were unware of Community-Based Participatory or community-engagement strategies for conducting translational research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Effective application of community-engaged translational research requires essential skills training to facilitate the translational research paradigm. Translational researchers, at any stage, will benefit from understanding the entire translational research process and the importance of quickly bringing research advances to patients and the community.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Duke Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Translational Science (MERITS) program was introduced with the goal of providing education and resources to faculty and trainees who are involved in translational research. However, the definition of what translational science is and entails can be widely variable, even within a single institution or department, which creates difficulties in appropriate dissemination of information regarding translational resources and assistance. This objective of this study was thus to obtain baseline information and views of translational science from a pilot population of Duke faculty. Based on data collected in a previous focus group, we expected to observe a lack of consensus regarding the definition and inclusion principles of translational science. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A digital survey was distributed to Duke Department of Surgery faculty regarding translational science, including opinions on definition, impacts, experienced barriers, known resources, and future training preferences. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Ninety-five total responses were obtained, with 79.3% of respondents identifying their work as translational. There was no consensus on the precise definition of translational science, although the majority of respondents reported similar essential elements including multidisciplinary science and transitioning between investigative stages. Respondents noted that translational science increased their job satisfaction and recognition in their field, but also stated that they had experienced barriers to translational science. These barriers were primarily funding (56.4%) or lack of training (38.2%) related. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The results of our pilot survey suggest that the MERITS program should focus on training investigators on the resources available for translational investigations and expound upon how it fits into and enhances their current and future research endeavors.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Diet-related diseases such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and irritable bowel syndrome comprise a large portion of primary care visits in the United States. However, primary care physicians seldom prescribe dietary interventions that effectively treat these conditions, and their rate of use has declined in recent years. There are many plausible reasons for this decline, including baseline nutrition education, perceived efficacy of the intervention, time limitations, and compensation. No study has been conducted to assess which of these factors physicians perceive as relevant to their decision to use dietary interventions in their practice. Our study aims to identify key factors that ubiquitously limit physicians’ use of dietary interventions. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We created a 30-item survey designed to evaluate physicians’ self-reported use of dietary interventions, relevant knowledge base, comfort employing these interventions, and attitudes regarding the importance of such interventions in their practices. This survey was was distributed to internal medicine, pediatrics, and family medicine residents and physicians at Michigan Medicine and St. Joseph hospitals in Ann Arbor, MI. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Socio-demographic data, knowledge base and attitudes will be summarized and analyzed using descriptive statistics and simple regression modeling following the administration of the survey. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: We hope that our study may elucidate identify specific avenues of increasing the use of dietary interventions, and thus of improving treatment efficacy for diet-related disorders in the United States.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goal of the Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute (WF CTSI) Mentor Academy is to contribute to increasing the next generation of faculty with competencies specific to research mentoring. The curriculum of the Mentor Academy is adapted from an evidence-based national curriculum developed by the National Research Mentoring Network and includes 20 contact hours of didactic and experiential training, complemented with outside readings and assignments. A pre-post-follow-up competency assessment is built in as part of the curriculum for both participants and their current mentees. The purpose of this study was to assess self-rated research mentoring competencies among the Mentor Academy participants to better understand the effectiveness of the Mentor Academy. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A total of 37 mid-level or early senior faculty members from WF have participated in the 3 Mentor Academy cohorts that have completed so far. All of the participants receive 5% salary support and are expected to regularly participate in Mentor Academy sessions; complete a pre, post, and 6-month follow-up self-assessments; and provide a list of their active mentees. The identified mentees are also asked to assess the participating mentors’ research mentoring competencies before the start and 6-months after the end of the Mentor Academy. The same list of 26 mentoring competencies are included in the self-assessments for both mentors and mentees. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The initial results of the self-assessments suggest that mentors are coming into the academy with a rather high self-assessed competency ratings. The change in competency ratings pre/post is not as significant. On average the change in self-assessed competency ratings increases by 1.0 on a 7-point scale. Interestingly enough, for 2 of the cohorts were mentees were also asked to assess their mentors’ competencies, the mentees rated their mentors as having a higher competency (for all 26 items) than what the mentor rated themselves, at both pre and 6-month follow-up assessments. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: After compiling data for 3 different cohorts, we are consistently seeing similar patterns in self-assessed competency ratings; participants are coming in with a high level of competency and an increased level of competency rating by mentees. These findings need to be further considered. For example, the program administrators need to discuss how participants are recruited, if we are recruiting the intended users, and what should we be expecting as an outcome(s) of the program. We also need to further explore different perceptions of mentor-mentee relationships and expectations to see how reliable are the data from mentees. A collaboration with the National Research Mentoring Network is also needed to see how the self-assessed competencies compare to those utilizing their curriculum outside of WF.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: In the US, 60-90% of adults have experienced emotional trauma-- defined as an event or series of events (such as abuse, loss, or chronic stressors) that negatively affect health. Trauma exposure is strongly associated with proportional increases in chronic diseases, behavioral health disorders, and risky behaviors. These negative sequelae disproportionately affect ethnic minorities and urban, underserved populations. Physicians and healthcare providers can play important roles in intervention or re-traumatization of victims. However, current standard medical training does not include trauma or Trauma Informed Care (TIC). We aimed to examine the knowledge, attitudes, perceived skills, and behaviors of internal medicine residents regarding managing patients with histories of trauma, as well as residents’ desires for additional training in trauma informed care. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted an online survey of residents enrolled in 4 internal medicine programs in Baltimore, Maryland to assess the following behaviors: recognizing, screening, managing, and referring patients with trauma histories. The questionnaire was based on PREMIS (Physician Readiness to Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey) and addressed residents’ knowledge, attitudes, self-assessed preparedness, and close personal experiences with trauma. Nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis, Fisher’s exact, and Wilcoxon rank sum) were used for analysis. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Of the 168 residents who responded to the survey (54% response rate), 44% were female, 55% White, 28% Asian, 4% Black and 13.2% unknown/other. Knowledge and preparedness were very limited. 83% percent of respondents underestimated trauma prevalence; 31.7% felt inadequately prepared to appropriately respond to positive disclosures. 59.5% reported they seldom asked about trauma in the past 6 months, and 8.8% never asked. Factors significantly associated with higher frequency of screening patients include greater perceived preparedness to identify, respond to, and refer patients (p =.0001 −.012); familiarity with referral resources (p=.005); comfort in discussing trauma with patients (p =.003); and perceived faculty (p =.001) and workplace support (p =.038). 68.7% had previous training on some trauma-related topics in medical school, and 42.2% did in residency; 91.8% wished for additional training on trauma and trauma informed care. Differences among genders, races, years in training, and program sites were minimal. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Internal medicine residents in Baltimore had very limited knowledge about trauma prevalence and risks for comorbidities. Although most residents feel TIC is relevant to clinical practice, they feel unprepared to identify, respond to, manage, and refer patients with histories of trauma. Our results support the need for integration of trauma and Trauma Informed Care training into graduate medical education for internal medicine residents.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: We aimed to explore the impact of leadership training on student’s abilities to work in interprofessional research teams successfully. The Translational Research Design and Interprofessional Skills Development Course (shortened, Interprofessional Research Design) brings together students from different disciplines (science & medicine) and education tracks (PhD, MD, MD/PhD training) in a seven-week course to learn interprofessional collaborative skills and leadership styles that support success in translational research environments, while undertaking a research grant writing project. Part of the course involves a two-day leadership training workshop (12 hours) with the goal of understanding leadership styles and how to develop productive working relationships with team members to help students work more effectively in high-performance, interprofessional team environments. The course incorporates personality testing to develop self-awareness, with various exercises meant to build empathy, as well as knowledge of project management and effective leadership. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Nine teams of 32 students (23 MD; 9 Ph.D.) who took part in the Interprofessional Research Design course in 2017 and 2018 were required to write a reflective essay at the end of the course. We used an inductive thematic analysis to evaluate the essays. Reflective essays were coded openly by one study member. Codes were rationalized; then codes were collaboratively developed into themes by the study authors. We identified issues of integration between student groups that functioned well together and those that did not. Reflective writing responses were grouped into overall positive experiences and negative experiences. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Seven of the nine teams collectively described their experiences positively. Themes related to positive team experience were “empathizing with group members”, “sophisticated communication” and “collaborative workflow/styles.” We found that those who had a positive experience utilized knowledge and skills learned during leadership training to better understand and communicate with their teammates leading to a more collaborative and dynamic workflow. These groups had higher degrees of communication both between their task assignments and within task completion periods. They also showed more awareness of others’ needs in work and communication styles. For those that had a negative experience, themes were related to “basic communication”, “poor integration” and “theory-practice gap of leadership training.” Those who struggled showed much less in- and between-task communication and showed an inability to address the personal needs of other members in communication and workflow (while still often being able to identify them). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: These findings demonstrate the usefulness of leadership training that facilitates student self-awareness and empathy, as well as effective communication, leading to collaborative high-functioning interprofessional teams. Further work incorporating conflict management and exercises to overcome the theory/practice gap of leadership and teamwork training are recommended.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Title V Cooperative Project of the UPR-MSC and UCC has demonstrated that educational interventions in CTR are very effective in fulfilling the objective of promoting awareness, stimulate interest and increase the knowledge, skills and opportunities, to US, GS and F (participants) in CTR. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The training sessions (TS) offered through the Title V initiative have become an engine for the involvement in CTR for participants from higher education institutions island-wide. TS consisted of cycles –level 1 and 2–: Research Education Towards Opportunities (RETO,I,II) and Mentorship Offering Training Opportunities for Research (MOTOR,I,II), ending in the formation of the Clinical and Translational Mentoring Teams (CTMT)s, in which participants, paired by their research interests, were mentored by a well-established CT researchers in their research project, to be developed in the Intensive Development and Experiences in Advancement of Research and Increased Opportunities (IDEARIO). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Up to date, 4 TS-level 1 and 2 TS-level 2 were offered. Eighty (80) participants completed level 1, distributed: 42 (52.5%) US in RETO, 21 (26.25%) GS and 17 (21.25%) F in MOTOR and 17 participants completed level 2, distributed: 4 (23.52%) US in RETO, 6 (25.29%) GS and 7 (41.17%) F in MOTOR. From which, 15, with 8 CT researchers, formed 5 CTMTs in different research areas – cardio, neuro, liver, renal, Zika–. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: US, GS and F were integrated in the active process throughout educational levels for their development in CTR.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The clinical and translational research workforce is in jeopardy due to investigator attrition and competing demands upon researchers. Resilience and wisdom are measurable traits that can be acquired. The aim of this study was to examine a pilot curricular intervention promoting resilience and wisdom formation in early-career translational researchers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted a prospective, mixed-methods evaluation of a curricular intervention promoting the development of wisdom and resilience among junior faculty in a career development program. Six 90 minute sessions were delivered between September 2017 and January 2018. Pre- and post- resilience and wisdom were measured using the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale and 3D-Wisdom Scale. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted before and after the intervention RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Five scholars participated. Median resilience and wisdom scores revealed moderate levels of each trait; pre- and post-scores were not significantly different. Four themes emerged from the analysis of interview transcripts: 1. “Success” broadly defined; 2. Adversity threatens success; 3. Community breeds resilience; and 4. Wisdom formation parallels growth towards independence. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: An intervention aimed at developing capacities of resilience and wisdom is feasibly delivered to early career researchers. The relationship between these capacities and the sustainability of a research career warrants additional study.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1. Foster a community of scholars – by centering on training and professional development programs that assist with career progression. 2. Improve heath equity for the community – by developing innovative ways to capture data, address problems, deliver solutions, and disseminate results to patients and people everywhere. 3. Facilitate interdisciplinary teams at all career stages – by providing opportunities for researchers, regardless of discipline and career stage, to engage in dialogue with others. SCOR has developed a series of programs to address each stage in the career arch. LEAD: Learn Enhance Advance Drive develops a pipeline of future leaders within UAB by engaging junior faculty and staff who are in leadership roles or will be in leadership roles soon to develop fundamental competencies. The one-year, cohort-based program enables junior faculty and staff to enhance their interpersonal skills, professional skills, and leadership skills. The program uses the Leadership Competency Model to provide the framework for the chosen topics. The K2R program provides structured activities over a 4– 5 month timeline to assist cohorts of scholars in their preparation of a specific grant application. Leveraging existing programs, like Project Panels, and offerings including a Specific Aims Workshop, K and R Writing Groups, and Mock Study Section, the SCOR extends the engagement of scholars in their ongoing research development. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Using quantitative methods, we have conducted surveys to measure effectiveness of weekly didactic sessions and topics. We use qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups to better understand the relevance of the individual programs and the larger community of SCOR. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: N/A DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Creating a community of interdisciplinary investigators will greatly impact research at the institution.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The DIAMOND project encourages study team workforce development through the creation of a digital learning space that brings together resources from across the CTSA consortium. This allows for widespread access to and dissemination of training and assessment materials. DIAMOND also includes access to an ePortfolio that encourages CRPs to define career goals and document professional skills and training. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Four CTSA institutions (the University of Michigan, the Ohio State University, University of Rochester, and Tufts CTSI) collaborated to develop and implement the DIAMOND portal. The platform is structured around eight competency domains, making it easy for users to search for research training and assessment materials. Contributors can upload links to (and meta-data about) training and assessment materials from their institutions, allowing resources to be widely disseminated through the DIAMOND platform. Detailed information about materials included in DIAMOND is collected through an easy to use submission form. DIAMOND also includes an ePortfolio designed for CRPs. This encourages workforce development by providing a tool for self-assessment of clinical research skills, allowing users to showcase evidence of experience, training and education, and fosters professional connections. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: To date, more than 100 items have been posted to DIAMOND from nine contributors. In the first 30 days there were 229 active users with more than 500 page views from across the U.S. as well as China and India. Training materials were viewed most often from four competency domains: 1) Scientific Concepts & Research Design, 2) Clinical Study Operations, 3) Ethical & Participant Safety, and 4) Leadership & Professionalism. Additionally, over 100 CRPs have created a DIAMOND ePortfolio account, using the platform to document skills, connect with each other, and search for internships and job opportunities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Lessons learned during development of the DIAMOND digital platform include defining relevant information to collect for the best user experience; selection of a standardized, user-friendly digital platform; and integration of the digital network and ePortfolio. Combined, the DIAMOND portal and ePortfolio provide a professional development platform for clinical research professionals to contribute, access, and benefit from training and assessment opportunities relevant to workforce development and their individual career development needs.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Verbal communication is a critical component for professional development and leadership. Yet, many clinical translational scientists lack the skills in communication of their scientific work in a meaningful and exciting manner that conveys the potential impact of their work on human health to the lay public, stakeholders, and to other scientists in different fields. We hypothesized that formal communication training could improve information transfer by trainees that would enhance their career development. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We therefore formalized a program for the KL2 scholars at the Ohio State University Center for Clinical and Translational Science that provided training from communications experts to develop a short, concise, and relevant talk about their field of research to general audiences. The program was a hybrid of workshop and individualized training. It culminated in each of the six scholars presenting public talk at the OSU STEM research dissemination and outreach space, the STEAM Factory. The scholars were administered a survey to assess their knowledge of the concepts presented in the training prior to and following the receiving the treatment, as well as their overall assessment of the experience. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The poster will present the positive results of this evaluation and the impact of the training on the KL2 scholars. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The poster explain the training as a model that other CTSA KL2 programs could adapt for their trainees.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The study aims to (1) investigate the structural patterns of professional communication that exist at the Mount Sinai Health Hackathon (2) explore if and how the professional networks of the participants change after engaging in the Mount Sinai Health Hackathon (3) explore any associations between the characteristics of participants’ professional networks and successful innovation development. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The recruitment pool consists of all 78 Mount Sinai Health Hackathon 2018 participants. Characteristics of the social network of Health Hackathon participants are assessed via an SNA data collection instrument at three time points: T1 directly before the Health Hackathon event, T2 directly after the event, T3 six months post-event. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board approved this study as exempt. In order to explore patterns of communication between Health Hackathon participants during event, whole network data is collected at T2. Participants are provide with a roster of Mount Sinai Health hackathon participant names and asked to report the nature, frequency and perceived importance of their interaction with each of the other participants over the duration of the 48 hour event. In order capture any network change in the wider professional networks of the individual participants, known as “ego networks”, participants are asked to complete an SNA ego network survey at time points T1, T2 and T3. Open ended questions asked participants to report up to 20 people they consider being most important to them in their professional network and record the professional background of each person, the nature of the communication and the importance of each person to their success. Finally, at T3 participants are also asked to report on their project success (determined by businesses formed, filed provisional patents, financial income generation). This will be reviewed in relation to their social network data, to see if there is any relationship between the two. Data is analyzed using the specialized SNA software, UCiNET, which creates network sociograms to visualize network data. Descriptive statistics are used to report individual-level characteristics of respondents.RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: To describe the structural patterns of communication at each time point, the following network-level indices are calculated: density (a measure of network cohesion), degree centrality (how many connections the individual has), betweenness centrality (whether the individual provides connections to other people in a network) and closeness centrality (how close the individual is to other people in the network). Network sociograms are generated for each time point to provide a visualization of the network. To explore the hypothesis that participating in the Mount Sinai Health Hackathon increases diversity of a professional network, analysis will focus on whether and how network-level indices change pre- and post- Hackathon. It will also explore any association between network characteristics and project success. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Social Network Analysis of the Mount Sinai Health Hackathon provides an understanding about the structure of relationships that are formed as a result of participation in this event. Although, the design of this study does not allow for inferences of causality, the SNA approach enables an in-depth exploration of Hackathon participants’ professional networks, how these evolve over time and how certain network characteristics may be associated with project success. This information will be used to inform the development, content and delivery of future Health Hackathon initatives.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goals of this project are to develop, disseminate, and evaluate an online, self-paced training module designed to help mentors better understand and support their mentees’ motivation. The module introduces learners to the CARES mentoring model, which is rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), one of the leading theories of motivation. According to SDT, an optimal mentoring environment provides support for mentees’ psychological needs for Competence, Autonomy, Relatedness, Equity in extrinsic resources, and Structure (CARES). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Content for the CARES online module was drawn from a previously developed two-hour mentor training workshop designed for delivery in a face-to-face, small group setting. Content experts developed a slide deck and speaker notes. These materials were edited, adapted into a storyboard, and translated into a 60-minute interactive online module created with e-learning authoring software (Articulate Storyline). An evaluation survey was developed to assess mentors’ perceived skills gains related to course content (e.g., “Encouraging my mentees to think about how well their psychological needs are being met within the work/training environment,” “Recognizing how diversity, equity, and inclusion can be salient issues that impact a mentee’s motivation”) and mentors’ confidence gains in their ability to implement motivation-focused practices into their mentoring relationships (e.g., “Autonomy: Giving my mentees freedom in deciding what goals to pursue and how they to do their work,” “Competence: Working with my mentees to establish appropriate challenges to stretch their abilities”). The module was beta tested in October 2018 by 11 individuals with experience as mentors and in facilitating mentor training. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The beta testing process produced useful recommendations for improving clarity of content, visual design, and navigation. Users expressed a high level of enthusiasm for the content, which included a combination of practical information and empirical support for the CARES mentoring model. They also appreciated specific functionality in the module, including the presentation of brief case examples of mentoring scenarios that enhance or diminish motivation, opportunities for self-reflection, and a downloadable guide for initiating conversations with mentees about different domains in the CARES model. Evaluation data (quantitative and qualitative) from beta testers (n=11) are being analyzed. A preliminary examination of these findings found that mentors report gains from before to after the training in their self-perceived skills and confidence levels. Moreover, all expressed an intention to makes changes in their mentoring practices as a result of the training. Comments indicated potential value in offering a follow up face-to-face experience in which mentors can hear from others who have successfully implemented the CARES approach and acquire practice in skillfully implementing the CARES conversation guide with their mentees. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This innovative e-learning module offers a readily accessible and theoretically driven training approach to help mentors recognize the value of supporting their mentees’ motivation, and become more intentional in implementing motivation-focused practices into their mentoring relationships. In future work, the CARES module will be pilot tested with specific cohorts and in different implementation scenarios (as a standalone training, or combined with other programming) and made available to users nationally with support from the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute and the NIH National Research Mentoring Network.