Involving participants in the design of clinical trials should improve the overall success of a study. For this to occur, streamlined mechanisms are needed to connect the populations potentially impacted by a given study or health topic with research teams in order to inform trial design in a meaningful and timely manner. To address this need, we developed an innovative mechanism called the “ResearchMatch Expert Advice Tool” that quickly obtains volunteer perspectives from populations with specific health conditions or lived experiences using the national recruitment registry, ResearchMatch. This tool does not ask volunteers to participate in the trial but allows for wider community feedback to be gathered and translated into actionable recommendations used to inform the study’s design. We describe early use cases that shaped the current Expert Advice Tool workflow, how results from this tool were incorporated and implemented by studies, and feedback from volunteers and study teams regarding the tool’s usefulness. Additionally, we present a set of lessons learned during the development of the Expert Advice Tool that can be used by other recruitment registries seeking to obtain volunteer feedback on study design and operations.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: * Describe the Community Engaged Research Core (CERC) Researcher Training Program modules and objectives. * Examine the expansion and reach of the CERC Researcher Training Program across various institutions/organizations. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Through joint efforts from Meharry Medical College and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the Community Engaged Research Core (CERC) Researcher Training Program began as a resource to provide CERC post-docs with knowledge of the basic principles of community engaged research (CEnR). It has since expanded to reach researchers at different institutions/organizations. This series examines topics from ethics to dissemination of research findings. The purpose of this project is to describe the CERC Researcher Training Program modules and present the expansion and reach of the training series. We examined both online training requests and series evaluations to determine: (1) participant reach, (2) number of module requests, and (3) purpose for using training modules. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since its inception in 2018, the program has expanded to reach 16 institutions/organizations across the United States. On average, 45 researchers register for the training series and approximately 16 researchers participate each year. As time progresses, the number of registrants and attendees continues to increase. To date, there have been 110 online training module requests. The majority (~75%) of participants are requesting content for self-training purposes, while others are using the information to train others in their home institutions/organizations (~25%). Researchers are using modules for a range of reasons including recruitment, career development, and developing their own CEnR training. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: CEnR has the ability to make research better in how it is planned, executed and disseminated. Implementing the CERC researcher training series and expanding its reach demonstrates the desire and need to alleviate health disparities through researcher and community partnerships.

Improving the quality and conduct of multi-center clinical trials is essential to the generation of generalizable knowledge about the safety and efficacy of healthcare treatments. Despite significant effort and expense, many clinical trials are unsuccessful. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science launched the Trial Innovation Network to address critical roadblocks in multi-center trials by leveraging existing infrastructure and developing operational innovations. We provide an overview of the roadblocks that led to opportunities for operational innovation, our work to develop, define, and map innovations across the network, and how we implemented and disseminated mature innovations.

Clinical trials face many challenges with meeting projected enrollment and retention goals. A study’s recruitment materials and messaging convey necessary key information and therefore serve as a critical first impression with potential participants. Yet study teams often lack the resources and skills needed to develop engaging, culturally tailored, and professional-looking recruitment materials. To address this gap, the Recruitment Innovation Center recently developed a Recruitment & Retention Materials Content and Design Toolkit, which offers research teams guidance, actionable tips, resources, and customizable templates for creating trial-specific study materials. This paper seeks to describe the creation and contents of this new toolkit.

New technologies and disruptions related to Coronavirus disease-2019 have led to expansion of decentralized approaches to clinical trials. Remote tools and methods hold promise for increasing trial efficiency and reducing burdens and barriers by facilitating participation outside of traditional clinical settings and taking studies directly to participants. The Trial Innovation Network, established in 2016 by the National Center for Advancing Clinical and Translational Science to address critical roadblocks in clinical research and accelerate the translational research process, has consulted on over 400 research study proposals to date. Its recommendations for decentralized approaches have included eConsent, participant-informed study design, remote intervention, study task reminders, social media recruitment, and return of results for participants. Some clinical trial elements have worked well when decentralized, while others, including remote recruitment and patient monitoring, need further refinement and assessment to determine their value. Partially decentralized, or “hybrid” trials, offer a first step to optimizing remote methods. Decentralized processes demonstrate potential to improve urban-rural diversity, but their impact on inclusion of racially and ethnically marginalized populations requires further study. To optimize inclusive participation in decentralized clinical trials, efforts must be made to build trust among marginalized communities, and to ensure access to remote technology.

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

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: 1. Describe the development and implementation of a Community Scholars Program to train graduate and professional students on principles of community engagement and its application to their research. 2. Evaluate lessons learned and overall impact implementing a Community Scholars Program. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: After identifying a need to train scholars on the principles of community engagement, the Community Engagement Research Core’s (CERC) Community Advisory Council (CAC) developed the Community Scholars Program (CSP) in 2014. The CSP was designed to educate scholars on community engaged research and how it can be applied to their research projects. The program is currently in its ninth cohort with 19 graduate and professional students having participated in the program to date. Prospective scholars identify a community partner and faculty mentor and apply to conduct a community engaged research project over the course of an academic year. The purpose of this project is to describe the development and implementation of a CSP and identify lessons learned throughout the process. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Five lessons learned have been identified: five major lessons learned from implementing the CSP: (1) establish partnership agreements between the scholars and their community partners and faculty mentors, setting expectations to avoid conflict and increase mutual understanding; (2) expand and implement more creative outreach approaches to cultivate a more diverse pool of applicants; (3) increase networking between current and past scholars to share experiences and serve as a resource for each other; (4) provide formal CE training for scholars to develop a better understanding of the principles of CE and CE research; and (5) document progress of the program through formal feedback and evaluations. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The CSP was constructed to fill a gap in CE research training for graduate and professional scholars. Over the course of the program, the identified lessons learned have created program clarity and increased accountability for scholars, mentors, and community partners alike.

Racially and ethnically minoritized populations have been historically excluded and underrepresented in research. This paper will describe best practices in multicultural and multilingual awareness-raising strategies used by the Recruitment Innovation Center to increase minoritized enrollment into clinical trials. The Passive Immunity Trial for Our Nation will be used as a primary example to highlight real-world application of these methods to raise awareness, engage community partners, and recruit diverse study participants.

The Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC) has created a toolkit of novel strategies to engage potential participants in response to recruitment and retention challenges associated with COVID-19 studies. The toolkit contains pragmatic, generalizable resources to help research teams increase awareness of clinical trials and opportunities to participate; produce culturally sensitive and engaging recruitment materials; improve consent and return of results processes; and enhance recruitment of individuals from populations disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. This resource, the “RIC COVID-19 Recruitment and Retention Toolkit,” is available free online. We describe the toolkit and the community feedback used to author and curate this resource.

Clinical trials continue to face significant challenges in participant recruitment and retention. The Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC), part of the Trial Innovation Network (TIN), has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health to develop innovative strategies and technologies to enhance participant engagement in all stages of multicenter clinical trials. In collaboration with investigator teams and liaisons at Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions, the RIC is charged with the mission to design, field-test, and refine novel resources in the context of individual clinical trials. These innovations are disseminated via newsletters, publications, a virtual toolbox on the TIN website, and RIC-hosted collaboration webinars. The RIC has designed, implemented, and promised customized recruitment support for 173 studies across many diverse disease areas. This support has incorporated site feasibility assessments, community input sessions, recruitment materials recommendations, social media campaigns, and an array of study-specific suggestions. The RIC’s goal is to evaluate the efficacy of these resources and provide access to all investigating teams, so that more trials can be completed on time, within budget, with diverse participation, and with enough accrual to power statistical analyses and make substantive contributions to the advancement of healthcare.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Innovations with positive health impact are a high priority for NCATS and CTSAs. Program design that uses the Causal Pathway approach incorporates performance indicators that assess impact. We applied Causal Pathway thinking to an ongoing national program to enhance the evaluation of program impact. We report Lessons Learned. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted a day-long onsite workshop to introduce the model to the project team, build capacity, and map the existing program elements to Logic Models representing program Specific Aims. A local Causal Pathway (CP) champion was identified. Alignment of the Logic Models with the CP approach (input→activities→ outputs→effects/impact) developed iteratively through biweekly, then monthly conferral among stakeholders. Key tasks included distinguishing among activities, outputs, and effects (impacts), and identification of performance indicators for each stage of the Causal Pathway. Visualization tools and an additional late stage half-day workshop were used to foster consensus. Implementation of the CP model tested the feasibility of collecting specific indicators and prompted model revisions. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Program leadership and team members (n = 30) participated in the kick-off workshop. Four Specific Aims were mapped to Logic Models. Multiple Causal Pathway (CP) diagrams, one for each project in the program, were developed and mapped to Aims. Alignment of CP threads to Aims and identification of performance indicators required iteration. CP threads converged onto common final Impacts, sometimes crossing to another Aim. Performance indicators for operations were readily accessible to team members, and less so for impacts. Assumptions about program effects were subjected to specific indicators. Over time, Leadership noticed more expression of CP thinking in daily activities. New projects developed during this period incorporated the CP approach. Teams were able to streamline and simplify Logic/CP models. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Through capacity-building and mentored exercises, an innovation team was able to infuse CP thinking into the evaluation of their ongoing program. The CP approach to design and evaluation maps progress and indicators across the life of a program from initial activities to its ultimate impact.