The Colorado Immersion Training in Community Engagement (CIT) program supports a change in the research trajectory of junior faculty, early career researchers, and doctoral students toward Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR). CIT is within the Community Engagement and Health Equity Core (CEHE) at the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CCTSI), an NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science award. This Translational Science Case Study reports on CIT’s impacts from 2010 to 2019. A team from The Evaluation Center at the University of Colorado Denver utilized four primary data sources: administrative records, participant written reflections, participant and Community Research Liaison (CRL) interviews, and community partner surveys. Data were analyzed using the framework of CBPR principles and the conceptual logic model. CIT trained 122 researchers in CBPR through embedded education within various Colorado communities. CIT Alumni secured ∼$8,723,000 in funding between CCTSI Pilot Grants and external funding. Also, CIT alumni implemented CBPR into curricula and community programming and developed deep, lasting relationships. Further key learnings include the crucial role of CRLs in building relationships between university and community partners and how CIT may serve as a mechanism to improve historical mistrust between communities and universities.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Colorado Community Engagement Alliance Against COVID-19 Disparities (CO-CEAL) Team has worked with 5 racial/ethnic communities in Colorado to understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and develop messages, materials and dissemination strategies to impact vaccine hesitancy. Relationships have been key facilitators of this work. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: CO-CEAL was funded for one year as a part of the national CEAL Teams effort. CO-CEAL engaged urban Hispanic/LatinX, rural Hispanic/LatinX, urban African/American, rural African Immigrant and urban American Indian/Alaska Native communities through Community Connectors in each community. Our Community Connectors led recruitment of community members for our community survey data collection (goal of 200 surveys from each community) and participation in our 5 Community (Boot Camp) Translations. Where possible we worked with Community Connectors and leveraged community relationships with whom we had worked over multiple years and projects. In two communities we worked to quickly build and establish new relationships with Community Connectors and their communities. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The rapid nature of the CO-CEAL project, its timeline and the unusual nature of the funding mechanism required adaptations to usual ways of working on both the academic and community side.In our CO-CEAL partner communities where there was a history of working together, concerns, possible barriers and other issues tended to be rapidly addressed. The prior existing, long-standing relationships fostered trust that enabled open airing of concerns and an ability to address issues as they arose. In CO-CEAL partner communities where new relationships were being forged, trust needed to be build from the ground up. This made adaptations more challenging and the ability to address concerns and issues as they arose more problematic. Although the work has moved forward in all communities, extra care has been required in some. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: When crises necessitate rapid action in communities, the depth of prior investments in building and maintaining relationships makes a difference in how rapidly and successfully partners can work together to address a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and Academic researchers should invest broadly in communities to enable rapid responses.

Efforts to move community engagement in research from marginalized to mainstream include the NIH requiring community engagement programs in all Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how little these efforts have changed the dominant culture of clinical research. When faced with the urgent need to generate knowledge about prevention and treatment of the novel coronavirus, researchers largely neglected to involve community stakeholders early in the research process. This failure cannot be divorced from the broader context of systemic racism in the US that has contributed to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities bearing a disproportionate toll from COVID-19, being underrepresented in COVID-19 clinical trials, and expressing greater hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination. We call on research funders and research institutions to take decisive action to make community engagement obligatory, not optional, in all clinical and translational research and to center BIPOC communities in this process. Recommended actions include funding agencies requiring all research proposals involving human participants to include a community engagement plan, providing adequate funding to support ongoing community engagement, including community stakeholders in agency governance and proposal reviews, promoting racial and ethnic diversity in the research workforce, and making a course in community engaged research a requirement for Masters of Clinical Research curricula.