Access to an academic clinical research center (CRC) in health professional shortage areas (HPSA) can help address healthcare disparities and increase research accessibility and enrollment. Here we describe the development of a community-centered CRC in the underserved area of Sunset Park, Brooklyn, New York, centered within a larger academic health network and the evaluation of its outcomes within the first two years. In addition to resources and space, establishment of the CRC required a culturally competent and multilingual team of healthcare professionals and researchers and buy-in from the community. Between 1/2022 and 12/2023, the CRC opened 21 new trials (10 interventional and 11 noninterventional) with greater than 500 participant visits that reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the community. These participants represent 110 distinct zip codes; 76% of these zip codes are underserved and designated HPSA. 60% self-identified as non-White and 20% identified as Hispanic, with 12 other distinct ethnicities represented. 28% of participants speak 11 languages other than English. Community-based CRCs can be created with sustainable growth to align with the mission of the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration to meet the ever-growing clinical, social, and research needs of the communities they serve.

Recruiting and retaining research participants is challenging because it often requires overcoming structural barriers and addressing how histories of mistrust and individuals’ lived experiences affect their research engagement. We describe a pilot workshop designed to educate clinical research professionals on using empathy skills to recognize and mitigate bias to improve recruitment and retention. In a post-workshop survey (22/31 participants completed), 94% agreed the workshop helped them practice perspective-taking, recognize implicit bias, and identify opportunities for empathy. Participants reported increased confidence in key recruitment and retention skills (p < 0.05). Future studies will evaluate whether this translates into improved recruitment.

Well-being is a multifaceted construct that is used across disciplines to portray a state of wellness, health, and happiness. While aspects of well-being seem universal, how it is depicted in the literature has substantial variation. The aim of this scoping review was to identify conceptual and operational definitions of well-being within the field of occupational health. Broad search terms were used related to well-being and scale/assessment. Inclusion criteria were (1) peer-reviewed articles, (2) published in English, (3) included a measure of well-being in the methods and results section of the article, and (4) empirical paper. The searches resulted in 4394 articles, 3733 articles were excluded by reading the abstract, 661 articles received a full review, and 273 articles were excluded after a full review, leaving 388 articles that met our inclusion criteria and were used to extract well-being assessment information. Many studies did not define well-being or link their conceptual definition to the operational assessment tool being used. There were 158 assessments of well-being represented across studies. Results highlight the lack of a consistent definitions of well-being and standardized measurements.

Academic medical centers (AMCs) rely on engaged and motivated faculty for their success. Significant burnout among clinical and research faculty has resulted in career disengagement and turnover. As such, AMCs must be vested in cultivating faculty engagement and well-being through novel initiatives that support faculty. The Well-Being Education Grants program was established by the Office for Well-Being within the Center for Faculty Development at Massachusetts General Hospital to provide the impetus many faculty needed to dedicate time to their well-being, demonstrating that investments in multi-component interventions around faculty well-being require resources and funding.

The ability of research networks and individual institutions to effectively and efficiently prepare, respond, and adapt to emergent challenges is essential for the biomedical research enterprise. At the beginning of 2021, a special Working Group was formed by individuals in the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium and approved by the CTSA Steering Committee to explore “Adaptive Capacity and Preparedness (AC&P) of CTSA Hubs.” The AC&P Working Group took a pragmatic Environmental Scan (E-Scan) approach of utilizing the diverse data that had been collected through existing mechanisms. The Local Adaptive Capacity framework was adapted to illustrate the interconnectedness of CTSA programs and services, while exposing how the demands of the pandemic forced them to quickly pivot and adapt. This paper presents a synopsis of the themes and lessons learned that emerged from individual sections of the E-Scan. Lessons learned from this study may improve our understanding of adaptive capacity and preparedness at different levels, as well as help strengthen the core service models, strategies, and foster innovation in clinical and translational science research.

The Harvard Catalyst KL2/CMeRIT program is a 2-year mentored institutional career award that includes KL2 grants funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) and CMeRIT grants funded by Harvard Catalyst nonfederal funds. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for early-stage investigators funded by the KL2/CMeRIT program to a group of applicants who were not chosen for support to assess the potential impact of the program on early career outcomes. Career data, including academic promotions, subsequent grant funding, and publication rates, from both successful and unsuccessful 2008–2018 KL2/CMeRIT applicants were compiled throughout the year 2020. Data were obtained directly through outreach to both groups and through assessment of online resources. The cohort comprised 487 individuals, 109 awardees, and 378 nonawardees. Awardees were more likely to be subsequently involved in clinical and translational research than nonawardees (92% vs 75%, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of awardees also had achieved academic promotion (81% vs 69%, p = 0.016) and subsequent NIH funding (72% vs 58%, p = 0.047), while there was no difference in publication rates (p = 0.555). Participants in the Harvard Catalyst KL2/CMeRIT program demonstrate greater early career success than nonparticipants though the nonparticipants also fared relatively well.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: This work will inform the ongoing development of adaptive capacity and preparedness of the CTSA Program and other clinical and translational research organizations in their quest of improving processes that drive outcomes and impacts, shaping effective programs and services, and strengthening their emergency readiness and sustainability. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: -Share the progress and preliminary findings of an ‘Adaptive Capacity and Preparedness of CTSA Hubs’ CTSA Working Group; -Improve our awareness and understanding of the efficient and effective changes helping CTSA hubs build robust capacity to address METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A multi-case study including: - Triangulating multiple sources of information and mixed methods (survey/interviews of research administrators, researchers, evaluators, and other key stakeholders), literature review, document and M&E system information analysis, and expert review; - Describing CTSA hubs’ experiences as related to research implementation, translation, and support during the time of emergency; - Administering a comprehensive survey of the CTSAs addressing their challenges, lessons learned, and practices that work in various program components/areas. Data collection includes aggregate and cross-sectional data, with representation based on CTSA size, maturity, and population density. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The described approach shows sound promise to investigate and share strategies and best practices for building adaptive capacity and preparedness of CTSAs -- across various scientific sectors, translational research spectrum, and the goals outlined by NCATS for the CTSA program. The anticipated results of this research will include the identified/shared innovative solutions and lessons learned for this rapidly emerging, high-priority clinical and translational science issue. ‘High-quality lessons learned’ are those that represent principles extrapolated from multiple sources and triangulated to increase transferability to new contexts and situations. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The project provides useful knowledge and tools to research organizations and stakeholders across multiple disciplines -- for mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 disaster via effective adjusting programs, practices, and processes, and building capacity for future successful, ‘emergency ready and responsive’ research and training.

Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) TL1 trainees and KL2 scholars were surveyed to determine the immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on training and career development. The most negative impact was lack of access to research facilities, clinics, and human subjects, plus for KL2 scholars lack of access to team members and need for homeschooling. TL1 trainees reported having more time to think and write. Common strategies to maintain research productivity involved time management, virtual connections with colleagues, and shifting to research activities not requiring laboratory/clinic settings. Strategies for mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on training and career development are described.