ABSTRACT IMPACT: This abstract presents a generalizable process to evaluate, and act on, community advisory board perceptions of collaboration effectiveness to improve clinical and translational research network function. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Community advisory boards (CAB) play an important role in facilitating relevant and externally valid, clinical and translational research (CTR). The objective of this presentation is to describe a participatory process to derive collaboration metrics that can be used to assess CAB effectiveness. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: During the 4th and 5th years of the Great Plains IDeA CTR award, we used a mixed-methods approach that included CAB (1) discussions related to the need to assess collaboration effectiveness, (2) review of the validated Wilder Collaboration Inventory to identify factors that, if maximized, would improve a sense of team science and enhance productivity, (3) planning for assessment frequency and follow-up processes, and (4) review of collaboration data to determine necessary actions for improvement. Qualitative data were gathered across components of the mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data were collected and reviewed by the CAB (n=11 members) during the 1st quarter of award year 5. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: CAB members expressed an interest in assessing collaboration effectiveness, identified important factors to assess, and agreed that annual assessment and follow-up would be appropriate. Key factors identified and assessed (5-point agreement scale--higher score reflects stronger agreement) were 1) mutual respect/trust (m=4.2); 2) appropriate cross section of members (m=3.6); 3) a shared stake in the process and outcomes (m=3.9); 4) flexibility in decision-making/collaboration (m=4.1); 5) roles and policy guidelines (m=3.6); 6) open communication (m=3.9); 7) goal achievement (m=4.0); 8) shared vision (m=4.0); and 9) skilled leadership (m=4.4). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: CAB reflection on the initial collaboration assessment resulted in developing plans to broaden membership and clarify roles and policy guidelines related to CAB participation. There was strong consensus related to the utility of this assessment approach.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: Regional health issues can be best addressed at the population-level and input from the communities is vital for prioritization of health issues. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Great Plains IDeA-CTR (GP IDeA-CTR) was developed to increase clinical and translational research (CTR) that can address regional health priorities. Here we describe a collaborative process used to identify regional health priorities using existing surveillance data and community input. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used a participatory approach that included a partnership between the GP IDeA CTR Community-Engagement and Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design Cores to ensure priorities were data driven and also aligned with community-based perceptions of need. First, aggregated surveillance data across Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota was presented to the GP IDeA CTR Community Advisory Board (CAB). Second, CAB members formed small groups and considered the information and generated priority health area lists. Third, small group lists were considered and discussed by the full CAB to finalize priority areas. Finally, the CAB reviewed the priorities annually thereafter. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We identified priority areas for CTR that included (1) behavioral health, (2) injury prevention, (3) obesity, (4) technology to improve health care access, (5) connecting clinical/community services, and (5) addressing health disparities. These priorities align with population-based surveillance data that show lack of mental health care access, high prevalence of obesity, higher incidence of accidents, and existing racial, ethnic, and geographic health disparities. The CAB highlighted that research was also needed to improve how people can access the health innovations developed through CTR to address the other priority health issues with a goal to have an impact on population health. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: By integrating data- and community-driven approaches we identified regional health priority areas that if addressed, can have significant impact in the GP IDeA CTR region. The priorities are listed on all GP IDeA-CTR funding announcements to encourage CTR in these areas.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: Leverage community engagement to continue moving translational science and research forward. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Engaging community in translational research improves innovation and speeds the movement of evidence into practice. Yet, it is unclear how community is engaged across the translational research spectrum or the degree of community-engagement used. We conducted a scoping review to fill this gap. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used the PRISMA model search strategy with a range of databases (e.g., PubMed/Medline, Scopus) to identify articles published between January 2008 and November 2018 (n=167) and eliminated studies that did not use any level of community-engagement (n=102). Studies were coded for translational stage-corresponding to T0 (basic science), T1 (basic science to clinical research in humans; n=6), T2 (clinical efficacy and effectiveness research, n=45), T3 (dissemination and implementation research, n=95), and T4 (population health, n=21) as well as the degree of community engagement from least to most intensive (i.e., outreach, consultation, involvement, collaboration, shared leadership). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The final number of eligible articles was 65. There was a relatively balanced distribution across levels of community engagement across articles (i.e., outreach, n=14; consultation, n=13; involvement, n=7; collaboration, n=15; shared leadership, n=16). Within these articles, the depth of community engagement varied with higher engagement typically occurring at later stages of translational research (T3 and T4), but more specifically in the dissemination and implementation science stage (T3). However, shared leadership, the most intensive form of engagement, was found in T2, T3, and T4 studies suggesting the value of community-engagement across the translational research spectrum. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: A strong understanding of how various levels of community engagement are used in translational research, and the outcomes they produce, may to expedite the translation of knowledge into practice and enable practice-based needs to inform policy.

The goal of this study was to assess the utility of participatory needs assessment processes for continuous improvement of developing clinical and translational research (CTR) networks. Our approach expanded on evaluation strategies for CTR networks, centers, and institutes, which often survey stakeholders to identify infrastructure or resource needs, using the case example of the Great Plains IDeA-CTR Network. Our 4-stage approach (i.e., pre-assessment, data collection, implementation of needs assessment derived actions, monitoring of action plan) included a member survey (n = 357) and five subsequent small group sessions (n = 75 participants) to better characterize needs identified in the survey and to provide actionable recommendations. This participatory, mixed-methods needs assessment and strategic action planning process yielded 11 inter-related recommendations. These recommendations were presented to the CTR steering committee as inputs to develop detailed, prioritized action plans. Preliminary evaluation shows progress towards improved program capacity and effectiveness of the network to respond to member needs. The participatory, mixed-methods needs assessment and strategic planning process allowed a wide range of stakeholders to contribute to the development of actionable recommendations for network improvement, in line with the principles of team science.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To complete a needs assessment and action planning process that engaged clinical and translational research network members in identifying needs through survey feedback, characterizing the needs in small group sessions, and developing recommendations for action at the network’s annual scientific meeting. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The project included (1) a survey of 357 members across partner institutions from the Great Plains IDeA CTR Network, (2) 6 - 90 minute brainstorming sessions to characterize needs identified through survey assessment, and (3) 6 - 60 minute sessions to develop recommendations for network improvement based on the characterization activity. Approximately 75 members participated in the characterization and recommendation sessions. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Seven areas of need from the survey were identified based upon the frequency of identification by network members (support to move research across the translational spectrum, database design and management, data access and sharing, data analysis, recruitment and retention of subjects, support for members who have submitted grants but were repeatedly unsuccessful, mentoring). Members indicated which characterization sessions they were interested in attending and based on the enrollment numbers needs related to unsuccessful grant submitters and mentoring were combined as were needs related to database design and data access-sharing. Sessions resulted in 8 inter-related recommendations for network action that included to (1) develop GP-CTR directory/registry of clinicians, researchers, system partners, that can be used to identify people that want to be involved in research partnerships or mentoring, (2) create a GP CTR Navigators Program to will provide support to network members throughout the collaborative research and grant preparation process, (3) identify and disseminate information about assets (funding, databases/registries) that exist amongst network partners that can be leveraged by member, (4) develop a searchable repository of evidence-based interventions for T3/T4 efforts, (5) review GP CTR supported professional development, and technological resource offerings and identify potential gaps, (6) facilitate opportunities for peer support/networking, (7) provide guidance to GP CTR network institutions looking to adopt policies that will support translational research collaboration, and (8) identify potential barriers to GP CTR network engagement (i.e., infrastructure, communication, marketing). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This process allowed for a wide range of network members to contribute to actionable recommendations for CTR leadership to move into action and improve the scientific network’s ability to conduct clinical and translational research.