OBJECTIVES/GOALS: In March 2019, Duke updated recruitment guidelines and adopted an “Engagement” policy that requires patients to ‘opt-out’ of communications regarding potential research participation. This created an opportunity to evaluate recruitment for ongoing clinical studies pre and post implementation. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Implementation of the new policy required new training for study teams, modification to recruitment plans, and expansion of ongoing efforts to improve direct-to-patient messaging through EPIC/MyChart tools. The impact of this new policy on overall recruitment was monitored and characterized both prior to and after implementation of the policy. Customized MyChart messages have been generated for over 22 studies, with a total of 41,386 messages sent to potential participants. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Only a small number of study teams have modified their recruitment plans with transition to the new policy. This may be related to lack of understanding about policy implementation, potential recruitment opportunities, required training, resource limitations, etc. However, our case study, TMIST, had an 48% improvement in average enrollment within the first 2 months of implementation, and an almost 40% improvement in recruitment efficiency. Since becoming an “opt-out” institution, 11 study teams have implemented direct-to-patient recruitment via the MyChart patient portal. One unintended consequence we’ve noted is several different study invitations to potential participants within some patient populations. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The new policy allows study teams to engage in direct-to-patient outreach, leading to an increase in enrollment for some studies. Incorporation of direct-to-patient messaging strategies can be a cost and resource saving measure to improve recruitment. The need to recruit similar populations demonstrated that strategic, thoughtful approaches are needed.

Many individuals who sustain moderate–severe traumatic brain injuries (TBI) are poor at recognizing emotional expressions, with a greater impairment in recognizing negative (e.g., fear, disgust, sadness, and anger) than positive emotions (e.g., happiness and surprise). It has been questioned whether this “valence effect” might be an artifact of the wide use of static facial emotion stimuli (usually full-blown expressions) which differ in difficulty rather than a real consequence of brain impairment. This study aimed to investigate the valence effect in TBI, while examining emotion recognition across different intensities (low, medium, and high).

Method: Twenty-seven individuals with TBI and 28 matched control participants were tested on the Emotion Recognition Task (ERT). The TBI group was more impaired in overall emotion recognition, and less accurate recognizing negative emotions. However, examining the performance across the different intensities indicated that this difference was driven by some emotions (e.g., happiness) being much easier to recognize than others (e.g., fear and surprise). Our findings indicate that individuals with TBI have an overall deficit in facial emotion recognition, and that both people with TBI and control participants found some emotions more difficult than others. These results suggest that conventional measures of facial affect recognition that do not examine variance in the difficulty of emotions may produce erroneous conclusions about differential impairment. They also cast doubt on the notion that dissociable neural pathways underlie the recognition of positive and negative emotions, which are differentially affected by TBI and potentially other neurological or psychiatric disorders. (JINS, 2014, 20, 1–10)