OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Review all approved companion diagnostics (CDxs) labeling for therapeutic class language. Examine the regulatory pathways of CDx products whose labels contain therapeutic class labeling. Develop recommendations for pharmaceutical industry professionals on best practices in the co-development of CDxs and oncology therapeutic products. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Literature discussing companion diagnostics was reviewed from EBSCOhost, PubMed, and OVID. The Intended Use language within CDx labels on the Food and Drug Administrations “List of Cleared or Approved Companion Diagnostic Devices (In Vitro and Imaging Tools)” website were reviewed on November 1, 2021 for therapeutics class language. For CDx products with therapeutic class label language, the regulatory history was evaluated to determine the development approach taken to achieve the language. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 45 CDxs were identified, of which only 2 contained therapeutic class labeling, both of which were devices for the identification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Three additional EGFR CDxs were approved; however, they did not contain therapeutic class labeling. The first CDx was the Cobas EGFR Mutation Test V2, which received therapeutic group label language as an update on October 27, 2020; however, prior to the therapeutic class labeling, three oncology products were named in the Intended Use: Tarceva (erlotinib), Tagrisso (osimertinib), and Iressa (gefitinib). The second CDx to incorporate therapeutic class labeling was the ONCO/Reveal Diagnostic Lung and Colon Cancer Assay upon initial approval on July 30, 2021. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: EGFR CDxs are the first to shift towards therapeutic class labeling. Indication, molecular alterations, and mechanism of action of the approved therapeutic class products, number of products approved, as well as CDx analytical and clinical validation influence class label relevance. Discussions with the FDA are encouraged early in development.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Although the clinical utility of whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasing, a gap exists between what WGS can deliver in quantity of genomic information and what results can be interpreted that patients and community members would find meaningful. Given the potential for incidental findings and variants of uncertain significance, an emphasis should be placed on understanding patient preferences towards receiving WGS results. To identify the current knowledge base on WGS preferences, we performed a scoping review. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A search on PubMed using terms “WES,” “WGS,” “genome sequencing,” ”attitudes,” and “preferences” identified survey research between 2012 and 2016. Summaries of population, sample, variables, and results were tabulated. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Of 13 studies identified, 6 surveyed community members, 6 included medical professionals, and 2 surveyed cohorts with a specific medical condition. Only 1 study used a nationally representative sample and no study focused on a medically underserved population. Patients were most interested in receiving medically actionable results, yet preferred to have access to all available data if desired. Genetics professionals are more conservative with the return of incidental and uncertain findings. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Existing surveys have limited representation of the US public. Future studies focused on medically underserved populations would provide a deeper understanding of attitudes and preferences toward WGS.

Objectives/Goals: To fully understand the scientific objectives, overall financial commitment, and outcome of the pilot projects. Methods/Study Population: We evaluated pilots reported in the in the annual, interim, and final Research Performance Progress Reports (RPPRs) for Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program UM1 and UL1 grants from FYs 2021–2023 to assess research categories across the translational science spectrum. We analyzed the number of pilots involving human subjects, vertebrate animals, both, or neither; financial allocations; publication outputs; and other characteristics. Pilots reported across multiple years were deduplicated and assigned to the latest reporting year. Each pilot was classified into broad (Category 1) and specific (Category 2) areas. Descriptive statistics, including means and frequency distributions, were generated. Multi-year pilots with NA or 0 values used the most recent prior value. Results/Anticipated Results: In the period from FY 2021 to 2023, 61 hubs reported 1,811 unique pilot projects in their RPPRs, receiving a total of approximately $62 million, of which two-thirds were expended. On average, each hub conducted 30 pilots with an award size of about $35K. Just over half of the pilots involved human subjects research (HSR), while about one-third were neither HSR nor vertebrate animal studies (VAS), with the remaining focused primarily on VAS. Notably, only 13% of pilots resulted in peer-reviewed publications. Collaborative efforts were observed in one-third of the projects. The majority of pilots fell into Preclinical Research (46%), followed by Clinical Research (33%) and Public Health (20%). Limitations in data quality were identified, and ten pilots reported $0 awarded funds, which may be captured in future RPPRs. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Analysis of pilots reported in RPPRs from FYs 2021–2023 across 61 hubs shows a strong focus on HSR, highlighting collaborative efforts that enhance translational science and align with CTSA goals. Future analysis will help assess the pilots’ impact and their alignment with NCATS’ mission to expedite research translation into health solutions.

Objectives/Goals: Communicating science to varied audiences is an essential component of conducting research. This study evaluated how science communication training impacted participants’ knowledge, confidence, and skills; examined sustained application of achieved skills; and assessed overall satisfaction of the training. Methods/Study Population: The Montefiore-Einstein CTSA hub partnered with the Alda Center for Communicating Science to offer their Foundational Series. The series aims to build effective science communication skills to 40 research faculty, staff, and trainees via three weekly 3-hour virtual workshops: The Essentials, Small Group Coaching, and Science Through Narrative. Retrospective pre-post surveys were administered after each workshop to measure changes in self-reported knowledge, confidence, and skills related to each learning objective using a 7-point Likert scale. Pre- and post-program score differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Participants also rated pacing and likelihood to recommend each workshop to their peers. A 3-month follow-up survey assessed sustained application of skills. Results/Anticipated Results: Pre-workshop knowledge, skills, and confidence related to all learning objectives for each workshop were generally moderate (median Likert score of 4). Participants showed significant improvement across all areas, with median scores increasing by 1-2 points on a 7-point Likert scale immediately post-session (P < 0.0001). All workshops were well received, with most participants indicating they would recommend them to peers and found the length appropriate. The 3-month follow-up survey showed sustained skill uptake, with participants reporting sometimes, often, or always applying skills from the various learning objectives within each workshop: Essentials (89%–94%), Small Group Coaching (77%–94%), and Science Through Narrative (80%–90%). Discussion/Significance of Impact: Effective science communication helps researchers build trust, meet community needs, and promote collaboration in translational research. We found that a short training course in science communication improves skills, confidence, and knowledge, with sustained skill retention observed after three months.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To outline the successes of Partners for the Advancement of Community Engaged Research (PACER), a Special Interest Group (SIG) of ACTS, created to bring together academic and community researchers to promote best practices, contribute to science and form collaborative networks to improve public health through community research and dissemination. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Developed from the CTSA Key Function Committee, PACER began monthly meetings in early 2015. Zoom replaced teleconference technology for the initial email list of about 100 people from 50 institutions which has grown to 225 members from 88 affiliates. Meeting attendance is 40 to 50. PACER meetings start with operational updates and member announcements (15 minutes), proceed to presentations (20-25 minutes), followed by Q & A and discussion (20 minutes). A subset of members functions as an Operations Workgroup, meeting monthly to discuss emerging issues and guide the group’s activities. Email traffic is intentionally limited to one or two messages a month, including meeting announcements. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: PACER meetings have included 65 presentations. Featured speakers have described local community engaged research, explored methodology, and talked about diversifying the workforce, ethics, programs and partnerships. PACER members have collaborated on three manuscripts published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science; one with 50 members and 20 institutions contributing. Additionally, PACER members obtained two federal grants, including a network to recruit underrepresented scientists and diverse participants for the All of Us precision medicine effort. These projects totaled $23.5M in funding and involved 9 CTSA hubs. Measuring the value of ongoing dialogue and promulgation of successful practices through presentations has proven challenging. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: ACTS support helps PACER SIG members share research interests, develop papers and proposals, and archive meeting materials on the SIG webpage. Beginning with Translational Science 2018, the in-person PACER meeting is a much-anticipated opportunity to meet colleagues and foster new collaborations, and is a critical addition to the PACER calendar.

Objectives/Goals: In alignment with the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) UM1, continuous quality improvement (CQI) needs to be integrated into the elements and hub evaluation. As a first step to operationalizing this process, the University of Cincinnati hub (CCTST) evaluation team developed a systematic approach to prioritizing and sequencing tasks for aligning evaluation methods with CQI. Methods/Study Population: A scoring sheet was developed to provide a framework for prioritizing and developing the sequence and timeline for supporting elements in aligning their evaluation methods with CQI. The scoring sheet assessed: 1) impact – defined as the results from completing the task and implementing enhancements; 2) effort – defined as the amount of resources (time, personnel, and materials) needed to complete the tasks; 3) reach – defined as number of individuals (e.g., CTSA employees, members, researchers, trainees, and community members) impacted by the tasks or products of the tasks; 4) urgency – defined as a task that is time-sensitive due to a deadline and has a clear consequence if not completed on time. Each component was assessed using a 3-point scale (e.g., minimal, moderate, and high). Results/Anticipated Results: In Fall 2024, the CCTST evaluation team met with respective elements to collect data on their: 1) need from the evaluation team to support aligning their evaluation methods with CQI, 2) challenges and barriers to improving evaluation and aligning with CQI methods, 3) number of hours per month available to support improving evaluation methods, and 4) current resources to dedicated to conducting an evaluation. Next, the evaluation team will transcribe the data from the meetings and code the data into the scoring sheet for each element. The scoring sheet is anticipated to produce a score that will be used to develop the sequence, timeline, and initial tasks for supporting elements in improving evaluation methods and aligning with CQI over the first year of the UM1. Discussion/Significance of Impact: CTSA hubs’ evaluation teams operating at full capacity may encounter barriers to implementing CQI efforts. This systematic approach – assessing the impact, effort, reach, and urgency to sequence evaluation and CQI alignment – can support evaluation teams by ensuring a balanced workload and optimizing operations for quality improvement.

Objectives/Goals: HiREC Endowment investment accelerates investigators readiness for research infrastructure and advance career development to conduct impactful research. Support access to facilities and resources, research training and scientific mentors, encourage collaborations, scientific outcomes dissemination, and grant submission. Methods/Study Population: HiREC Endowment employs competitive application and review process to identify and support early-stage and mid-career investigators with high potential for impactful research. Applicants submit proposals outlining objectives, infrastructure needs, and expected outcomes. Proposals are evaluated by experts based on scientific merit, feasibility, potential for external funding, and alignment with institutional priorities. Awardees receive targeted funding for building research capacity and facilitating submission of competitive grant applications. Ongoing progress is monitored through periodic reporting to ensure effective use of resources and achievement of defined milestones. Mentorship and training are provided for academic and research development of emerging faculty and investigators. Results/Anticipated Results: Awards represent a strategic institutional investment that empowers researchers to build sustainable research capacity and achieve meaningful scientific impact, without relying solely on external grants. Over 36 awards have been offered, resulting in more than $1M funds committed to strengthen the institutional research culture. Awards distribution was 12 Mini, 6 Advanced, 2 Laboratory, 2 Special, and 14 MSc Scholars. Most awardees were affiliated to SoM (69%), followed by SoHP (27%). The 50% of HiREC awardees were PhD, followed by MD (30.6%). Awardees showed remarkable progress in their research careers and endeavors, academic promotions, local and national dissemination, publication in peer-reviewed high impact journals, social media, and other mechanisms, and obtaining external funds as R01 level. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The HiREC Awards focus on early-stage and established investigators to pursue high-quality research and obtain external funding. This support has offered protected research time, access to infrastructure, mentorship, collaborations, and training – key elements in their success and in strengthening our institutional research culture.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: Results will inform the design of health information technologies that assess and improve clinicians’ interpersonal communication supporting co-management of care across health institutions. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Poor communication and co-management of comorbidities during the referral process increase physician workload, patient burden, and safety risks. In this preliminary study, our objective was to understand how consultants’ notes support physician collaboration within and across health care institutions. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We reviewed medical records. Accessing the Indiana Network for Patient Care database, consultation notes were randomly selected from four specialties: cardiothoracic surgery, neurology, rheumatology, and oncology. These specialties were identified, in advance, as challenging in interprofessional communication. The notes reviewed were associated with in-person consultations at a medical network in the Midwest from 2016 to 2019, including internal and cross-institutional (i.e., external) referrals. The Quality of Consult Assessment tool was adapted to assess note quality and co-management facilitation. Two researchers reviewed all records independently. A consensus meeting was then held to discuss and resolve discrepancies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Medical records of ten patients with comorbidities were reviewed. The mean age was 67 (SD= 12 years); one patient was a child. All consultation notes contained clinical recommendations. Seventy percent of notes referred to explicit consultant responsibilities. Conversely, only one contained explicit responsibilities for referrers. Medical records denoted reliance on support staff to send messages among referrers, consultants, and patients via phone calls and facsimile. The use of fax machines to send medical records to referrers was more prominent after cross-institutional consultations. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Clinical documentation supported specialty referrals for transitions of care rather than co-management of care. Accessing medical records across institutions contributed to a lack of clinical context, and workflow inefficiencies, when attempting to co-manage clinical care.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To build a multisite deidentified database of female adolescents, aged 12–21 years (January 2011–December 2012), and their subsequent offspring through 24 months of age from electronic health records (EHRs) provided by participating Community Health. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We created a community-academic partnership that included New York City Community Health Centers (n=4) and Hospitals (n=4), The Rockefeller University, The Sackler Institute for Nutrition Science and Clinical Directors Network (CDN). We used the Community-Engaged Research Navigation model to establish a multisite deidentified database extracted from EHRs of female adolescents aged 12–21 years (January 2011–December 2012) and their offspring through 24 months of age. These patients received their primary care between 2011 and 2015. Clinical data were used to explore possible associations among specific measures. We focused on the preconception, prenatal, postnatal periods, including pediatric visits up to 24 months of age. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The preliminary analysis included all female adolescents (n=49,292) and a subset of pregnant adolescents with offspring data available (n=2917). Patients were mostly from the Bronx; 43% of all adolescent females were overweight (22%) or obese (21%) and showed higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure, blood glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c, total cholesterol, and triglycerides levels compared with normal-weight adolescent females (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant association between the BMI status of mothers and infants’ birth weight, with underweight/normal-weight mothers having more low birth weight (LBW) babies and overweight/obese mothers having more large babies. The odds of having a LBW baby was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.89) lower in obese compared with normal-weight adolescent mothers. The risk of having a preterm birth before 37 weeks was found to be neutral in obese compared to normal-weight adolescent mothers (OR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.53, 1.25). Preliminary associations are similar to those reported in the published literature. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This EHR database uses available measures from routine clinical care as a “rapid assay” to explore potential associations, and may be more useful to detect the presence and direction of associations than the magnitude of effects. This partnership has engaged community clinicians, laboratory and clinical investigators, and funders in study design and analysis, as demonstrated by the collaborative development and testing of hypotheses relevant to service delivery.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Women and healthcare providers from underserved rural and urban communities participated in Community Engagement (CE) studios to offer perspectives for increasing research participation of women from diverse backgrounds prior to initiating recruitment for a randomized-controlled trial comparing treatments for urgency urinary incontinence. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: CE studios are listening sessions to gather patient or community input on specific study areas of interest before implementation. Ten CE studios were held via Zoom at five study sites (Rhode Island, Washington DC, Alabama, New Mexico, and Southern California). Each site held two studios: 1) women living with urgency urinary incontinence, 2) clinicians providing care in their areas. Participants gave recommendations on ways to increase study participation of women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds with a focus on recruitment and retention, identification of barriers to participation, and suggested approaches to overcome those barriers. Summaries were compiled from each CE studio to identify similar and contrasting recommendations across sites. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 80 participants (47 community women experiencing urgency urinary incontinence, and 33 healthcare professionals) participated across all sites. Studio participants discussed anticipated barriers for participant recruitment and retention with a focus on solutions to those barriers. Based on these suggestions, we created recruitment materials using pictures, videos, and simple terminology. We created educational content to help providers with current best practices for urinary urgency incontinence. We have allowed most study visits to be conducted virtually, identified affiliated clinics in various locations to improve proximity to undeserved communities, and have earmarked additional funds to help offset travel costs including gas, public transportation, and childcare. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: CE studios have provided pragmatic patient- and provider-centered recommendations that have been incorporated into functional strategies to improve research participation and diversity. CTSA CE core expertise can support successful CE studio planning and implementation.

The Weill Cornell Heart to Heart Community Outreach Campaign (H2H) is a free outreach program that provides mobile health screenings. The program brings medical and nursing faculty and students to the underserved, uninsured communities of New York City. Participants are screened for diabetes and heart disease risk factors through onsite exams, including point of care blood tests. If an abnormality is found, they receive a medical consultation to offer personalized advice and referrals to free/low-cost clinics when needed. The goal is to help underserved individuals understand their cardiometabolic health and to promote early intervention. This article describes the development of the program, including factors that were essential to the collaboration, challenges faced, barriers to implementation, and its evolution throughout the first 12 years. The program has benefited from strong foundational program leadership, effective inter-institutional collaboration, and maintaining community trust.

Enterprise data warehouses for research (EDW4R) is a critical component of National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. EDW4R operations have unique needs that require specialized skills and collaborations across multiple domains which limit the ability to apply existing models of information technology (IT) performance. Because of this uniqueness, we developed a new EDW4R maturity model based on prior qualitative study of operational practices for supporting EDW4Rs at CTSA hubs. In a pilot study, respondents from fifteen CTSA hubs completed the novel EDW4R maturity index survey by rating 33 maturity statements across 6 categories using a 5-point Likert scale. Of the six categories, respondents rated workforce as most mature (4.17 [3.67–4.42]) and relationship with enterprise IT as the least mature (3.00 [2.80–3.80]). Our pilot of a novel maturity index shows a baseline quantitative measure of EDW4R functions across fifteen CTSA hubs. The maturity index may be useful to faculty and staff currently leading an EDW4R by creating opportunities to explore the index in local context and comparison to other institutions.

Identifying and disseminating actionable intelligence is a challenging task that requires thoughtful planning. The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences instituted the Common Metrics Initiative with the goal of evaluating the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Programs using a standard set of metrics. Initially managed by Tufts University, the Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration (CLIC) at the University of Rochester began leading this initiative in 2017. In directing this work, CLIC created a framework for communicating and disseminating data insights. Insights to Inspire emerged from the need to share strategies and lessons learned to improve metric performance at the local level to a network of 60+ academic research institutions. Insights to Inspire employs a mixed methods approach for translating data into actionable intelligence. A series of blogs, webinars, and webcasts were designed to communicate metric-specific strategies used by individual sites to the broader CTSA consortium. A dissemination plan to expand the reach beyond metric stakeholders utilized focused communications including social media channels, network newsletters, and presentations at national meetings. This framework serves as a blueprint for other national evaluation programs interested in a systematic approach to using data insights for continuous improvement.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: This project successfully implemented a promising team science model by introducing and facilitating best practices to develop high functioning teams working to accelerate health innovations from bench to bedside. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this project was to improve the team science knowledge, skills, and attitudes of interdisciplinary engineering students (undergraduate and graduate) who were partnered with health professionals to develop technical solutions to translational health challenges during a year-long Engineering Innovation in Health (EIH) program. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We adapted, implemented, and evaluated team science training content and approaches in the EIH program at the University of Washington (UW). EIH faculty and the UW Institute of Translational Health Sciences’ (ITHS) Team Science Core co-developed and delivered highly interactive team science training modules and evaluated their impact with biannual surveys. A student cohort was surveyed prior to the implementation of the team science trainings, which served as a baseline. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize student demographics and survey responses within and between years. Median and interquartile range of responses to Likert-type questions were calculated, and Mann-Whitney U Tests (independent samples Wilcoxin Rank Sum Tests) were used to test for differences within and between years. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: During both the baseline and the team training year, student demographics were similar in terms of gender and past experience working in teams. Team training during the first year of implementation was well-received. Post-implementation surveys of students demonstrated measurable improvement in team dynamics, communication, and effectiveness; including, students reporting higher levels of psychological safety and self-efficacy within their teams. Comparisons within the team training year and between the baseline and team training years identified numerous instances in which differences were statistically significant. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Tailored team science training in an interdisciplinary EIH program was successful at improving psychological safety and self-efficacy among undergraduate and graduate students and offers a promising model for similar settings and audiences.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this project was to a) evaluate the first five years of Miami CTSI’s Pilot Translational and Clinical Studies Program using outcome measures that quantify research productivity augmented by the CTSA Common Metrics; and b) use the results to shape future program management. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Pilot Program applicant and awardee demographic data were collected during the first 5-year cycle of the Miami CTSI grant. Projects were categorized into the translation spectrum based on type of research using published guidelines. Research productivity from funded pilot projects were tracked annually using internal institutional grant award databases and external databases such as PubMed and NIH Reporter. CTSA Common Metrics were tracked using the Results Based Accountability framework. Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), NIH percentile and translation impact of pilot project publications were determined using the iCite tool (NIH Office of Portfolio Analysis). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The Miami CTSI’s Pilot Award Program demonstrated notable success in its first five years. Of the twenty-two projects that were funded during that time period, 45% led to follow-on funding for a total of $17.2M—a strong return on investment of 15:1. Further, 77% of awardees had at least one publication. A total of four patents and 43 publications resulted directly from the funded projects. The mean RCR for all publications was 2.7, weighted RCR was 99.87, and nine papers were been cited by clinical documents. Overall, 63% of the projects were classified as T1/T2 (pre-clinical/clinical research) and 37% as T3/T4 (post-clinical translational research/public health). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Miami CTSI’s Pilot Award Program demonstrated success in scholarly output, follow on funding, and scientific impact. These results will serve as benchmarks going forward and will allow the CTSI to leverage program strengths in collaborating with other institutional internal award mechanisms.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Calls for health care organizations to promote health equity, through reducing health care disparities and addressing the social determinants of health, are growing and disrupt assumptions about equal care and the role of the health care delivery system more generally. This paper uses qualitative data to explore the emotions that health care personnel express as they make sense of the newfound emphasis on equity. To do so, we consider the relationships between social identity, sense of control, emotion, cognition, and action. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The principle investigator conducted 21 semistructured interviews with senior leaders and equity team members and 7 focus groups with providers and staff employed at one of Minnesota’s largest health care system. The PI asked respondents to describe recent conversations about equity in their workplaces and to identify barriers and facilitators to addressing equity. Focus group participants were also asked to imagine colleagues’ reactions—“what would they say, think, and feel”—should they be asked to adapt practices to address the social determinants of health, community health, and healthcare disparities. Interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed. Two coders independently coded each transcript for themes and then compared and reconciled their coding. Reactions to equity work emerged inductively during the coding process. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Findings suggest that discourses on health equity can disrupt personal and professional identities and trigger a mixture of emotions, including fear, sadness, and excitement. Personnel with broad, or flexible, constructions of their work roles experienced less disruption, and more positive emotions, than those personnel who constructed narrow, or rigid, professional identities. Those who expressed a stronger sense of control also expressed more positive emotions, such as happiness and hope, and were excited about the prospect of greater accountabilities related to equity. Those who doubted the existence of disparities were defensive and pointed to cues such as standardized care protocols and perceptions of colleagues’ professionalism to oppose change. Those who perceived low organizational self-efficacy, due to a lack of time, skills, or knowledge, often expressed frustration and helplessness. Their sensemaking focused on the lack of progress and sought sensegiving about ways to “make it workable.” DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Discussions about equity are new in healthcare and trigger mixed reactions, drawing out provider and staff’s hopes, fears, and anxieties. Variations in emotional reactions may be related to differing perceptions about sense of control over disparities and the social determinants of health. If we want to enlist health care providers, nurses, and managers in efforts to improve health equity, we need to understand these emotions and sensemaking processes.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: Investigators in clinical and translational research will be better supported by CTSAs that reduce barriers to the efficient and effective utilization of their program services. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Evidence from three CTSAs show that investigators do not take advantage of all program services provided. This session will explore the patterns and sources of underutilization by sharing preliminary results from investigators and program managers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Interviews with investigators at all three CTSA sites were conducted in Spring 2020. Investigators who had only used one program service and those who had used multiple program services across a span of three-years (2016 to 2018) were included in the sample. Investigators who had only used REDCap, were excluded. Interviews numbered about six interviews per site. Content analysis helped identify emerging themes and patterns. A survey with program managers at the three CTSA sites will be deployed in January 2021. Program managers across all programs will be included in the sample. Basic descriptive analysis will be used to analyze the data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Interviews with investigators at all sites illuminated ways different investigators use, learned about and leveraged services, as well as the barriers they encountered to using cross-program services. Investigators also provided thoughts on ways to address lack of program service use. Survey results are expected to clarify program managers’ knowledge of other program services in their CTSA, programs’ referral processes, and the barriers program managers face when recommending other services to users. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: When investigators do not take full advantage of all program services provided, investigators are put at risk of having longer, less successful projects. Knowing the sources of underutilization can help curb this trend and effectively address investigator needs throughout the research process.