Objectives/Goals: The CTSA at the University of Michigan, MICHR, has conducted a sequential mixed-methods needs assessment of a network of over 250 dissemination and implementation scientists working at the university. The purpose of this evaluation is to identify the research training needs of this network and to inform efforts to improve the networks’ productivity. Methods/Study Population: An IRB-approved sequential mixed-methods needs assessment of a network of over 250 dissemination and implementation scientists was conducted. First, surveys were sent to all members of the network using Qualtrics. This survey was designed to measure the challenges and facilitators encountered by members of this network, using response categories aligned with the Translational Science Benefits Model (Luke et al., 2018) to facilitate the identification of programmatic improvement goals. The survey also asked questions regarding network members’ training preferences, and their current plans to design specific types of implementation science clinical trials (Fortney et al., 2024). Survey respondents also indicated their availability for subsequent interviews to explore their career and training paths. Results/Anticipated Results: Surveys were sent out to over 250 individual members of the Implementation Science Network supported by MICHR. This network includes 249 U-M employees representing 44 departments or units, 7 individuals from Veterans Affairs and 16 from other Institutions, and of these 32 individuals (11%). Despite this low response rate, the results clearly indicated that accessing D&I training/educational resources, or learning about relevant measures, metrics and testable strategies was a major barrier to 71% of network members, with 61% particularly interested in training on developing and testing strategies. Most respondents (54%) reported that having more financial resources was a facilitator of their work and 62% volunteered to be interviewed about their careers. Interviews are being conducted and analyzed. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The results of this evaluation suggest dissemination and implementation scientists need more formal training programs, specifically ones focused on the selection of implementation strategies for testing in pragmatic and hybrid clinical trials. This work provides a rigorous and reproduceable methods for CTSAs to conduct needs assessments.

Objectives/Goals: Established in 2006, Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) support programs at research institutions that accelerate the “bench to bedside” timeline. This project explores how funded hubs describe their programs’ contributions to scientific rigor and transparency. Methods/Study Population: Grant information associated with CTSA hub awards were extracted from NIH Reporter through their application programming interface (API). The primary author utilized text mining to analyze the corpus with a predetermined list of terms indicating support of research transparency and reproducibility. As a point of comparison, a second set of terms were drawn from key attributes of “gold standard science” described in Executive Order 14303. Frequency distributions were used to quantify the usage of specific vocabulary across cooperative (U), career development (K), and training (T) grant types, and over time (2006 to 2024). Results/Anticipated Results: As a less-structured metadata field, project abstracts have posed challenges for data cleaning and analysis. The abstracts retrieved through the API occasionally contain irregular formatting and unexpected insertions. Preliminary findings show that CTSA hub awards most frequently and consistently described “interdisciplinary,” “multidisciplinary,” “collaboration,” or “collaborative” approaches. Over time, abstracts increasingly emphasized “reproducible” science or “reproducibility.” Among abstracts for cooperative agreements (UL1 and UM1), mentions of “data sharing” and “data commons” infrastructure peaked in parallel with the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The strategy employed in this project demonstrates how existing commitments made through CTSA may align with the framework proposed for “gold standard science”.

Objectives/Goals: Building on Schneider et al., which mapped translational science (TS) principles across urban CTSA hubs, evaluators and one pilots administrator within the Consortium of Rural States CTSAs examined how hubs prioritize these principles. This work can ensure shared TS values and inform a common rubric across rural CTSA institutions. Methods/Study Population: We analyzed CORES ranking data from eight CTSA hubs (n = 49 respondents). Item-level mean ranks and standard deviations summarized TS principle priorities, while respondent-averaged means reduced bias from unequal item counts. Site-level profiles were compared using Spearman rank correlations to examine cross-hub similarity. Results/Anticipated Results: Our analysis of CORES data (8 hubs, n = 49) replicates Schneider et al.’s finding that TS solutions center on generalizable solutions and efficiency/speed. Rural hub rankings showed tight agreement and low dispersion, confirming these as shared core TS values. Despite differing experimental and hub contexts, the pattern mirrors Schneider et al. (2024) and strengthens support that NCATS’ TS principles apply consistently across both urban and rural CTSA hubs. Discussion/Significance of Impact: CORES hubs prioritized Translational Science (TS) projects emphasizing generalizable solutions and efficiency, reflecting shared values. Findings align with prior TS/TR work and support creating a concise, qualitative TS rubric to guide co-funded projects with system-level impact.

Objectives/Goals: The Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) Launchpad at the University of Wisconsin – Madison (UW) supports a growing community of implementation scientists with the goal of strengthening the field. We conducted a survey to identify those doing the work, assess experiences, priorities, and needs to strengthen D&I at UW. Methods/Study Population: In September 2025, the UW ICTR D&I Launchpad administered a landscape survey via REDCap to UW individuals who had signed up for the D&I listserv, attended a D&I event, or received a D&I grant. The survey was also promoted at events for broader participation. The survey assessed D&I identity, skills, training experiences and needs, barriers, support preferences, and network. Of 851 invited and 13 requests, 229 responded (26.5% response rate). Respondents were 53% faculty, 39% staff, and 8% students/postdocs from over 10 UW schools, colleges, and partners. Results/Anticipated Results: Most respondents (67%) identified as contributing to D&I science; 33% said “No” or “Not sure,” citing lack of training, awareness, or other identity. Skill levels varied: 41% beginner, 39% intermediate, 12% advanced, and 4% expert. Top support needs for D&I research were funding, training, grant advice, and consultations. 47% reported receiving D&I training, most frequently through UW programs, coursework, and national programs. Requested training topics included implementation frameworks, strategy design, and trial design. 59% reported challenges, including funding, IRB, and lack of collaborators. Barriers to participating in training included time, cost, and relevance. Most individuals expressed interest in future D&I training, events, and growing the D&I community at UW. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The survey revealed strong interest in D&I across UW, with many contributing to the field but lacking formal training or support. Findings will guide the D&I Launchpad’s efforts to expand training, resources, and the D&I community network.

Objectives/Goals: Both mandibular advancement device (MAD) and hypoglossal nerve stimulation surgery (HGNS) are accepted options for positive airway pressure (PAP) intolerant OSA, yet decisions rely more on preference than evidence. We ask whether MAD is an effective alternative to HGNS for adults with moderate-to-severe OSA who have failed PAP. Methods/Study Population: In this single institution, nonrandomized clinical trial in adults with moderate-to-severe OSA (3% AHI 15-65) who failed, declined, or are intolerant to PAP were assessed for eligibility starting June 2025. Patients with BMI>40, prior MAD failure, or chronic nasal obstruction were excluded. PAP-intolerant patients from the WashU Sleep Center and ENT clinics were offered MAD (N = 30) and compared with propensity score-matched patients scheduled for HGNS at the same center (N = 30). Follow-up data will be collected 4 weeks after treatment (MAD) or post-titration (HGNS). Planned analyses will control for baseline differences and other factors associated with outcomes. Results/Anticipated Results: We will capture the change in baseline and post-intervention patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and sleep metrics to compare treatment efficacy. PROMs include: the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (primary outcome), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and SNORE-25 for OSA-related quality of life. Sleep metrics include AHI, oxygen desaturation Index, and modified Sher criteria. Data on adherence, tolerability, treatment satisfaction, and adverse events will also be collected. To date, we have enrolled 19 of 60 participants. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This study will estimate the magnitude of the difference in the change in PROMs and sleep study outcomes between MAD and HGNS. Findings may guide post-PAP treatment selection, inform payer coverage for MAD therapy, and provide data for a follow-up RCT.

Objectives/Goals: Build systematic evaluation capacity within a CTSA hub’s Community Engagement program to assess community-engaged research partnerships, programs, and capacity-building activities using mixed methods while advancing translational science through continuous quality improvement. Methods/Study Population: The University of Minnesota CTSI’s Community Engagement program (CEARCH) developed a comprehensive evaluation approach combining participatory approaches with systematic data collection. The CEARCH Management Council, composed of faculty and community partners, guides evaluation strategy. Methods and data sources include surveys, focus groups, program evaluations, grant progress reports, partnership assessments, and environmental scans. Tools include evaluation logic models, running evaluation inventories, REDCap and Zoho data management platforms, and an accessible dashboard tracking grant impacts, community partnerships, training and consultation outcomes. Results/Anticipated Results: CEARCH established systematic tracking of multiple evaluation domains: grant programs (demographics, topics, satisfaction), partnership metrics (meeting frequency, satisfaction, project numbers), training data (attendance, satisfaction), and impact. Visual dashboards and infographics display pilot grant outcomes including dissemination activities, significant outcomes, and stakeholder engagement. Community Health Collaborative Pilot Grants demonstrated diverse community-engaged research across health topics, populations served, and Minnesota regions. Evaluations identified needs for improving partnership processes, defining capacity readiness, and documenting community-identified assets, needs, and priorities. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This case demonstrates how translational science organizations can build sustainable evaluation approaches for community engagement programs. Systematic evaluation infrastructure enables continuous quality improvement, documents translational impact, and strengthens authentic academic-community partnerships.

Objectives/Goals: Alterations in the patterns of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) have been proposed to play a role in the development of symptoms related to Chiari I malformation (CMI). We aim to use 4D MRI to evaluate CSF fluid dynamics in CMI, including CSF pressures and local flow vectors, and their association with pre- and post-operative symptoms. Methods/Study Population: Study Population: Pediatric and adult patients diagnosed with Chiari I malformation (caudal descent of cerebellar tonsils ≥ 5 mm below the foramen magnum) at Washington University in St. Louis. Methods: Patients underwent CSF 4D flow MRI studies on 3.0T MRI at Washington University in St. Louis. The acquired imaging data will be preprocessed to unwrap velocity aliasing, denoise, and account for MRI-associated eddy artifact. Flow visualization and quantification will be performed in order to calculate patient-specific flow patterns, such as flow vortices and bidirectional flow, and vectors, such as peak velocity, at CSF spaces of the brain and spine. Clinical data, including demographics, symptom history (e.g., headache), physical exam findings, and presence of syrinx have already been collected. Results/Anticipated Results: We anticipate that patients with greater preoperative CSF flow heterogeneities and abnormalities of flow vectors will be associated with a higher likelihood of symptoms, and that patients with greater postoperative normalization of these variables will be more likely to experience symptom relief. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The role of CSF hydrodynamics in CMI remains incompletely understood. We aim to examine whether alterations in CSF flow may explain why some patients are asymptomatic, while others suffer debilitating headaches and cranial nerve palsies. The results would expand scientific knowledge and may aid in identifying patients likely to benefit from surgery.

Objectives/Goals: Prompted by low survey response rates, the University of Cincinnati CTSA hub undertook a comprehensive redesign of our annual membership survey and methods. The objective is to describe our stepwise survey redesign process to increase participation and improve evaluation data quality. Methods/Study Population: As a first step, we updated the survey distribution list by removing all undeliverable and unsubscribed emails. Next, to provide a framework for revising survey items, we explicitly defined our evaluation questions: Who are our members; how often do they interact with the CCTST; how do they want to interact with the CCTST; what current resources or services are being used by our members; how do we reduce barriers to understanding what the CCTST offers & does? We prioritized survey items addressing ≥2 evaluation questions. Items were then categorized by membership role, constructs (e.g., awareness, improvement), and alignment with evaluation questions. Once the survey was finalized in the final form, the evaluation team presented the revised survey to the UC CTSA hub executive committee members for feedback. Results/Anticipated Results: Over 1382 (24.7%) email addresses were removed from the distribution list (n = 1185 were invalid; n = 158 had not accessed their CCTST account in >10 years; n = 8 unsubscribed from the distribution email; n = 31 no email listed for member). Using the evaluation questions, we reduced the survey from 72 to 43 questions. In addition, time to complete the survey ranged between 01:30 and 36:00 with an average of 05:39. After improvements were made to the survey and methods, we sent the survey to 4,426 valid email addresses. Of those that received the survey, 132 completed the survey (response rate = 3%). Discussion/Significance of Impact: Improvements aim to boost response rates, provide actionable insights, and guide CTSA hub governance and program development. Next, we will conduct qualitative focus groups with members in the spring to build on our quantitative results and provide in-depth insights regarding membership engagement.

Objectives/Goals: The Dissemination, Implementation, and Continuous Quality Improvement (DICQI) team at the Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute (WF CTSI) has implemented the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) to assess impact evaluation and drive excellence in translational science. Methods/Study Population: The DICQI team collaborated with the Work Force Development, Community & Stakeholder Research Engagement, and Pilot programs to implement TSBM questions into already established surveys and applications in an effort to reduce fatigue. Respondents select up to five benefits they anticipate their project impacting and provide a brief description of each. A follow-up survey is deployed at project completion to ask if the benefits were actually impacted, with space to add additional benefits if needed. The REDCap team assisted with the build, so the anticipated benefits automatically populate into the follow-up surveys, which are typically sent after one year but are project/program dependent. Results/Anticipated Results: We anticipate that by including TSBM questions into established surveys and applications, survey burden will be low and response rate will be high. These data will be used to create impact profiles and case studies. A section of our CTSI website will be dedicated to these deliverables, we will disseminate them internally, and we will submit the most compelling ones to the TSBM website. Once we have enough TSBM data gathered, we will create dashboards to display a broad evaluation of our CTSI impact. We will also use the dashboards to identify gaps in our impact and adjust pilot funding to support projects that address such gaps. Discussion/Significance of Impact: By keeping the TSBM questions brief, auto populating the follow-up survey with previous responses, and adding to existing surveys, we expect a high response rate leading to robust data for long-term evaluation, informed decision-making, and effective dissemination.

Objectives/Goals: Apply the NCATS translational science principles as a framework to describe CTSA UM1 hub activities in terms of effective translational science approaches. Identify and characterize the distribution of principles across UM1-funded initiatives to support strategic management and reporting. Methods/Study Population: Hub-affiliated faculty and staff convened at an annual, in-person retreat for the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences (NUCATS) Institute. Module teams, including at least one co-lead from Workforce Development for Clinical Research Staff Professionals (C1), Community and Partner Engaged Research (C2), Resources and Services (D1), and Health Informatics (D3), completed a concept mapping exercise to identify which, if any, of the 7 translational science principles were exemplified by their initiatives. Teams worked collaboratively to map principles to each initiative. Data were aggregated at the module and hub levels. Results/Anticipated Results: Each module reported 5–10 active, UM1-funded initiatives. Every initiative was mapped to>2 translational science principles, with 2 initiatives mapped to all 7 principles. On average, 4.6 principles were identified per initiative. “Focus on Unmet Needs” was the most highly reported across all initiatives. “Boundary-Crossing Partnerships,” mapped to all Community and Partner Engaged Research (C2) projects, and “Creativity and Innovation” mapped to all resources and services (D1). 90% of Informatics (D3) initiatives were mapped to “Generalizable Solutions.” Across the hub, “Bold and Rigorous Approaches” was the least likely to be identified. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The translational science principles can be used to frame module-specific and hub-wide strengths and gaps. Concept mapping can be incorporated into project planning and reporting to increase shared understanding and alignment with the principles that support the translational science enterprise.

Objectives/Goals: The current study seeks to evaluate daily health literacy utilization and self-efficacy as predictors of physical activity in adolescents and parents. Methods/Study Population: A 7-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study in which adolescent-parent dyads report baseline self-efficacy and health literacy utilization four times daily. Participants will also wear Fitbits continuously. Results/Anticipated Results: We anticipate that higher daily health literacy utilization at the day-level will predict greater physical activity at the day level. Self-efficacy is expected to moderate these effects. Cross-dyad effects are also expected, such that one partner’s higher daily health literacy utilization will predict improved health behaviors in the other. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Findings will clarify how daily fluctuations in health literacy and self-efficacy influence individual and dyadic engagement in physical activity, informing the development of adaptive family-based interventions and precision health literacy promotion. Objectives/Goals:

Methods/Study Population: We partnered with a local urban public school district to access school records for K5-5th grade students (N = 16, 528) in the district during the 2023–2024 school year. Students were matched to teachers and their SELC instruction records. Number of SELC lessons received over the school year was evaluated a predictor of discipline referrals and suspensions. Mixed effects zero-inflated negative binomial regression controlled for classroom- and school-level variation and the left-shifted distribution of disciplinary outcomes. Moderators were student race/ethnicity and gender. Covariates included age, economic disadvantage, special education status, days absent, and school characteristics including number of discipline referrals and suspensions per student and percent SELC completion. Results/Anticipated Results: We found that the number of SELC lessons predicted significantly fewer referrals for chronic disruption (β = −0.21, p < 0.001). Referrals for disorderly conduct, fighting, and chronic disruption were most common. On average per student, there were 1.44 (SD 1.49) referrals, 0.28 (SD 0.53) suspensions, and students received 11 (SD 9) of 20 total SELC lessons over the school year. However, SELC was 90% less effective for African American students, 80% less effective for Hispanic students, and not at all effective for Asian students compared to non-Hispanic White students in reducing chronic disruption referrals. SELC was also more effective for female students compared to male students for reducing chronic disruption referrals and not effective for reducing fighting referrals or suspensions among male students. Discussion/Significance of Impact: SELC had an inequitable impact on reducing chronic disruption referrals by race, ethnicity, and gender. The groups impacted tended to have fewer chronic disruption referrals compared to non-Hispanic White students, which may have contributed to this finding. However, the degree of difference suggests a need to improve equitable impacts of SELC.

Objectives/Goals: The goal of this project was to, first, identify potential improvements to administrators’ processes surrounding the maintenance and export of a digital research platform using human-centered design and, second, explore whether this approach could be integrated into a system evaluation of implementation and impact of the platform. Methods/Study Population: In alignment with the A3 template for quality improvement, MICHR staff prepared to conduct a systems evaluation of MICHR’s support and dissemination of Your Health Research (YHR), a digital platform for study participant recruitment by (1) identifying the background of programmatic and scientific opportunities being addressed, (2) assessing the current state of MICHR’s management of YHR, and (3) identifying S.M.A.R.T. goals for improvement, as well (4) the drivers of improvement. The iterative nature of the work that was undertaken aligns with the intent of A3 framework which presents these 4 steps as an iterative process. These iterative efforts included a tabletop exercise, a blueprinting workshop, and a survey of MICHR program staff about potential improvements. Results/Anticipated Results: YHR is designed to facilitate recruitment into clinical and translational research studies; the findings presented here show that it is feasible to evaluate the way MICHR deploys this tool for increasing effect. The use of Systems Evaluation Theory was not only appropriate (Renger, et al, 2025), this work shows how human-centered design approaches can be integrated into systems evaluations to facilitate the identification and continuous improvements to those systems (Melles, et al., 2021; Holman, et al, 2019; Meyer, et al, 2022). This work shows how clinical and translational science organizations like MICHR can contribute to the emergence of learning health systems by evaluating the infrastructure of academic medical centers designed to facilitate participant recruitment into research (Lopez et al., 2025). Discussion/Significance of Impact: This study responds to an enduring need for more research into the ways research institutions like MICHR can increasingly provide investigators with better infrastructure and tools, such as access to population-based data for real-time adjustments to their clinical and translational research studies.

Objectives/Goals: Trial accrual via electronic health records (EHRs) are limited by workflow and communication issues. We used a root cause analysis to identify barriers and guide changes in a pragmatic trial of metformin vs lifestyle change for prostate cancer. The goal is to evaluate strategies to increase accrual. Methods/Study Population: We previously conducted a mixed-methods root cause analysis to examine barriers along the enrollment pathway. The study required two consents: 1) prostate cancer research consortium participation and 2) trial specific. We assessed the trial’s EHR-embedded consent workflow and Best Practice Alert (BPA) implementation and aggregated and harmonized data from multiple EHR sources to reconstruct the full enrollment pathway in a CONSORT diagram. We conducted semi-structured interviews with eligible patients (n = 10) and engaged clinicians (n = 4). Based on interview findings and enrollment pathway insights, the study team designed and evaluated impact of several accrual enhancement strategies. Results/Anticipated Results: We identified two types of feasible accrual enhancement strategies: 1) patient-focused, including a) tracking consent status in the enrollment pathway report; b) proactively messaging patients with upcoming visits about consent; and 2) clinician-focused, including a) tailored EHR-based messages before eligible patient visits; b) targeted education; and c) BPA optimization to improve reach to appropriate clinicians. In the 6 months prior to strategy implementation, enrollment averaged 0.33 patients/month. In the 6 months post-implementation, enrollment increased to an average of 3.17 patients/month. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Sustained enrollment in pragmatic trials demands greater-than-expected engagement. In partnership, the study and informatics teams oversaw intervention processes based on trial-specific issues, identified issues quickly, explored feasible solutions, and refined the process to support trial success.

Objectives/Goals: The Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute (WF CTSI) provides resources such as services and tools for investigators. Due to the number of service users over the past six years, it has been a challenge to track usage and impact across the institution. Our goal is to create an internal dashboard to assist with tracking CTSI service usage. Methods/Study Population: The Dissemination, Implementation, and Continuous Quality Improvement (DICQI) team collaborated with members of the Service Programming team to develop an internal dashboard for tracking service usage. Service Programming team members sourced data from multiple systems, including the CTSI Service Request Form, CTSI Metrics Form, Profiles, and program-specific datasets. The PI Dashboard aggregates this data: service request and metrics form data are retrieved via the REDCap API, while publication data are queried from the Profiles database using Python’s pyodbc library. All collected data are parsed and stored in the dashboard’s internal database to support analytics and reporting functions. Results/Anticipated Results: Data pulled from multiple sources were integrated into a centralized internal dashboard for Wake Forest CTSI to review and evaluate metrics data such as service usage, program participation, and training/tool utilization. This CTSI service usage dashboard also was efficient for filtering data by dates, faculty researcher, or CTSI usage rate, which is helpful for reporting and long-term impact evaluation. This internal dashboard now will be integral in not only impact tracking but reporting for grant renewal periods of the Wake Forest CTSI. Discussion/Significance of Impact: A central database enables clear snapshots of WF CTSI impact, supporting long-term goals through strategic decision making, data quality, and collaboration. Understanding the broader impact of our CTSI is important for impact evaluation, reporting, and aligning with academic learning health system goals.

Objectives/Goals: Six CTSA hubs collected Translational Science Benefits (TSBM) Model data and implemented standardized coding to enhance rigor and reproducibility, assess the real-world impact of CTSA-supported research, and analyze cross-institutional impact trends. Methods/Study Population: Six CTSA hubs surveyed supported investigators who self-reported the TSBM benefits resulting from hub-supported project(s). De-identified data was shared with the University of California (UCI) CTSA. UCI coordinated with hubs to code their own data using a TSBM coding tool to assess which applicable criteria were met. UCI collected feedback on usability and facilitated discussions to enhance reliability across coders. UCI provided final datasets to hubs for site-specific analysis of benefits and conducted cross-site analyses of TSBM benefits. A benefit was demonstrated when 2 necessary criteria were met, and 80% of the possible criteria were met. Results/Anticipated Results: TSBM data were coded by 6 CTSA hubs from 86 pilot research projects. Most pilots were funded for 1 year (80%) with the mean award over $41,000. Investigators for projects were surveyed up to 7.5 years post-award, with the median timepoint around 3 years. Across hubs, 274 potential benefits were reported and 34 demonstrated benefits were confirmed from coding. Pilots more commonly had demonstrated clinical and medical benefits (16.3% of projects) than community (5.8%) or economic (3.5%). No projects had demonstrated policy benefits. Over 24% of projects had one or more demonstrated benefit of any kind. Demonstrated benefits were reported in 27.8% of projects surveyed within 2.5 years, 18.2% of projects from 2.5 to 5 years, and 50% of projects over 5 years post award. Discussion/Significance of Impact: A standardized, reliable coding process for TSBM data creates rigor for assessing real-world impact data that hubs can confidently connect to their support of CTSA funded-projects. This shared methodology across hubs allows for cross-institutional impact analysis and dissemination.

Objectives/Goals: Evaluate the impact of a community-engaged research (CEnR) training institute by assessing knowledge, skills, and sustained engagement and estimating societal value via logic-model guided surveys and social return on investment (sROI) utilizing a participatory evaluation approach. Methods/Study Population: We co-designed a logic model and evaluation plan with community partners for the Great Plains IDeA-CTR 2024 CEnR Institute. The day-long institute amplified community voices through sessions on trust building, co-creation of research, and equity in evaluation. The agenda for the institute was collaboratively developed with community and academic partners. Participants included 54 in-person and 29 virtual attendees representing researchers, community organizations, and practitioners. Using mixed methods, we administered a pre, post, and 6-month follow-up survey to assess knowledge, skills, and engagement; collected qualitative partner feedback; and conducted sROI analysis using stakeholder-defined indicators to estimate broader social impact. Results/Anticipated Results: Post-institute surveys showed significant gains in self-reported CEnR knowledge (+22.4%) and skills (+13.9%), along with the formation of 20 new partnerships among attendees. Six-month follow-up (n = 29) indicated 99.4% retention of knowledge and skills, as well as 3 newly funded community–academic collaborations averaging $135,000. Qualitative feedback highlighted strengthened partnerships and multidirectional learning between community and academic participants. sROI analysis estimated a social return of approximately ten dollars ($9.61) for every dollar invested in the training, demonstrating substantial social value generated relative to cost. Discussion/Significance of Impact: We present a scalable framework combining participatory methods, logic modeling, and sROI to capture the social impact of community-engaged programming. The institute generated a 9.61:1 social return, demonstrating that thoughtfully co-designed programming can measurably strengthen participant capacity and sustainable partnerships.

Objectives/Goals: As the field of implementation science (IS) enters its “teenage” years, most published examples describing capacity-building efforts within the field rely on quantitative methods and are retrospective. Very few of these studies engage in prospective, rigorous qualitative research to assess the needs of their local networks in building IS capacity. Methods/Study Population: Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with local investigators who had indicated prior interest in implementation science research and had been engaged with local CTSA resources at varying levels. The interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework in Implementation Research (CFIR) domains, and interviews were conducted via Zoom. Interviews were mostly hand transcribed, while the Zoom Transcribe feature was used for some interviews. Transcribed interviews were uploaded into Dedoose 10, and an inductive, iterative coding approach was taken for analysis. This study received exempt IRB approval from the University of Kansas Medical Center. Results/Anticipated Results: A total of seven faculty members, spanning the early to late career stages, participated in the interviews. They represented three of the major research institutions in the network, and the interviews lasted 24 to 58 minutes. The themes that emerged related to facilitators included mentorship, feedback opportunities, and dedicated funding. Themes related to barriers included a lack of methodological support, limited opportunities for collaboration, and a perceived exclusivity in the field of implementation science. From these, three recommendations were given: provide a dedicated IS funding opportunity locally, facilitate mentorship and collaborations, and promote leadership inclusiveness. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The study findings directly influenced the development of IS activities within the CTSI renewal. By applying IS’s best practices, utilizing qualitative assessments of implementation science networks can help the field address specific gaps in capacity building and respond more effectively to the needs of our investigators.

Objectives/Goals: To showcase a survey tool designed to assess awareness, engagement, satisfaction, and unmet research needs across a six-institution CTSA. To demonstrate how findings can inform strategic planning, resource allocation, and continuous quality improvement (CQI). Methods/Study Population: The Institute for Translational Medicine (ITM) is a partnership of six Chicago-area institutions led by the University of Chicago and Rush University. Since 2023, the ITM has conducted an annual online survey assessing engagement, satisfaction, and unmet research needs related to ITM-sponsored activities. Administered via Qualtrics to faculty and staff over a four-week period, the 12-minute survey includes 1) questions to assess engagement and referral to ITM resources; 2) a Net Promoter Score (NPS) to measure satisfaction and likelihood of recommending the program, with scores above 0 interpreted as positive; and 3) a clinical and translational research needs inventory with a “top 3 pain points” ranking to identify unmet needs. Responses were analyzed by institution and translational research stage. Results/Anticipated Results: Response rates were 26% in 2023 and 20% in both 2024 and 2025. Familiarity with the ITM increased each year from 68% in 2023, to 73% in 2024, and 79% in 2025, though about one-fifth of respondents remain unfamiliar. Participation in at least one ITM-sponsored activity varied by respondent pool, from 59% in 2023 to 35% in 2024, and 38% in 2025. Referral rates to ITM-sponsored activities ranged from 11 to 45% depending on the activity across the three years. NPS scores were consistently higher among participants (2023: -20; 2024: -5; 2025: 0) versus non-participants (2023: -53; 2024: -49; 2025: -45). Across three years, respondents have indicated that “analyze data” is the number one greatest unmet research need, though needs and pain points vary by site over time. Discussion/Significance of Impact: NPS findings suggest that greater engagement with ITM resources is associated with higher satisfaction and likelihood of referral. Most participants report positive experiences, demonstrating program value. Challenges remain in reaching unfamiliar researchers, highlighting opportunities to expand awareness and address unmet research needs.

Objectives/Goals: To assess the feasibility and utility of using the community-informed Healthy North Carolina 2030 (HNC 2030) goals as a framework to evaluate CTSA-supported research; identify where NC CTSAs align with state health priorities; and enhance evaluation, planning, and communication of impact. Methods/Study Population: Three North Carolina CTSA hubs (UNC-Chapel Hill, Duke University, and Wake Forest University) collaboratively examined how the HNC 2030 indicators could be applied as an impact evaluation framework. Each hub independently identified projects with demonstrated or potential alignment to one or more HNC 2030 goals using institutional databases, project records, and stakeholder input. The feasibility and utility of this approach were assessed through structured reflections on practicality, appropriateness, and usefulness. Representative cases illustrate how alignment decisions were applied across clinical and public health domains. Results/Anticipated Results: Findings indicate that mapping CTSA activities to state health priorities is feasible, minimally burdensome, and adaptable across institutional contexts. The process identified both areas of strong engagement (e.g., maternal health, adolescent reproductive care) and opportunities for further investment (e.g., social determinants of health). Challenges included defining alignment boundaries, addressing cross-cutting indicators, and distinguishing between demonstrated and potential impact. This approach could strengthen communication of translational impact and inform strategic planning, helping CTSA hubs demonstrate the relevance of their work to statewide health goals. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Using community-driven state public health goals as an organizing framework enhances the relevance, transparency, and accountability of translational research. This exploratory mapping approach offers a scalable model for other CTSAs seeking to evaluate and communicate population-level impact.