Objectives/Goals: The Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR) created an eight-phase adaptive Translational Science Framework to guide us in selecting and solving translational science problems. We operationalized the initial problem selection phases and assessed utility of various methods in shaping complex problems for solution design. Methods/Study Population: We identified three high-priority strategic domains where there was potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of research and related processes. Starting with broad problem statements, we engaged a wide array of stakeholders and end-users in a sequence of methods to reduce ambiguity, uncover root causes, and clarify actionable challenges. The methods we selected align with the four problem selection/problem analysis phases of our Translational Science Framework: contextualize, frame, map, and craft. Methods used included landscape and workforce assessments; purpose and scoping sessions; design research strategies; systems mapping; quantitative needs assessments; and translational science proposal pitches. Results/Anticipated Results: Across the three strategic domains, we successfully reframed and scaled ill-defined problem statements into translational science questions that are actionable, meaningful, feasible, and relevant. The outputs of each problem selection/problem analysis phase served as critical inputs for subsequent phases; for example, synthesis of landscape and workforce assessments in the contextualize phase provided critical substrate for structuring the design research and broad scale needs assessments in the frame phase. This funneling approach brought continuous focus and clarity to the problem statements. A variety of metrics embedded within the phases informed performance, progress, and decision-making, which enabled rapid adjustments in the face of evolving contexts and unforeseen challenges. Discussion/Significance of Impact: In the absence of translational science problem analysis, we risk not addressing actual needs, duplicating effort, and/or creating unwanted solutions. The methods and metrics within the analysis phases of our Translational Science Framework promote iterative refinement of intractable problems, with the goal of yielding impactful solutions.

Objectives/Goals: UW-Madison ICTR Collaborative Network (ICON) is a team of research navigators who provide wrap-around services for investigators (e.g. study and recruitment planning). In 2025, an ICON objectives was to consult with newly awarded investigators to expedite their study activities. Methods/Study Population: The ICON team assisted postdoctoral (n=3) and faculty (n=8) investigators awarded 12- or 18-month Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR) pilot awards beginning in May or July 2025. ICON addressed concerns related to regulatory documentation creation, recruitment and retention, study personnel training, document editing, etc. Ten of 11 investigators consulted with ICON shortly after award onset, with plans for check-ins at the 6- and 12-month mark of their grant. Following the initial consultation, ICON devised an individualized assistance plan for each investigator. Investigators completed multiple surveys regarding their opinion on the usefulness of the service. Results/Anticipated Results: The results of the first survey indicated that three investigators found the ICON service to be highly valuable (highest ranking), overall, the mean value was 4.1 on a 5-point Likert scale. The written feedback from the investigators indicated that the service would have been more useful earlier in the pilot award process, such as prior to submission. The ICON team continues to execute the individualized assistance plan for each investigator and will provide tailored assistance at the 6- and 12-month check-ins to meet the investigator’s needs. We will survey the investigators quarterly for feedback on the usefulness of the service. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Survey feedback indicates the value of the ICON service but suggests that for some the consultation was delayed. The ICON team will continue to check-in with this cohort to determine if further assistance is needed. In the future, ICON will meet with awardees earlier in the application process.

Objectives/Goals: The PSCTSI provides critical resources and services at PSU/PSCOM. Our objectives are to map PSCTSI resources among the PSU/PSCOM research infrastructure, increase researcher knowledge of resources, services, and processes, and ensure improved PSCTSI integration within the research infrastructure. Methods/Study Population: PSCTSI will utilize process and resource mapping techniques and systems analysis to align our services and resources within the PSU/PSCOM research infrastructure. Methods: Identify and map PSU/PSCOM research infrastructure processes, services, offices, and resources. Identify and map PSCTSI resources and services within the PSU/PSCOM infrastructure. Highlight areas where PSCTSI resources and services fill critical gaps in the PSU/PSCOM infrastructure Results/Anticipated Results: Navigating the research process is often confusing for researchers, especially where there are gaps within the infrastructure. Process and resource mapping techniques and systems analysis can provide a complete picture of PSCTSI’s vital role and impact on the PSU/PSCOM research infrastructure. Results of this analysis will benefit three audiences: PSU/PSCOM researchers – to better understand research processes, PSU/PSCOM research leadership – to illustrate the importance and synergy of PSCTSI within the research infrastructure, and PSCTSI and other CTSAs – to share their impact and ensure improved integration Discussion/Significance of Impact: CTSAs rely on external and potentially institutional support despite their essential roles within the research infrastructure. Resource and process mapping of PSCTSI within PSU/PSCOM’s infrastructure has two benefits: improving knowledge on resources and services and ensuring improved integration.

Objectives/Goals: To achieve the greatest impact, protocols must be rigorous and feasible. The University of Minnesota’s Clinical Research Support Center developed a feasibility review (FR) to identify barriers, offer solutions, and strengthen translation through multidisciplinary expertise. Improvements are tracked using an Impact Scoring System. Methods/Study Population: Established in 2018, the FR was designed to address operational barriers that delay study start-up and help researchers strengthen protocols before regulatory submission and implementation. Drafts are reviewed by a multidisciplinary panel with expertise in logistics, recruitment, biostatistics, monitoring, and regulation. Each protocol undergoes a 1-week review process culminating in a 90-minute structured discussion between the panel and study team. A written report summarizes strengths, concerns, available resources, and next steps. To assess impact, we developed a novel scoring system that assigns each protocol a pre- and post-review score, objectively measuring how protocols improve in response to feedback. Results/Anticipated Results: Since its launch, 186 clinical studies from nine schools and colleges have completed FR. Study teams report high satisfaction (average rating 4.8/5), noting clearer recruitment plans, improved logistics, and valuable resource connections. The Impact Scoring System provides measurable evidence of change: on average, protocols increased their score by 28% from pre- to post-review, reflecting greater operational readiness and likelihood of success. Tracking also shows that FR participation is associated with fewer protocol-related IRB stipulations, offering an additional objective indicator of improved quality. Together, these results demonstrate both the perceived value and the measurable operational impact of the FR process. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The FR addresses operational barriers early, ensuring protocols are both rigorous and feasible before launch. Its Impact Scoring System provides objective evidence of improvement and a scalable model other institutions can adopt to advance rigor, efficiency, and trustworthy translation.

Objectives/Goals: Institutional clinical trial accrual metrics and associated monitoring practices are insufficiently characterized and lack consistency. We aim to assess current metrics and methodologies to inform the development of a tool and recommendations that institutions can use to strengthen monitoring capabilities and enhance trial performance. Methods/Study Population: We designed a survey to assess how CTSA institutions measure and monitor clinical trial accrual, including the types of data elements captured, collection methods, and institutional responses to low accrual. Existing survey instruments were reviewed to inform the development of an initial survey. Subject matter experts were consulted on survey questions, sampling strategies, and administration methods. The finalized survey will be distributed to representatives from CTSA institutions. Findings will inform the development of a self-evaluation tool and recommendations to identify gaps and support institutions in strengthening accrual monitoring practices. Results/Anticipated Results: We will disseminate the final survey to CTSA institutions in 2026. We anticipate variability in accrual metrics and monitoring practices within and across institutions nationally. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Further work is needed to establish consistent definitions, collection methods, and reporting frameworks to improve accrual evaluation and address trial pipeline challenges. Without standardization, harmonizing trial data across sites is difficult, limiting opportunities for shared learning.

Cathleen Kane, NYU Karen Cielo, UIC Paul Duguid, Arkansas Mendy Dunn, Florida Maryam Gholami, UCSD Kristi Holmes, Northwestern Joe Hunt, Indiana Patricia Moussatche, Stanford Christy Navarro, UC Davis Brittney Jackson Patterson, Wake Forest Alfred Vitale, Mayo Jennifer Croker, UAB – confirmed. Objectives/Goals: Over the past few years, there has been debate and confusion about the definition of Translational Science (TS) versus Translational Research (TR). The CTSA Administrators met in 2024 to discuss how to better define TS versus TR and create a useful product for the consortium. Methods/Study Population: The Administrators brainstormed best practices and discussed what products could be developed to clarify these concepts. A committee formed to create a useful product for the consortium. An editable document was shared by email and discussed at the December 2024 and February 2025 Administrators meeting to crowdsource existing assets. This process was repeated with the NCATS QA/QC Group, CTSA Evaluators, Workforce Development Enterprise Committee, and Communications Consortium Committee between May and July 2025. The team collects 87 entries from 31 CTSA hubs. Members of the committee reviewed and curated the entries for relevance, accuracy, duplication, and completeness. Results/Anticipated Results: The final work product will be deposited on the Coordination, Communication, and Operations Support (CCOS) website for long-term storage. This site provides a password-protected, stable home for this resource. To help improve the usefulness of this resource, documents available as pdfs are downloaded into a database, so they can be found even if their URLs change. In addition, the name of the institution, person, and email address contributing the resource was included with each item. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The authors’ hope this resource will provide the clinical and translational science community with materials to educate and clarify the meaning of TS and TR, and how each contributes to scientific advances that improve health for everyone.

Objectives/Goals: The Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center’s Community Outreach and Engagement program and the Center for Clinical and Translational Science’s Community Engagement Research program developed a shared service to foster and catalyze community engagement in research. We describe the development, operations, and management of this shared service. Methods/Study Population: Community Outreach and Engagement in Research Services (COERS) is a shared service for all 19 Mayo Clinic sites across five US states. COERS is supported by 31 staff, located across all Mayo Clinic sites. The staff offers consultative services assisting investigators in engaging communities to increase robust participation in research and develop trusting research relationships with over 200 collaborative community partners. Consultative services include facilitating research through resource connections; development of community partner engagement plans; development of community outreach and engagement strategies; development of community-based recruitment and retention strategies; assigning Community Scientists to study teams; and facilitating Community Engagement Studios. Results/Anticipated Results: Since 2021, COERS has engaged over 100,000 community members across all Mayo Clinic sites in outreach, health education, and research awareness activities with the goals of addressing disease burden in communities; improving trust and participation in research; and engaging communities as collaborators and advisors in research design. There have been over 250 consultations with investigators. COERS developed a Community Research Registry to enhance participation in research with over 2000 participants enrolled. Forty Community Scientists were trained, and 20 were matched to study teams. Over 75 Community Engagement Studios were conducted with a total of 180 community experts. COERS provided $260K to 12 community organizations to develop evidence-based interventions to improve community health. Discussion/Significance of Impact: COERS creates a platform that expands Mayo Clinic’s capacity to foster trust, engagement, and translate discoveries into meaningful community health outcomes. This approach has strengthened the relevance and impact of Mayo Clinic research and laid a foundation for continued progress in improving health outcomes through community-engaged science

Objectives/Goals: Private equity (PE) investment in Medicare Home Health Care (HH) is rising, raising concerns that PE’s profit focus may reduce spending on staff, training, and care quality. Objective: Examine the growth and regional trends of PE involvement in HH across the USA. Methods/Study Population: Background: PE investment in Medicare Home Health Care (HH) is becoming increasingly common, and HH is among the top healthcare sectors attracting interest from PE investors. This is potentially concerning given that PE’s focus on maximizing short-term returns may come at the expense of investments in staffing, training, and other agency operations that enhance care quality. Methods: We linked an investor targeted dataset (LevinPro HC), typically used by investment banks to track mergers and acquisitions, with Medicare administrative data on HH agencies. We then tracked PE deals to HH agencies and mapped deals to HH agency states. Results/Anticipated Results: Results: By combining the LevinPro HC and Medicare Provider of services data sources, we created a novel dataset of PE transactions in HH from 2006 through 2024. We found that there were 796 HH agencies (532 unique) acquired in 117 PE deals. Overall, HH acquisition by PE has been increasing over time with the majority of deals taking place between 2016 and 2022. Deals ranged in size from 1 to 115 HH agencies. Texas led the nation in PE activity in the HH sector with over 50% more deals than California, the state with the next higher number of acquisitions. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This study is the first to document the growth of PE involvement in HH across the USA by linking HH PE industry data with CMS data. Using these linked data will be essential for examining complex patterns of ownership and affiliation that were previously difficult to capture and that influence HH care delivery, competition, and regulatory oversight.

Objectives/Goals: Hospital mergers have proliferated in the USA, yet a comprehensive understanding of how mergers affect nurses’ well-being and their ability to provide safe, high-quality care is lacking. We examined the associations among hospital mergers, nursing, nurse well-being, and patient safety and quality of care to guide policy or hospital interventions. Methods/Study Population: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews reporting guidelines, we conducted a scoping review by systematically searching 10 databases comprised of both business and healthcare literature up to January 2025. Eligible studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) US-based sample, (2) specify a hospital merger and one nursing-related criteria, (3) use empirical data, (4) peer-reviewed, and (5) in English. Conference abstracts, protocols, interventions, non-empirical studies, theses or dissertations, quality improvement, and systematic review articles were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data to focus on empirical research that examined hospital mergers and nursing. Results/Anticipated Results: Our search yielded 1,772 articles; 10 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis: 5 quantitative, 3 qualitative, and 2 multi-methods. Only three studies analyzed data from 2003 or later. Although the data were sparse and older, we found that hospital mergers introduced organizational changes among the nursing workforce – nurse staffing, leadership, and operations. Nurse-sensitive patient safety and quality of care outcomes may not improve post-merger. Qualitatively, nurses described poor communication, a perceived lack of trust in leadership, a loss of identity and unity, decreased morale, increased fear or uncertainty, and issues with equal and/or respectful treatment. The identified study methods were unable to draw strong causal and/or detailed conclusions, and few variables were examined. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This review highlights potential links between US hospital mergers and nursing, nurse well-being, and patient safety and quality of care and emphasizes the lack of robust, up-to-date studies to guide policymakers and hospital administrators in making informed decisions – potentially leading to negative consequences.

Objectives/Goals: Translational research teams span varied roles, disciplines, and institutions. They rely on information to collaborate, communicate, and coordinate. Information should flow seamlessly for collaborative success, yet we know little about the collective information needs and challenges of such teams, representing a translational science problem. Methods/Study Population: We report on the Information Management Prototype for Clinical and Translational Research (IMPACT-CTR) study which explored how clinical and translational research teams (CTRTs) manage their information while conducting collaborative research. Participants across 11 US-based CTRTs (n=52) participated in brief surveys and interviews about their collaborative processes. We are following the Translational Team Science Hierarchy of Needs (Kelly et al., 2023) framework in our thematic analyses, where we are sequentially examining: (1) the foundation of information infrastructure (tools and resources), (2) teams’ information management practices, and (3) how these practices affect psychological safety of team members, which then impact “translational nirvana” or the research synergy of CTRTs. Results/Anticipated Results: Preliminary analysis revealed that information was crucial to CTRTs’ functionality but often overlooked. Team members moved through the research lifecycle by juggling numerous types of information spread across multiple tools, while balancing their personal information styles with those of the collective. Subsequent analyses will investigate the challenges, workarounds, and lessons CTRT members have learned while managing their information and relying on each other as information resources, and the extent to which these factors impact their scientific and operational work, as well as their team culture. We will thus develop and present a conceptual framework of how CTRTs’ information behaviors can facilitate or impede high-impact collaborative research. Discussion/Significance of Impact: We will present reproducible team science practices that can enhance the process of scientific research through evidence-based information management practices that are both effective and feasible for CTRTs. In doing so, we will identify information-related barriers that hinder the efficiency of the translational research continuum.

Objectives/Goals: To assess how rigor and reproducibility activities across the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium are aligned with NCATS Translational Science Principles (TSPs) and the NIH’s new plan to promote gold standard science. Methods/Study Population: We conducted a retrospective, descriptive review of all CTSA hub Research Performance Progress Reports (RPPRs) submitted for the most recent reporting year, focusing on the Accomplishments section. Reports were systematically searched using predefined rigor and reproducibility-related keywords. Relevant content was abstracted using a structured framework to categorize activities across domains, including education and training, institutional support, and data management and sharing. Results were summarized quantitatively by award mechanism. Results/Anticipated Results: Sixty-two of 66 CTSA institutions reported activities related to scientific rigor and reproducibility in the RPPR Accomplishments section. Among these hubs, rigor and reproducibility activities were most frequently reported under K awards (48 hubs), followed by UL2 or UM1 awards (43 hubs) and T awards (38 hubs). These findings indicate broad engagement across the CTSA consortium, with variation in how rigor and reproducibility activities are reported across award mechanisms. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Most CTSA hubs document multiple rigor and reproducibility activities as their accomplishments, reflecting alignment with NCATS TSPs. Characterizing these efforts across award mechanisms can inform strategies to strengthen translational science research that meets the NIH’s gold standard science.

Objectives/Goals: The use of evidence-informed project management (PM) frameworks such as Agile has the potential to increase the productivity, rigor, and reproducibility of collaborative team science. This poster explores our work with Clinical and Translational Research teams to evaluate and disseminate lightweight, flexible PM tools. Methods/Study Population: Training research teams in the development of systematic approaches to PM has the potential to increase teams’ ability to conduct high-impact Clinical and Translational Research. Here, we report on two research activities at the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (MICHR). First, we share data from the NIH-funded IMPACT-CTR study that demonstrate the impact PM systems have on how teams collaborate. Second, we share results of ongoing User Experience (UX) testing of Notion-based PM templates specifically designed to facilitate Team Science. We engaged postdoctoral fellows, early-career researchers, and project managers to assess the acceptability, usability, and feasibility of implementing these templates. Results/Anticipated Results: Results from the IMPACT-CTR study demonstrate the importance of lightweight, accessible PM systems that facilitate robust teamwork. Teams with defined, well-documented PM approaches reported lower levels of conflict, as well as higher levels of research productivity and team satisfaction. Further, PM systems depend on and influence teams’ information and data management approaches, also key contributors to a team’s ability to achieve their scientific objectives and conduct rigorous, reproducible research. We anticipate that results from UX testing of PM templates will demonstrate high levels of interest in implementing these tools to support collaborative research, providing an accessible entry point to proven PM strategies standard adapted from other fields. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Providing context-appropriate, flexible, and adaptable PM tools as well as training in PM best practices to science teams has the potential to streamline team communication and collaboration, improve efficient use of funding, and enhance research productivity. Studying such implementations will yield additional insights for Team Science.

Objectives/Goals: Interdisciplinary teams are central to modern science, but measuring their success remains difficult. Traditional metrics like publications or citations often miss key contributions, such as community engagement, mentorship, and lasting collaboration. New approaches are needed to capture these goals. Methods/Study Population: We introduce a framework aligning success metrics with a team’s organizing priorities, illustrated through two contrasting models: Team A, a time-bound, community-focused group emphasizing rapid deliverables and public health partnerships, and Team B, a mentorship-driven, development-focused group prioritizing capacity building and long-term growth. These teams share a commitment to advancing translational research but differ in how they pursue these goals. Team A emphasized centralized coordination, shared ownership of goals, yielding timely scholarly outputs, and setting the stage for future collaborations. Team B prioritizes long-term development, sustained collaboration, and the mentorship of early-career faculty, even if traditional academic productivity metrics accrue more gradually. Results/Anticipated Results: These contrasting approaches raise an important question: how should success be defined and measured for teams with very different goals, structures, and outputs? From these cases, we derive four Collaborative Guideposts: Time Perspective, Unit of Assessment, Desired Outcomes, and Sustainability, which provide a systematic way to identify and select metrics that meaningfully capture a team’s contributions and impact. By offering a structured yet adaptable framework, these guideposts enable teams to track progress, monitor outcomes, and ensure alignment with their unique goals, operating environments, and stages of development. This approach contributes to advancing validated models of team science by providing a practical method for tailoring evaluation criteria to diverse collaborative contexts. Discussion/Significance of Impact: By grounding evaluation in team-specific goals, this framework supports more accurate assessments of collaborative impact. Guideposts provide a flexible structure to align metrics with context, guide discussions of outcomes, and evaluate teams on productivity, collaboration, mentorship, and long-term scientific progress.

Objectives/Goals: Interdisciplinary collaboration drives innovation by uniting diverse knowledge and perspectives. Leaders play a crucial role in establishing psychological safety, upon which effective collaboration relies. This study developed a workshop to support leaders in fostering psychological safety on interdisciplinary translational teams. Methods/Study Population: Purposive sampling was used to recruit senior faculty members at a large Midwestern University from biomedical, clinical, and behavioral/social science fields. Eight senior faculty members were invited via email and all consented to participate (N=8). Our sample included associate professors (n=3) and professors (n=5), from pharmacy (n=5) and medicine and public health (n=3), with one jointly affiliated with Veterans Affairs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom. Interviews explored the challenges and facilitators to creating psychologically safe environments. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Coders utilized a combination of deductive and inductive coding to conceptualize, define, and name emergent themes. Results/Anticipated Results: Through our analysis we identified a framework that included three layers: leader mindset, leader behavior, and team culture. The leader mindset describes the mindset leaders hold to create psychologically safe environments, including values of openness to feedback and commitment to trust-building. Leader behavior describes the observable actions leaders adopt to translate their mindset into everyday practice, including empowering team members and modeling effective behavior. Finally, team culture describes the shared values, expectations, and mannerisms that enable team members to build and sustain psychologically safe teams. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This study highlights how leaders approach building and sustaining psychologically safe teams. Findings can inform leadership development efforts and practical strategies for leaders to adopt. Optimizing psychological safety on interdisciplinary translational teams may promote innovation, team performance, and resilient team cultures.

Objectives/Goals: Collaborative agreements are vital for building strong partnerships, particularly during the formation of new research teams. To support team scientists during critical stages of team formation, we developed a flexible, on-demand eLearning module on collaborative agreements with examples and guidelines for developing tailored agreements. Methods/Study Population: The on-demand Collaborative Agreement module empowers learners to complete a full overview of collaborative agreement concepts or to directly access topics of interest within the module. Designed for real-time applications, it includes conversation prompts, downloadable templates, and example scenarios to guide team building and maintenance. To date, the module has been used by clinical and translational science trainees, early-career investigators, faculty participating in mentor training programs, and PIs of a multi-site research project. Early feedback has prompted the development of a consultative service to support teams in developing their own collaborative agreements after team members complete the module. Results/Anticipated Results: We are collecting data through pre- and post-training assessments embedded within the module. Post-assessment also invites respondents to share contact information for follow-up evaluation of their adoption. As of October 2025, we have collected 21 pre-assessment responses and 14 post-assessment responses. We anticipate gathering more data prior to Translational Science 2026. We will summarize assessment data focused on the tool’s effectiveness, learner’s intention to adopt collaborative agreements, and their confidence in building their own agreements. Additionally, we will provide feedback on the value of support services post-training for team implementation of collaborative agreements. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The just-in-time online tool facilitates the use of collaborative agreements for individual learners, teams, and between mentors and mentees. It supports effective collaboration by clarifying shared expectations. Feedback for the module will inform enhancements as well as future translational science workforce development eLearning projects.

Objectives/Goals: Team Science is an essential element of Clinical and Translational Research (CTR), and a Translational Science Principle key for generating innovation. As CTSA hubs work to improve the practice of CTR through Translational Science, many seek evidence-based interventions from the field of the Science of Team Science to make teamwork more impactful. Methods/Study Population: Two evidence-informed Team Science interventions were offered to CTSA hubs for implementation and evaluation: Collaboration Planning & Research Jams. Thirteen CTSAs signed up to implement Collaboration Planning; 12 implemented at least one session by the end of the project. Four CTSAs signed up to implement Research Jams; all implemented at least one session. Implementers, CTSA-based Team Science leaders, received training in intervention delivery. We collected pre-/post-implementation survey data on feasibility and usability of the interventions, as well as post-training satisfaction. We also collected post-implementation data to capture implementers’ experience in delivering the interventions. Further, participants in each intervention were surveyed about their experience. Results/Anticipated Results: Implementers agreed that the interventions were feasible and usable, while sharing challenges they encountered. Key challenges included limited buy-in from leadership and teams and the need for better marketing about the benefits of participation to increase uptake. Scheduling busy researchers was also a challenge. Implementers noted that the interventions aligned with their CTSA’s Team Science goals and would help them provide additional support to teams. CP participants reported increases in understanding about their team processes and found the intervention to be both valuable and useful. Suggested improvements included longer, more personalized sessions. RJ participants agreed that RJs were helpful in surfacing shared ideas and requested additional resources to move the work forward post-session. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Team Science interventions can provide CTR teams with strategies that improve the conduct of CTR, while also serving the needs of CTSA-based Team Science leaders in facilitating more efficient and effective Team Science. Our data show the feasibility of implementing such interventions by providing training delivering team-based interventions.

Objectives/Goals: This pilot study uses an ethnographic analysis to examine provider knowledge, experiences, perception, and attitudes in delivering care in rural, primary care health professional shortage areas. Methods/Study Population: Ethnographic study relying on qualitative methods (semi-structured and open-ended interviews). Study population includes rural healthcare professionals (HCP), including physicians, physician assistants, nurses, dentists, therapists, and pharmacists. Results/Anticipated Results: Anticipated Results: Understandings of why rural HCP choose to deliver healthcare in resource-limited communities, and how this figures into their knowledge, experience, attitudes, and perceptions. A focus on barriers as well as strengths of HCP practicing in rural, HPSA. HCP in rural settings often face distinct working conditions precipitated by resource limitations, which may lead to higher levels of negative emotional or mental health conditions in comparison to their urban counterparts. This study will also attune to the extent to which their work, specifically as HCP in rural settings – as a SDOH – affects their mental health status. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This research contributes to the literature on global health by examining HCP in relation to rurality and in resource-limited settings in the Global North. This will expand the current global health discourse beyond the Global South and bring much needed attention to the health and well-being of communities in the Global North.

Objectives/Goals: In 2019, we began a novel team-science based research program aimed at producing more clinically relevant and practical patient-focused solutions, more quickly and efficiently. Methods/Study Population: We created a novel funding opportunity requiring broad multidisciplinary team participation, including patients, community members, and health system representatives. Inclusion of these non-traditional team members was required to help transcend long-standing research silos. Teams collaborated using team science principles. Successful teams were awarded a $50K “line of credit,” limited to pre-approved expenditures for supplies, services, and staff – no salary support for research faculty. Teams were granted project manager support. Grant budgets were not required, and there were no project end dates. We tracked several research metrics to determine if this less restrictive funding mechanism led to more collaboration, efficiency, innovation, and productivity. Results/Anticipated Results: From 2019 to 2024, 68 teams submitted proposals, and 29 teams were approved to receive a line of credit. Collectively, these teams submitted 43 extramural and intramural grant applications; of these, 11 applications were awarded, totaling $15M. The average time to first grant submission for teams was 20.4 months, and the average time to first grant award start date was 33.8 months. The teams produced 69 total peer-reviewed publications, with an average time to first publication of 15.6 months. A comparison of publication rates found that team members, on average, experienced a 72% increase in monthly publication rates after teams were formed and funded. An analysis of output (return on investment) found that every dollar invested in these funded teams delivered $21 in new grant funding. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This novel funding mechanism, created at the Clinical and Translation Science Institute of Southeast Wisconsin, may facilitate increased productivity, conservation of research dollars, and broader multidisciplinary collaboration that leads to practical, effective, real-world patient solutions. Continued analysis of outcomes is planned.

Objectives/Goals: Given the close proximity of two academic institutions with CTSAs, we piloted distinct training topics – psychological safety and evaluation of opportunities – with K and T scholars at both academic hubs. Each topic was originally developed and delivered by one of the partnering hubs, allowing for cross-institutional sharing of expertise. Methods/Study Population: The team science educators at both institutions had a series of conference calls to share information about the types of professional development activities offered to early-career investigators at respective institutions. Each group then agreed to offer a new workshop at the partner institution. Team 1 presented “Should I Join This Research Team? Strategically Evaluating a New Teaming Opportunity,” while Team 2 presented “Promoting a Positive Culture in Teams.” Our instructional goal was to deliver skills-based training that addressed opportunities and challenges unique to research teams. Each session incorporated interactive methods, including scenario analysis and discussion, think-pair-share activities, and short video clips. Results/Anticipated Results: Likert-scale items and open responses will be completed by workshop participants before and after participating in the workshops. Attendees will evaluate their confidence in their perceived abilities related to workshop objectives and their perceptions of the utility and application of the content. In addition to the trainee evaluations, the two institutional teams completed a joint qualitative interview to provide feedback, discuss andragogical strategies to improve educational delivery and impact, and assess how to leverage the expertise of each team to provide future team science programming across the two institutions. Given that the workshops are scheduled to be completed by November 2025, the results will be collated and shared at the Translational Science 2026 conference. Discussion/Significance of Impact: We believe partnerships can work in a variety of settings and with multiple topics to enrich the experiences of both early-career investigators and team science educators at partnering hubs. The collaboration also promotes sharing of expertise, content, and resources across institutions which expands educational content across CTSAs.

Objectives/Goals: PASC affects 6%#_msocom_1 of individuals recovering from SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary objective of this study was to explore the underlying neuroimmune changes which are responsible for the chronic widespread pain and fatigue that these patients often experience. #_msoanchor_1 Methods/Study Population: We recruited eight post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) patients from the PASC and physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics. Patients were included if they had daily, chronic pain, rated at least 5/10 intensity on the numeric rating scale. Patients were excluded if they had pre-existing pain or autoimmune conditions. Healthy age-matched controls were also recruited. We obtained blood samples from both groups of patients and purified IgG from the plasma. The IgG was reconstituted and transferred to 48 mice via intraperitoneal injection. After IgG transfer, we completed behavioral, flow cytometry, immunofluorescence, and degranulation assays to quantify the effects of the IgG on the animal’s behavior and mast cell activity. Results/Anticipated Results: IgG from PASC patients selectively binds mast cells and induces greater mast cell activation and degranulation than IgG from healthy control patients (p<0.001). This increase in mast cell activation is dependent on mas-related G-protein coupled receptor member X2 signaling. Transferring IgG from PASC patients to mice produces increased sensitivity to cold (p<0.001) in the animals and also decreases their locomotor activity (p<0.01). IgG from healthy patients did not induce any changes cold sensitivity in the animals, nor did it affect their locomotor activity (p<0.001). Lastly, transferring IgG from PASC patients to mice increases the mast cell population in the animals’ hindpaws (p<0.05). #_msocom_2 Discussion/Significance of Impact: This work elucidates a pathophysiological mechanism involved in the development of PASC-associated chronic pain. It also provides insights that may be useful in understanding the pain that is often associated with other autoimmune conditions.