Objectives/Goals: Assess wellibeing and burnout among CTSI and affiliate scholars by deeply listening to stressors, supports, and sources of hope via Listening Circles, which served as both a therapeutic intervention and a tool for gathering qualitative data. Methods/Study Population: Listening Circles are facilitated group dialogues eliciting participants’ lived experiences, emotions, and perspectives in an environment that offers psychological safety. Listening Circles were conducted with five CTSI scholar groups (K, T, affiliates) to collect qualitative data and offer therapeutic support. Programs scheduled 60-minute voluntary sessions held via Zoom or in person. Program directors and staff did not attend. Sessions were recorded, and facilitators monitored both discussion and chat. Guidelines were shared in advance and reiterated during sessions. Participants were informed of recording and assured only de-identified, aggregate data would be used. Data were analyzed using inductive and deductive thematic methods by trained qualitative analysts. Results/Anticipated Results: Listening Circles revealed 4 themes: 1) Needs: stability (financial and career), fewer nonessential tasks, time for breaks, opportunities for connection, collaboration, and collegiality, and support for wellbeing, compassion, joy, and permission to care for oneself; 2) Sources of support: connecting with family, friends, colleagues, community, taking breaks, disconnecting from work, and engaging in non-work activity; 3) Resources: Financial support, reducing unnecessary workload, opportunities for connection, and access to well-being resources; and 4) Sources of hope: Family, community, small victories and positive feedback, engagement with science, research progress, and trainees. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Listening Circles fostered scholar connection and community while providing real-time insights into stressors and support systems. Their low-cost, adaptable format enabled responsive programming and may be replicable across CTSIs.

Objectives/Goals: To describe how the Ivy Tech Community College and Indiana CTSI partnership creates early entry points into translational science, expands access for community college students, and strengthens the biomedical research workforce. Methods/Study Population: The Indiana CTSI partnered with Ivy Tech, a community college system that has campuses throughout the state, to launch a Research Scholars Program. This is a 10-week summer immersion experience introducing community college students to biomedical and health sciences. Students are matched with research teams at Indiana University, Purdue University, or Notre Dame (depending on where the student lives), engaging in 35 hours per week in research activities and professional development. Students receive a stipend and may be provided a laptop if needed. Recruitment is supported through collaboration with Ivy Tech faculty and staff, including classroom outreach, referrals, and information sessions. Results/Anticipated Results: Across two cohorts, the program achieved 17 completions by community college students from multiple Ivy Tech campuses, including one #_msocom_1who returned for a second summer. Students gained hands-on research skills, professional development, and communication training, presenting their findings at program-end symposia and a virtual presentation connecting participants across campuses. Outcomes include poster presentations at regional meetings, transfers to four-year institutions, and pursuit of health and biomedical careers. Several students have continued working with mentors, and one was hired part-time by their lab, underscoring the program’s statewide impact through partnerships with IU, Purdue, and Notre Dame. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #_msoanchor_1 Discussion/Significance of Impact: This program highlights how the Indiana CTSI–Ivy Tech partnership expands access to translational science for learners within community college settings. Statewide collaboration, sustained mentoring, and student outcomes together provide a scalable model for workforce development.

Objectives/Goals: To tailor support for behavioral and social science research (BSSR), it is helpful to understand this broad category. As a first step to characterizing BSSR at University of Michigan (UM), our goal is to use a large language model (LLM) to identify health-related BSSR from a database of funded studies. Methods/Study Population: We are using a private, secure version of Open AI ChatGPT-4.1 LLM to evaluate whether studies are health-related BSSR or not based on the study team’s (1) abstract, (2) objectives, and (3) key words entered into UM’s internal research proposal system for all studies funded over the last 10 years (i.e., 2014 – 2024). The model included a prompt with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) definition of BSSR and was instructed to categorize the research as being BSSR, not BSSR, or possibly BSSR. Results from the LLM were compared for consistency with assessments made by human-made decision rules. Results/Anticipated Results: Preliminary results from a pilot sample of 150 studies funded in 2024 (~5%) reviewed by ChatGPT for BSSR status revealed: 6 false positives, 128 true negatives, 14 true positives, and 2 false negatives. Accuracy = 95%, precision = 70%, recall (sensitivity) = 88%, specificity = 96%, and F1 Score = 0.78. ChatGPT and human-based decisions differed primarily on cognition and vehicle technology studies and studies for which information was sparse. Further refinements to the prompt are being made and applied to the remaining studies funded in 2024 before expanding to the entire sample of studies from the last 10 years. Discussion/Significance of Impact: It is time and cost prohibitive for a human to review and classify all funded studies at UM as BSSR or not. Using LLMs offers the potential to make this classification work feasible with limited resources, which is a necessary step toward understanding the state of BSSR.

Objectives/Goals: To develop, pilot, and evaluate an accessible, Bilingual Community Health Worker (CHW) Certification Training Program that equips CHWs with core competencies, strengthens professional pathways, and supports integration into California’s evolving health and social care systems. Methods/Study Population: The 8-week, 40-hour hybrid program aligned with the CHW Core Consensus (C3) Project and California’s CalAIM standards. The pilot cohort (n=22) included Spanish-speaking Promotoras with 1–10 years of experience. The training combined online asynchronous modules, live weekly Zoom sessions, and in-person sessions at orientation and graduation. Participants completed weekly assignments and a final community-based project. Evaluation through weekly surveys and a retrospective pre–post evaluation assessing knowledge and confidence gains in addition to qualitative feedback were collected. A Steering Committee and a Community Advisory Board (CAB) provided guidance on curriculum design, accessibility, and cultural responsiveness. Results/Anticipated Results: The pilot achieved high satisfaction (mean 3.8/4.0). Participants reported an average +32.9% increase in perceived knowledge and +36.1% increase in confidence/self-efficacy across CHW competencies. The largest gains were in advocacy, resource navigation, and community assessment. Over 95% indicated they were likely to apply learned skills with only 5% who had yet to apply what they learned 3-months post-training. Qualitative feedback emphasized empowerment, peer learning, skill-building relevance, and remaining challenges related to advancement as CHWs. Participants valued the real-world application through a capstone community project. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This pilot demonstrates a scalable, culturally responsive CHW training model that builds professional confidence and readiness. Ongoing evaluation and expansion aim to strengthen the CHW workforce, open professional pathways, and create a sustainable model that advances public health by improving community capacity and health equity.

Objectives/Goals: Micro-credentials (MCs) are short programs to allow learners to gain knowledge and skills at their own pace. Since MCs do not have due dates, this study aims to understand the learners’ timing and duration to complete MCs through the Buffalo CTSI program in respect to semester-based academic calendar and other CTSI-based learning opportunities. Methods/Study Population: Buffalo CTSI offers four MCs in effective teaching, good clinical practice, responsible research, and scientific communication. The MCs were developed to enhance existing workforce development (WFD) series. Each series consists of 3-5 90-minute sessions offered annually during academic year. Learners can enroll in a corresponding skill-based MC at any point during or after completing the WFD series and have up to a year to complete the MC assignments. We identified 89 from 2019 to 2022 and 45 individuals who completed an MC through Buffalo CTSI between Spring 2024 -and Summer 2025 using data from the UB Office of micro-credentials. Data examined included time since completing the initial WFD series, number of days needed to complete an MC, number of revisions on assignments per awardee, and proportion of non-completers. Results/Anticipated Results: Overall, 85 learners completed an MC from 2019 to 2024 including 39 faculty/trainees, 26 students, and 20 staff. The median amount of time to complete an MC varied from 28 days (effective teaching) to 45 days for responsible research. The percent of learners needing to revise an MC assignment varied from 100% for effective teaching to 30% for scientific communication. The number of MC non-completers varied from 0% for effective teaching to 13% for responsible research. Out of 45 learners who completed MCs from 2024 to 2025, 28 completed MCs synchronously and 17 completed MCs using the new asynchronous format. Discussion/Significance of Impact: MC flexibility in timing and feedback allows learners to complete MCs throughout the year even if they participated in the WFD series asynchronously. Constructive MC feedback can assist learners in revising their work to reach proficiency. Adapting the schedule for completion helps learners obtain desired skills that fits individual timelines.

Objectives/Goals: This survey engages the research professional (RP) workforce in assessing key employee engagement drivers. The survey (goal n = 500) evaluates seven indicators across four themes. These data will identify high-impact needs and retention gaps for RPs at various career stages. Methods/Study Population: This enterprise-wide survey is Phase II of a multiyear employee experience initiative for RPs who are widely defined as university staff who support research activities impacting human health. This second-phase builds on year-one HR data analysis and employee focus groups that identified key workforce needs and organizational effectiveness gaps. The mixed methods survey design leverages peer-reviewed employee engagement models from business management and organizational effectiveness literature, including the widely cited Job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Bakker, et. Al 2007). Survey question types include close-ended, categorical, Likert scale, and free text. Results/Anticipated Results: Survey data will translate workforce-wide perspectives and experiences into actionable strategies across seven drivers of engagement. To facilitate effective dissemination of findings to stakeholders, the drivers are arranged into four themes: Sense of Place: * Community & Connection * Psychological Safety Working with Purpose: * Employee Accomplishment & Achievement * Career Navigation Effective Processes: * Procedural Establishment & Accountability * Job Clarity & Workload Sustainability Research & Institutional Pride: * Work Significance & Impact Data will also create a current-state workforce snapshot including hybrid-work arrangements, key motivators, and leadership opportunity preferences. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This survey will create a robust dataset that will provide insights of workforce trends, operational gaps, and necessary areas of support. Organizational change management best practices and user-centered design approaches will facilitate an action-oriented dissemination plan.

Objectives/Goals: To improve communication, efficiency, engagement of clinical research workforce by developing a centralized, customizable, and easily accessible curriculum selector tool for role-based onboarding, continuing education, and professional development. Methods/Study Population: We designed aREDCap-based curriculum selector to address training communication gaps within a large academic Learning Health System. The tool catalogs required optional and professional development trainings for varied clinical research roles (e.g., coordinators, regulatory staff, data managers, and PIs). Each role-specific curriculum includes interactive computer-based modules, live courses, job aids, and links to external resources. Research managers can assign curricula, and automated notifications share assignments with staff and stakeholders. Industry standards, input from subject matter experts, and pilot testing guided design, usability, and implementation planning. Results/Anticipated Results: The tool improved awareness and accessibility of training resources, streamlining onboarding and professional development. Early feedback from pilot users indicated improved satisfaction with clarity and customization of assigned training. Managers valued centralized tracking and assignment transparency. We anticipate measurable gains in training completion rates, time efficiency, and staff retention. Future enhancements include expanding to responsible conduct of research and investigator education modules to support enterprise-wide research training coordination. Discussion/Significance of Impact: A centralized, customizable training selector enhances workforce readiness, standardizes education, and reduces inefficiencies in research staff onboarding and development. Broader adoption may strengthen institutional capacity for high-quality, compliant clinical research.

Objectives/Goals: The Research Coordinator Plus (RC+) program was developed to provide comprehensive and accessible professional development at an academic institution to support high-quality human subjects research. The program supplements existing research training programs, is free, self-paced, and combines general knowledge with institution-specific practical applications. Methods/Study Population: RC+ is a professional development program created by the Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS) for non-faculty staff involved in human subjects’ research. It covers regulatory, project management, and financial aspects across the research lifecycle, relevant to both biomedical and social/behavioral research. The program focuses on institutional policies and procedures, led by CCTS staff with stakeholder input. Follow-up surveys assess expectations and gather feedback on program content. The content was informed by best practices, the Joint Task Force for Clinical Competencies, workforce development programs at other CTSA-funded institutions, and input from our CCTS staff and a research advisory board. Results/Anticipated Results: RC+ is in its 4th year and enrollment has exceeded expectations. The program has built in flexibilities to allow greater access to professional development. It is free to attend with year-round enrollment and self-paced completion. Content is delivered by different modalities, including online, on-demand, and live and recorded virtual programs. To date, 279 individuals have registered, with 13 completing all requirements. 71 have left UIC without finishing. Self-reported research roles include research coordinator, grants manager, PI, and university administrator. Survey response to date has been low, with 60% indicated they had learned something new and would recommend the program to others, and 65% of respondents indicated they are satisfied or extremely satisfied with the program overall. Discussion/Significance of Impact: We successfully created a free program with minimal operating budget, flexible start dates, and accessible programming. RC+ is a model for institutions wishing to provide training for their research staff that integrates key considerations for human research protections, research integrity, project management, and implementation.

Objectives/Goals: Research administration roles are integral to the orchestration of translational and clinical research, yet they are often unknown to job seekers and often lack established degree pathways. To address this, we developed a “High Demand Hidden Careers” curriculum that aims to equip unemployed individuals for employment in research administration. Methods/Study Population: To facilitate multidisciplinary, comprehensive training experiences, we identified three key research administration areas: Research Education, the Office of Clinical Research, and the Institutional Review Board. To develop the curriculum, we determined the skills required for the three administrative areas. The curriculum was implemented across the course of 12 weeks, in a hybrid format, which allowed for in-person shadowing, with self-paced online educational modules dispersed throughout. In addition to research administration experiences, interns were paired with a human resources recruiter who advised on resume development, job application process, and interview skills. At the conclusion of the program, interns were asked to complete a post-internship survey. Results/Anticipated Results: Our institution enrolled three individuals into the program. Two of the interns completed the entire 12-week curriculum; one intern concluded the program in one month due to successful employment. We tailored the curriculum to align with the interests of interns to ensure that they received the skills and practical experiences for their future careers. In addition to shadowing, interns completed certification in human subject protections and good clinical practice via the CITI Program web-based curriculum. Two interns were employed in positions in, or adjacent to, research administration, and the third is actively pursuing opportunities. All interns strongly agreed that the opportunity expanded their skills and prepared them for jobs in research administration and all would recommend the internship to a peer. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The internship curriculum addresses an educational and experiential gap that exists in the field of translational science administration. The developed curriculum can be expanded to other areas of research administration and thus easily replicated at other institutions, while creating a pathway for employment and workforce sustainability.

Objectives/Goals: By offering a summer program that provides foundational training in data science and health equity concepts, as well as their practical applications in clinical translational research (CTR), we seek to enhance awareness and self-efficacy of undergraduate students from diverse majors to career opportunities in clinical translational research. Methods/Study Population: Rapid is a 7-week summer training program for undergraduate students from diverse majors. The RAPID curriculum is comprised of 5 key components: 1) didactic training in data science skills and health equity principles, 2) application of skills in a research practicum, 3) exposure to examples of CTR, 4) clinical shadowing, and 5) professional development and career networking. To date, RAPID has had 2 student cohorts complete the program during the summers of 2024 and 2025 (N = 10). Each cohort was comprised of 5 students from various undergraduate majors (table 1). Admission to the program is based on GPA, letters of recommendation, and letter of interest. Results/Anticipated Results: For the summer 2025 cohort, we received 40 applications for 5 available positions in RAPID. We conducted pre- and post-program surveys to assess student confidence in 4 key research competencies. The scoring system for student confidence was as follows: 5 – extremely, 4 – very, 3 – moderately, 2 – slightly, and 1 – not confident. Student confidence in Data Science Research increased from 2.1 to 3.9, in Health Equity Research from 2.1 to 4.6, in Scientific Research from 3.1 to 3.9, and in Science Identity from 3.4 to 4.2. The curriculum components that ranked highest were the research practicum, mentoring, interaction with translational researchers, and networking opportunities, all of which received a rating of 4.4 out of 5 (4 – very and 5 – extremely satisfied). Overall, student satisfaction with RAPID was 4.6 out of 5. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Rapid seeks to inspire undergraduate students from diverse majors to pursue careers in CTR. We will track students longitudinally to gage career trajectories. Student feedback is promising, “The connections I gained through my peers, mentors, and guest speakers are priceless. I discovered a newfound sense of purpose within the field of data science.”

Table 1

Objectives/Goals: CTSA hubs are developing career ladders for clinical research professionals (CRPs) to professionalize roles and provide consistency. While these ladders classify roles based on responsibilities, skill, and experience, requirements for demonstrating professional abilities and promotion vary widely among institutions.Methods/Study Population: At the ACTS meeting in April 2025, we conducted a panel session to encourage audience discussion regarding the role that career ladders and certification play in robust workforce development. Fifty-seven people attended, representing 34 universities and institutions. Audience members worked in small groups to identify the benefits and challenges of developing career ladders at their institutions. Each group included a facilitator to encourage discussion and take notes. Six open-ended questions were provided to guide discussion surrounding the topics of career progression, certification requirements, and standardized job descriptions. Attendees were also provided with a QR code to answer five additional online survey questions regarding the structure and hiring climate at their institution. Results/Anticipated Results: Content analysis was conducted by two reviewers, and survey summary statistics were generated. Discussion group analysis identified nine themes including working with human resources on career ladders, coordinating competencies with promotion, job progression for those not conducting clinical trials, decentralization of systems, certification requirements for promotion, employee turnover, choosing job titles, strategies to train CRPs, and transparency in career ladder expectations. Thirty-one people completed the online survey with 85% indicating their institution had a decentralized structure, 61% had a formal CRP career ladder, 54% considered certification but did not require it for promotion, and 63% did not provide financial assistance to CRPs to complete professional certification. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Analyses show that as institutions in the CTSA Consortium develop career ladder programs to professionalize the CRP role in the workforce, there continues to be wide variability in structure and requirements. These results can be used by hubs to help create roadmaps for career progression and to make decisions regarding their career ladder programs.

Objectives/Goals: New educational approaches are needed for healthcare in the 21st century. Here, we describe the entrepreneurship, biomedical innovation, and design pathway curriculum at UMass Chan and provide preliminary assessment data. The lessons learned are informing further adjustments to the content and learning objectives of this pathway. Methods/Study Population: This new pathway curriculum introduces students to the principles of innovation, entrepreneurship, basic engineering principles, and technology commercialization. It is modeled after the I-Corps curriculum with added material regarding engineering principles. I-Corps was initially developed by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to help scientists understand the commercial potential of their inventions. Major elements include the Business Model Canvas and Customer Discovery. Eleven first-year (Class of 2027) and twenty-one second-year (Class of 2026) pathway students were invited to participate in online surveys evaluating course material, student self-efficacy, and knowledge of course content. Results/Anticipated Results: This pathway gives students a hands-on customer discovery learning experience that teaches students how to successfully transfer knowledge into products and processes that benefit society. At the end of each semester, students were invited to complete a pathway evaluation survey. Initial results show that the program was well received. 15/20 (75%) first-year students in the Fall 2023 and 13/21 (62%) in the Spring 2024 rated the experience as good or excellent. There was a noticeable increase in the students’ levels of comfort and self-assessed understandings of engineering material, and students’ knowledge of engineering material significantly improved after the three lectures. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Despite small sample sizes impacting generalizability, the results show improvements in student comfort with the material, students’ knowledge of the material, and their enjoyment and applicability of the curriculum. As additional cohorts move through the curriculum, we will continue to measure student satisfaction and learning outcomes.

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: 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.

Objectives/Goals: The research industry continues to struggle with workforce instability: an aging workforce, staff shortages/burnout, retention/turbulence issues, and attracting qualified staff. We describe an intra-institutional approach at Virginia Commonwealth University to prepare undergraduates for entry-level positions across the research landscape. Methods/Study Population: To address research workforce expansion and job readiness within the institution, the VCU Student Pathways Collaborative was established as an inter-professional collaboration among key research business units. This collaborative effort resulted in the development of the Minor in Research Ecosystems, an academic intervention specifically designed to cultivate qualified entry-level personnel. Consisting of 18 credits, the minor is comprised of four core courses focusing on the competencies in job descriptions for various research ecosystem positions, one elective within the student’s chosen research domain, and culminating in an internship experience. The minor is designed to be accessible for all majors fostering diversity, inclusivity, and specialized content knowledge and skill sets. Results/Anticipated Results: The minor, launched in fall 2025, is designed to prepare students for careers that sustain and accelerate the research enterprise. A core goal is bringing awareness to the vast and varied career paths that research has to offer – paths many students reported they simply did not know existed. In the near future, the minor is expected to support institutional workforce needs, leading to a sustainable, qualified, and skilled workforce by specifically preparing students for the diverse research professional roles that they previously did not know existed. Additionally, early outreach to undergraduate advisors, faculty, and student organizations has revealed significant demand for pathways into research professional careers, a demand that is driving high enrollment projections. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The undergraduate Minor in Research Ecosystems is designed to meet the growing demand for a workforce capable of navigating the complex and interdisciplinary research landscape. By equipping students with critical knowledge and practical skills, the program ensures graduates are prepared to immediately serve as effective research team members.

Objectives/Goals: To explore how CTSA-supported research is cited and used in policy documents by applying Yu et al.’s (2023) coding framework. We aim to move beyond citation counts by examining how research engages with policy and identifying substantive examples of research informing policy decisions. Methods/Study Population: We will use Overton to identify CTSA-supported publications with the highest number of policy citations. For these highly cited publications, we will conduct a content analysis of the citing policy documents using Yu et al.’s (2023) motivation codes. These five codes classify how research is used in policy documents – from background context to supporting arguments or forming the policy evidence base – and help distinguish citations that reflect more versus less substantive research-to-policy engagement. We will then analyze coded data with Overton metadata (e.g., citing organization characteristics) to identify emerging patterns and assess whether substantive uses of research provide compelling examples of CTSA impact on policy. Results/Anticipated Results: We will report how CTSA-supported research is used in policy documents. This analysis will identify more meaningful examples of research engagement in policy – publications that inform or shape policy decisions versus those cited for background context. By linking these codes with Overton fields, such as citing organization characteristics, we will explore whether more meaningful uses of research are associated with specific organization types or sectors. Findings will offer preliminary insight into whether analyzing research use in policy documents can help evaluators identify strong examples of CTSA impact. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This study applies methods from scientometric policy citation analysis and builds on a growing focus within the CTSA program on research’s role in shaping policy. It moves beyond citation counts to identify meaningful cases of CTSA-supported research influencing policy and demonstrating impact.

Objectives/Goals: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune disease located within the central nervous system. Evidence suggests nutrition may affect MS progression, but intervention research remains early. This study aims to identify barriers to dietary adherence hindering successful translation of dietary interventions into large-scale effectiveness studies. Methods/Study Population: We are currently conducting the Functional Outcomes of Diet in Multiple Sclerosis (FOOD for MS) study, a randomized controlled feeding trial testing the efficacy of two diet interventions for improving symptoms of MS. Participants who complete FOOD for MS will be invited to complete an individual interview. We will use a semi-structured interview guide based on the Health Action Process Approach to complete the interviews. Interviews will be recorded via Zoom, transcribed using Microsoft 365 transcription, and thematically analyzed using NVivo Software to derive themes related to diet adherence. Results/Anticipated Results: Study findings will describe key themes related to barriers and facilitators of long-term adherence to the FOOD for MS diets. Anticipated barriers may relate to study structure and dietary maintenance, while potential facilitators may involve behavioral supports and study incentives. Participants will also provide recommendations for enhancing the behavioral support components of the intervention to promote sustained adherence. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Results from this qualitative interview will guide refinement to the FOOD for MS protocols and support the development effectiveness and implementation trials.

Objectives/Goals: The University of Illinois Chicago’s CTSA is developing dynamic dashboards to track K awardee outcomes. Integrating data on grants, publications, and milestones, the dashboard illustrates scholars’ research journeys while highlighting the role of the K program in advancing their careers. Methods/Study Population: Since 2007, CCTS has supported over 60 KL2 scholars and affiliates. To track scholar outcomes, the evaluation program has developed Power BI dashboards that visualize scholars’ career trajectories. These dashboards draw on several sources, including publicly available data, institutional records, and FlightTracker. They highlight key career outcomes such as grant awards and peer-reviewed publications since program entry, providing an overview of scholars’ careers while illustrating how they advanced after the program. The dashboards shown continue to evolve. Our current efforts are focused on incorporating impacts from the TSBM and streamlining data collection. Results/Anticipated Results: The dashboards provide a comprehensive and interactive view of KL2 scholars’ career trajectories, illustrating how the K program contributes to research productivity and career advancement. They reveal trends in grant funding, publications, and other key career milestones over time. The dashboards enable us to more easily identify patterns across cohorts, explore individual scholar achievements, and assess broader program impact. Continued refinement of processes in collecting and displaying data, including AI-supported data collection and incorporation of TSBM outcomes, is expected to ensure a more complete picture of the translational impact of K award support. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The dashboards enhance tracking of K awardees by providing a clear, data-driven view of scholar and affiliate outcomes. They can inform program improvements and highlight broad impacts on career development and translational science. This approach may be adopted by other CTSA hubs.

Objectives/Goals: Our hub’s annual survey evaluates the impacts of our institute’s support on investigators’ research productivity and real-world impacts. We have piloted new measures to establish valid and reliable approaches to measuring short- and long-term translational science impacts of interest to the CTSAs. Methods/Study Population: SC CTSI developed an annual survey to assess our institute’s impact on investigators’ research productivity, sustained engagement in behaviors of translational scientists, and real-world impacts. In 2023, we piloted two versions of the TSBM 30-elements across four domains. In 2025, we piloted a 20-item hallmarks of a Translational Scientist scale covering collaboration, mindset, capacity building, and planning for D&I and real-world impact. After online administration to over 700 CTSI-supported USC and CHLA-affiliated researchers, data are analyzed using descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis, to assess factor structure, item loadings, validity, and reliability. Results/Anticipated Results: Prior analyses showed that 27/30 TSBM items aligned well with intended domains, with clinical/medical and policy benefits demonstrating strong internal consistency. Current analyses will establish the psychometric properties of the new Hallmarks of a Translational Scientist scale and sub-domains. Refinement of items and best practices will be shared. Anticipated outcomes include standardized tools for CTSA evaluators to assess short- and long-term translational science impacts. The survey aims to enable consistent measurement of translational science benefits, support longitudinal tracking, and strengthen cross-hub comparisons of real-world impact beyond research productivity. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The validated impact measures shared in this session advance translational science evaluation. Standardized items assessing translational science short- and long-term impacts are of interest to the CTSA community and any organization engaged in translational science capacity building.

Objectives/Goals: The emergency department (ED) is a critical locus of care for mechanically ventilated patients. Emergency physician (EP) perceptions and decision-making on sedation for these patients have not been studied. We seek to characterize EP decision-making on sedatives. Methods/Study Population: This is a preliminary report of a single-center survey study. We surveyed senior residents and attending EP scaring for patients enrolled in an ongoing prospective cohort study of ED sedation. Surveys were delivered electronically. Respondents were asked to provide demographics, impressions effectiveness of the sedative infusions they administered, occurrence of related adverse events (AE), and ranking of factors influencing their decision-making. Respondents were also asked if they considered using other sedative infusions (propofol [PRO], fentanyl [FENT], dexmedetomidine [DEX], ketamine [KET], and midazolam [MDZ]), and why they chose not to use them. The use of bolus-dose sedatives was not assessed. Results/Anticipated Results: From October 2024 through September 2025, 174 surveys were sent and 127 completed (73%). PRO was most commonly used (94%), followed by FENT (51%) and DEX (14%). Effectiveness was highest for PRO (84% “somewhat” or “very” effective; FENT 75%, DEX 72%). The leading AE was hypotension (PRO 32%, DEX 17%). Effectiveness was the most important decision-making factor, familiarity the least. DEX, FENT, KET, and MDZ were considered but not used in about 25% of cases. Emerging themes from free-text comments included perception of under-sedation as an AE and influence of medication accessibility. Discussion/Significance of Impact: EPs perceive PRO as effective but associated with frequent AE, usually hypotension. Perceived effectiveness drives sedative selection. Our findings will inform the design of interventions to optimize ED sedation.