Search

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Community and other stakeholder engagement (CSE) is critical for relevant and equitable clinical research, yet implementation poses challenges. This study delineates the perspectives of scientists and diverse stakeholders regarding facilitators and challenges in CSE, its perceived value, and their recommendations for successful CSE. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Tufts CTSI Pilot Studies Program requires applicants to propose a plan for CSE while implementing the award, including which stakeholders (SHs)—community members, clinicians, and others affected by the research--will be involved and at what stages. This qualitative study assessed the experiences of both Principal Investigators (PIs) and SHs engaged in pilot projects from three cohorts of awardees (2019-21). Recruitment targeted one PI and one SH per project. Semi-structured interviews explored their CSE experiences, including facilitators, challenges, meaningfulness, perceived impact, intent to participate in CSE in future studies, as well as recommendations for funders, research support organizations, and investigators. Inductive consensus-based coding and thematic analysis was employed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Fourteen PIs from different pilot projects and a SH from five of these projects participated. Almost all PIs (92%) had over six years of experience, but two-thirds (67%) had little or no experience with CSE. Four SHs self-identified as representatives of community organizations and one as a clinician scientist. CSE was a “win-win” for both PIs and SHs, and all PIs intended to involve SHs in other research studies. Three facilitators were identified as fostering effective CSE (e.g., PI access to CSE expertise while conducting the project), while four challenges hindered it (e.g., limits on SH capacity and CSE funding). SHs advised scientists to build authentic, sustained relationships, and PIs and SHs provided three actionable recommendations for funders and research support organizations to deepen and expand CSE. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Perspectives of scientists and SHs engaged in research projects are vital for expanding and sustaining effective CSE in research. Funders and research support organizations can enhance their strategies for CSE integration in clinical and translational research by incorporating these diverse views to ensure the research achieves maximal impact.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The training needs of clinical & translational scientists are evolving. Implementation of new curriculum content requires assessment of need, fit with current curriculum, incentives and barriers to implementation. We used implementation science methods to plan the implementation of a dissemination and implementation science training toolkit. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Tufts Clinical & Translational Science (CTS) Graduate Program is the training core of the Tufts CTSI and its associated TL1. To assess barriers and facilitators to implementing the University of Washington’s Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) Science Toolkit for TL1 Programs into the Tufts CTS Graduate Program, we used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We developed an interview guide based on CFIR constructs or categories of factors that might influence implementation of the D&I Toolkit and interviewed 8 stakeholders including leadership, trainees and faculty. We compared D&I Toolkit content to the current curriculum on stakeholder engagement (SE) and research study quality improvement (QI) to identify how the D&I Toolkit could be adapted to fit trainee and program needs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Stakeholder interviews and review of the current curriculum identified facilitators and barriers to implementing the D&I Toolkit in the Tufts CTS Graduate Program. The program has a strong SE focus and fosters the use of research study QI methods. Interviews identified student and faculty desire to implement the D&I content yet time constraints and overlap with the current curriculum were identified. The following plan to adapt the D&I Toolkit content to fit contextual factors was developed and executed: 1. Adapt didactic content to fit into a 90-min session. 2. Highlight the synergy between the current SE curriculum and the role of stakeholders in D&I science. 3. Modify course materials to highlight examples of disseminating local research results. 4. Limit the experiential learning component to a SE plan. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: TL1 training programs must balance competing demands in selecting curriculum content. The CFIR framework was used to systematically assess implementation barriers by engaging program faculty, students and leaders to identify implementation strategies. This process could be useful when evaluating the addition of other educational content.