This version may be subject to change during the production process.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The NIH states, “The training of the biomedical workforce has always been an integral part of the NIH mission… It takes just one good mentor to influence the career of a new investigator; it takes a robust culture of mentorship across the research community to strengthen, sustain and diversify the entire biomedical research enterprise.” The University of Minnesota’s CTSI-Education core strives to build and maintain a strong culture of mentoring by providing CTSI KL2 scholars an opportunity to mentor an undergraduate student participating in the Pathways to Research Program (PReP). Using this mentoring model, participants gain valuable benefits and CTSI’s culture of mentoring is strengthened. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Participating KL2 scholars are matched with a promising PReP scholar for a 12-week mentored research project. The PReP program selects top candidates through a highly competitive application process. Students work in their mentor’s lab full-time, funded by CTSI-Ed. They engage in additional activities together including a mentor/mentee, an interview activity and 2 social events. Junior faculty scholars are asked to participate as judges at CTSI’s Poster Session and are invited to present at PReP seminars. The program culminates with the announcement of the Junior Mentor of the Year, in which scholars nominate their mentors for the award. Junior faculty mentors receive support through a training course, Optimizing the Practice of Mentoring, mentor orientation and a roundtable discussion with the program director and other mentors. The program’s infrastructure is designed to foster mentee/mentor relationships through faculty and staff support. Junior faculty receive one-on-one coaching when faced with difficult mentoring situations and are recognized for their mentoring successes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Junior faculty mentors highly rate the program on the following points; the experience was a good use of time, I am satisfied with my experience, I would recommend this program to faculty colleagues and students. Undergraduates and Professional students rated their mentoring relationship as 1 of 3 best outcomes of the program. In exit surveys, their highly rated program successes include having a network that helps move their career forward, and confidence to persist through training to become a successful researcher. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Creating a culture of mentoring is important to the strengthen, sustain and diversify the biomedical research workforce. This mentoring model contributes to the mission while vertically integrating CTSI-Ed’s KL2 and PReP programs. On an individual level, junior faculty improve communication and management skills, develop leadership qualities, increase their network, provide a sense of fulfilment and personal growth, and reinforce their own skills and knowledge of subject. They are also provided a top undergraduate student worker fully funded by the program.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The 2 primary objectives were to (i) insure that Scholars can effectively communicate the translational impact of their research to a lay audience and (ii) assess the benefits and efficacy of having community, as well as faculty members, judge the translational impact of KL2 Scholar’s poster presentations. An explicit secondary goal was to further the engagement of community members in CTSI-sponsored translational research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: CTSI’s Education, Community Engagement, Discovery and Translation, and Translational Workforce Development Cores created the translational impact questions and evaluation sheets. The Community Engagement and Office of Discovery and Translation recruited community judges from their respective networks and they were assigned to relevant studies. Scholars were provided with the judges scoring template in advance. After the Research Poster Session, the KL2 Scholars evaluated the quality of their presentations and the impact of having feedback from Community Judges. The Community Judges evaluated their perceived “added value” to the research presentations and their interactions with the Scholars. Both Scholars and judges completed evaluations of the poster presentation and judging process, performed on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: KL2 Scholars felt that the community impact judges provided valuable feedback on their research (3.8/5) and were satisfied overall with the poster session (3.4/5). In evaluating their own presentations, Scholars tended to rate themselves higher (4.2–4.6/5) on the clarity of their translational impact presentations than the community judges rated the Scholars (4.1–4.2/5). Scholars also rated themselves somewhat higher in the quality of their dealing with any ethical issues and their dissemination plan (4.0/5) than the community judges (3.8/5). Judges were very positive and felt they brought value to the experience (4.2–4.4/5). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Community judges added qualitative value to the Scholar presentations based on the Scholar and community judge evaluations and based on comparison based on prior year poster sessions. Documenting the degree of impact of the combination of this proscribed poster format and community-judging process awaits future assessment of Scholar presentations before and after the next annual poster presentation.