A B S T R A C TOBJECTIVES: To assess employee support for and knowledge of smoking cessation programs for patients' parents and staff and employees' level of comfort discussing smoking with patients and their families before and during a hospital-wide study of a tobacco cessation and/or exposure reduction program for inpatients' parents who smoke. METHODS:Clinical staff were invited to complete online surveys at the beginning of and 19 months into a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of an inpatient tobacco cessation and exposure reduction program for parents of hospitalized children. The program included educating pediatric inpatient clinical staff about available resources, such as the Colorado QuitLine, and smoking cessation interventions for the parents of hospitalized children. Clinical staff were recruited via e-mail listservs, a weekly e-mail newsletter, and posted flyers. Baseline and midstudy results were compared, and x 2 tests were performed. RESULTS:At the baseline, 192 clinical staff responded; 235 responded midstudy. At the baseline and midstudy, at least 90% of the respondents believed that the hospital should support parents in quitting smoking, although the support for free nicotine replacement therapy was low (27% at the baseline to 35% at midstudy). One-fifth of the respondents were uncomfortable discussing smoking; this proportion decreased after educational interventions. Knowledge about hospital cessation resources had also increased at midstudy. CONCLUSIONS:There was strong support for helping parents and staff quit smoking. Comfort among clinical staff in addressing tobacco dependence in patients and families and awareness of cessation resources increased over the course of the study.

The goal of this study was to assess the utility of participatory needs assessment processes for continuous improvement of developing clinical and translational research (CTR) networks. Our approach expanded on evaluation strategies for CTR networks, centers, and institutes, which often survey stakeholders to identify infrastructure or resource needs, using the case example of the Great Plains IDeA-CTR Network. Our 4-stage approach (i.e., pre-assessment, data collection, implementation of needs assessment derived actions, monitoring of action plan) included a member survey (n = 357) and five subsequent small group sessions (n = 75 participants) to better characterize needs identified in the survey and to provide actionable recommendations. This participatory, mixed-methods needs assessment and strategic action planning process yielded 11 interrelated recommendations. These recommendations were presented to the CTR steering committee as inputs to develop detailed, prioritized action plans. Preliminary evaluation shows progress towards improved program capacity and effectiveness of the network to respond to member needs. The participatory, mixed-methods needs assessment and strategic planning process allowed a wide range of stakeholders to contribute to the development of actionable recommendations for network improvement, in line with the principles of team science.

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

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To complete a needs assessment and action planning process that engaged clinical and translational research network members in identifying needs through survey feedback, characterizing the needs in small group sessions, and developing recommendations for action at the network’s annual scientific meeting. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The project included (1) a survey of 357 members across partner institutions from the Great Plains IDeA CTR Network, (2) 6 - 90 minute brainstorming sessions to characterize needs identified through survey assessment, and (3) 6 - 60 minute sessions to develop recommendations for network improvement based on the characterization activity. Approximately 75 members participated in the characterization and recommendation sessions. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Seven areas of need from the survey were identified based upon the frequency of identification by network members (support to move research across the translational spectrum, database design and management, data access and sharing, data analysis, recruitment and retention of subjects, support for members who have submitted grants but were repeatedly unsuccessful, mentoring). Members indicated which characterization sessions they were interested in attending and based on the enrollment numbers needs related to unsuccessful grant submitters and mentoring were combined as were needs related to database design and data access-sharing. Sessions resulted in 8 inter-related recommendations for network action that included to (1) develop GP-CTR directory/registry of clinicians, researchers, system partners, that can be used to identify people that want to be involved in research partnerships or mentoring, (2) create a GP CTR Navigators Program to will provide support to network members throughout the collaborative research and grant preparation process, (3) identify and disseminate information about assets (funding, databases/registries) that exist amongst network partners that can be leveraged by member, (4) develop a searchable repository of evidence-based interventions for T3/T4 efforts, (5) review GP CTR supported professional development, and technological resource offerings and identify potential gaps, (6) facilitate opportunities for peer support/networking, (7) provide guidance to GP CTR network institutions looking to adopt policies that will support translational research collaboration, and (8) identify potential barriers to GP CTR network engagement (i.e., infrastructure, communication, marketing). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This process allowed for a wide range of network members to contribute to actionable recommendations for CTR leadership to move into action and improve the scientific network’s ability to conduct clinical and translational research.