Objectives/Goals: Six CTSA hubs collected Translational Science Benefits (TSBM) Model data and implemented standardized coding to enhance rigor and reproducibility, assess the real-world impact of CTSA-supported research, and analyze cross-institutional impact trends. Methods/Study Population: Six CTSA hubs surveyed supported investigators who self-reported the TSBM benefits resulting from hub-supported project(s). De-identified data was shared with the University of California (UCI) CTSA. UCI coordinated with hubs to code their own data using a TSBM coding tool to assess which applicable criteria were met. UCI collected feedback on usability and facilitated discussions to enhance reliability across coders. UCI provided final datasets to hubs for site-specific analysis of benefits and conducted cross-site analyses of TSBM benefits. A benefit was demonstrated when 2 necessary criteria were met, and 80% of the possible criteria were met. Results/Anticipated Results: TSBM data were coded by 6 CTSA hubs from 86 pilot research projects. Most pilots were funded for 1 year (80%) with the mean award over $41,000. Investigators for projects were surveyed up to 7.5 years post-award, with the median timepoint around 3 years. Across hubs, 274 potential benefits were reported and 34 demonstrated benefits were confirmed from coding. Pilots more commonly had demonstrated clinical and medical benefits (16.3% of projects) than community (5.8%) or economic (3.5%). No projects had demonstrated policy benefits. Over 24% of projects had one or more demonstrated benefit of any kind. Demonstrated benefits were reported in 27.8% of projects surveyed within 2.5 years, 18.2% of projects from 2.5 to 5 years, and 50% of projects over 5 years post award. Discussion/Significance of Impact: A standardized, reliable coding process for TSBM data creates rigor for assessing real-world impact data that hubs can confidently connect to their support of CTSA funded-projects. This shared methodology across hubs allows for cross-institutional impact analysis and dissemination.

Team science is central to clinical and translational research; however, systematic evaluation of collaborative efforts remains inconsistent and underdeveloped. To better understand current team science evaluation practices within clinical and translational science programs, we conducted a structured cross-sectional survey of team science and evaluation professionals. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics and qualitative responses through thematic analysis. Among participating organizations, the majority have implemented team science evaluations, predominantly using mixed-methods approaches combining quantitative metrics and qualitative assessments. Evaluation findings were primarily used to inform programing, improve team functioning, and secure funding. Reported challenges fell into four key areas: methodology; implementation; data analysis; and organization. Facilitators included: methodological enhancements, organizational support, collaborative approaches, and infrastructure elements. Participants emphasized using interim measures (e.g., team dynamics and satisfaction) that move beyond traditional outcome measures so that evaluations better reflect how teams interact, adapt, and progress as they develop. While team science evaluation adoption is substantial among leading translational research institutions, significant methodological gaps persist. Future directions focus on developing standardized frameworks with local flexibility, creating validated instruments, utilizing interim process measures, and demonstrating return on investment (ROI) to advance both evaluation science and translational outcomes.

The 2025 Evaluation Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting at the Association for Clinical and Translational Science conference brought together clinical and translational science (CTS) professionals to address evolving challenges in translational science evaluation. The meeting presentations and discussions addressed concept mapping for commonly used metrics, continuous quality improvement (CQI) practices, translational science impact evaluation, and evaluator toolkit development. Key themes and lessons learned included the tension between institution-specific and network-wide evaluation goals, the need for standardized yet flexible evaluation frameworks, and persistent barriers including limited staffing capacity and data ownership challenges. Facilitators identified included diverse CQI approaches, the evolving frameworks, and collaborative evaluation practices. Convened during a time of increasing research funding uncertainty and accountability, the meeting underscored the urgency of strengthening evaluation capacity to sustain the impact of CTS, highlighting both the enduring value of heterogeneous evaluation approaches and the critical need for coordinated CTS evaluation strategies to demonstrate impact and secure continued funding support.

Objectives/Goals: Build systematic evaluation capacity within a CTSA hub’s Community Engagement program to assess community-engaged research partnerships, programs, and capacity-building activities using mixed methods while advancing translational science through continuous quality improvement. Methods/Study Population: The University of Minnesota CTSI’s Community Engagement program (CEARCH) developed a comprehensive evaluation approach combining participatory approaches with systematic data collection. The CEARCH Management Council, composed of faculty and community partners, guides evaluation strategy. Methods and data sources include surveys, focus groups, program evaluations, grant progress reports, partnership assessments, and environmental scans. Tools include evaluation logic models, running evaluation inventories, REDCap and Zoho data management platforms, and an accessible dashboard tracking grant impacts, community partnerships, training and consultation outcomes. Results/Anticipated Results: CEARCH established systematic tracking of multiple evaluation domains: grant programs (demographics, topics, satisfaction), partnership metrics (meeting frequency, satisfaction, project numbers), training data (attendance, satisfaction), and impact. Visual dashboards and infographics display pilot grant outcomes including dissemination activities, significant outcomes, and stakeholder engagement. Community Health Collaborative Pilot Grants demonstrated diverse community-engaged research across health topics, populations served, and Minnesota regions. Evaluations identified needs for improving partnership processes, defining capacity readiness, and documenting community-identified assets, needs, and priorities. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This case demonstrates how translational science organizations can build sustainable evaluation approaches for community engagement programs. Systematic evaluation infrastructure enables continuous quality improvement, documents translational impact, and strengthens authentic academic-community partnerships.

Objectives/Goals: Conduct an evaluation of the Clinical Research Support Center (CRSC) model using a structured methodology, leverage insights to drive continuous improvement and evolution, and broadly disseminate outcomes to promote knowledge sharing and best practices for similar translational science initiatives. Methods/Study Population: We will utilize a structured case study approach, including adapting a translational science case study evaluation approach to assess impact as well as support practices, barriers, and facilitators that influence research translation. We will collect data from diverse sources. Primary data will come from structured interviews with stakeholders and a survey of a random sample of faculty and research staff. Secondary data includes grant applications, reports, and publications; public stories/media related to research supported by CRSC; scientific publications; and organizational documents. Results/Anticipated Results: The case study will identify the CRSC model’s impact on the research enterprise. Findings will articulate the specific strategies and practices the CRSC implemented to support clinical research; key factors, people, and resources that helped develop, improve, and promote CRSC services; significant milestones in evolution of the CRSC; and specific ways in which support services impact clinical research infrastructure and outcomes. The findings will highlight both strengths and areas for improvement. Early results show historical challenges with operational silos and resource limitations. Findings suggest CRSC facilitators include a team science approach with institutional support. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This case study will provide insights related to benefits, challenges, and facilitators of a translational science support model. Insights will guide the CRSC’s evolution and be broadly disseminated to promote knowledge sharing and best practices for future translational science applications.

Objectives/Goals: This study illuminates the efforts of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Hub to share stories of its aspirations, challenges, successes, opportunities, and impact when pursuing its complex goals, and how storytelling contributes to the narrative of the translational science work (via storytelling strategies, products, and benefits). Methods/Study Population: We utilized an environmental scan of a CTSA Hub (University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI)), including case study vignettes of its storytelling practices and products. We triangulated data from diverse data sources: grant applications, reports, and publications; public stories/news related to CTSI activities and impact; scientific publications; organizational/policy documents; and interviews with CTSI stakeholders featured in published sources. Results/Anticipated Results: TS storytelling uses and strategies include communicating the essence of research translation, promoting program utilization, engaging community, reporting to stakeholders, and evaluating for accountability, learning, and improvement. Storytelling challenges include complexity of translation; balancing the scientific rigor with an engaging narrative; identifying appropriate stories that resonate with diverse stakeholders and are at an appropriate level of maturity; and building capacity using storytelling. Facilitators include supportive infrastructure to integrate stories; leadership endorsement of storytelling as a valuable strategy; capable cross-functional teams of communicators, administrators, and researchers to facilitate the integration of data into storytelling. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The environmental scan provides evidence and lessons learned on leveraging storytelling as a useful tool for communicating CTS goals, actions, and findings, engaging stakeholders, building a narrative around scientific discoveries, evaluating and improving programs, and addressing health disparities in translational science.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Utilized novel TS evaluation methods and tools: - Translational Science Case Study protocol adapted to examine translational support service practices, barriers and facilitators influencing translational movement. - Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) Checklist elements for translational/research impact analysis. Triangulated diverse data sources: - Primary data: semi-structured interviews with translational service stakeholders. - Secondary data: service’s applications, reports, and publications; public stories/news related to their research support; scientific publications; organizational/policy documents; and interviews with research stakeholders featured in published sources. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Translational challenges include: complexity and constant change of health data; lack of data/informatics literacy amongst researchers; limited appreciation and funding for research data services; silos of functionality and data related to biomedical informatics. Translational facilitators are: the UMN CTSA support; available infrastructure and knowledge base; researchers as the best promoters for services; multidisciplinary collaborations with research/community/healthcare teams; best practice approaches; and learning by doing. The translational/research support service contributes to community and public health, clinical/medical benefits, data literacy, catalyzing data-rich research, and health equity. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The evaluation case study provides evidence and lessons learned related to translational benefits, challenges, and facilitators of a successful translational research support service integrating best informatics practices in clinical research and contributing to health equity improvement.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: - Illustrate findings of a translational science case study of multi-pronged research aimed at understanding of social determinants in health disparities and integrating patient-centered technology; - Illuminate translational mechanisms by analyzing and sharing research challenges, facilitators, and benefits. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Utilized novel TS evaluation methods and tools: - Translational Science Case Study protocol to examine translational path from innovation to practice, barriers and facilitators for that translational movement. - Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) Checklist for translational/research impact analysis. Triangulated diverse data sources: - Primary data: semi-structured interviews with research partners. - Secondary data: researchers’ grant applications, reports, and publications; public stories/news related to their research; scientific publications; organizational/policy documents; and interviews with research stakeholders featured in published sources. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Translational challenges include: culturally tailored education and outreach; data analysis and intervention planning; engaging community stakeholders in the development and implementation; addressing economic and resource-related challenges. Translational facilitators are: UMN CTSA funding and other support; access to data and resources; use of open-source materials; evidence-based/best practice approaches; diversity and collaboration between researchers, community organizations, healthcare providers; researchers’ drive to translate. The research contributes to community and public health, clinical/medical, and economic benefits, health equity advocacy, catalyzing further research, and public awareness. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The evaluation case study contributes to translational science by providing evidence and lessons learned related to translational benefits, challenges, and facilitators of community-based, patient-centered research bringing people, knowledge, and technology together and contributing to health equity.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: - Illuminate processes and findings of a translational science case study of impactful research with incarcerated pregnant women and mothers; - Improve our understanding of the translational mechanisms by sharing translational challenges, facilitators, an METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Utilized the following evaluation methods and tools: - The Retrospective Translational Science Case Study protocol to examine translational path from innovation to policy and practice, barriers and facilitators for that translational movement. - Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) Checklist for translational/research impact analysis Triangulated diverse data sources: - Primary data: semi-structured interviews with research partners - Secondary data: researchers’ grant applications, reports, and publications; public stories/news related to their research; scientific publications; organizational/policy documents; and over 50 interviews with 30 stakeholders featured in published sources. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The research contributed to community and public health, policy/legislative, clinical/medical, and economic benefits, social/institutional change, health equity advocacy, catalyzing research (consequent research studies) and public awareness. Translational research challenges: cultural differences between research and prison system; politics of translating research to policy change; issues of capacity, power, privilege, and opportunity when doing community-engaged research; and science vs. social justice criticism. Facilitators of translation: CTSA support; stakeholder engagement; authentic collaboration; researchers as translation catalysts; and engagement in legislative activities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The evaluation case study provides useful knowledge about translational impact, challenges, and facilitators of community-based research that moved along the translational continuum and contributed to transformational, systemic changes on the legal, clinical, organizational, and interpersonal levels.

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This in-depth analysis illuminates a translational journey of a community-university research collaboration that examined health disparities among incarcerated pregnant women and spanned the translational spectrum, with the initial collaboration in 2011 paving the way for consequent research grants, publications, practices, programs, and legislation passed years later. The case study utilized data from interviews with research stakeholders, institutional and governmental sources, peer-reviewed publications, and news stories. Identified research and translational challenges included cultural differences between research and prison system; the prison system's lack of transparency; politics of using and translating research to policy change; and issues of capacity, power, privilege, and opportunity when doing community-engaged research/science. Among the facilitators of translation were the Clinical and Translational Science Award and institutional support; engagement of key stakeholders and influencers; authentic collaboration and team science; researchers as translation catalysts; pragmatic scientific approach; and policies and legislative activities. The research contributed to a variety of community and public health, policy/legislative, clinical/medical, and economic benefits. The case study findings enhance our understanding of translational science principles and processes leading to improved wellbeing and serve as a call for advancing the research agenda addressing health disparities related to criminal and social justice issues.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has dramatically changed our lives and the delivery of healthcare. The pandemic also led to widespread disruption in the research activities and training of pre‐doctoral, post‐doctoral, and early career faculty researchers. This mini‐review uses the Local Adaptive Capacity Framework to describe successful practices, challenges, and lessons learned on how Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs have used their expertise, resources, and collaborations to advance clinical and translational science research and workforce development while facing and adapting to a pandemic. Data for this mini‐review were taken from the scientific literature (23 articles) and the Research Performance Progress Reports of 50 unique CTSA hubs (40 TL1 and 50 KL2 awards). Institutions responded in innovative ways to the disruption of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Electronic and virtual platforms were used to overcome challenges related to physical distancing, laboratory closures, and travel bans. The importance of mentorship and well‐being led to the creation of new virtual programs to expand mentoring and networking beyond the home institution and to promote well‐being and resilience. These solutions to translational workforce development can be implemented to address future public health emergencies.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Illuminate processes and findings of the Environmental Scan of Adaptive Capacity and Preparedness of CTSAs done by the CTSA Working Group. Share challenges, strategies, and lessons learned for CTSAs to build Capacity to address clinical and translational barriers while responding to emergencies. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: An Environmental Scan approach for searching, collecting, analyzing and using information from diverse sources regarding CTSA hubs experiences during emergency as related to research implementation, translation, support, adaptation, and preparedness: - Triangulating multiple data sources and mixed methods (e.g., literature review, document/RPPR analysis, and expert review); - Secondary analysis of the JCTS COVID-19 Survey of the CTSAs: challenges, lessons learned, and practices that work in various program components/areas; - Using feedback of CTSA professionals from multiple disciplines to enhance our knowledge of emergency preparedness and efficient adaptation to public health and other crises. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The E-scan approach helped identify challenges, successful practices, and evidence-based strategies for building adaptive capacity and preparedness of CTSAs across various scientific sectors of the translational science spectrum. Some of the findings include: - Roadmaps for the creation of new collaborative research resources (biobanks; data repositories, etc.); - Rapid clinical and research decision making during public health crises; - New community-based research strategies to facilitate communication, research dissemination, and participant recruitment based on existing trust-based networks; - Innovative resource allocation to guarantee continuity of training and research opportunities for trainees. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The Environmental Scan of the Adaptive Capacity of CTSA hubs provides useful knowledge and tools to diverse clinical research stakeholders for mitigating the impact of a disaster via adjusting programs, practices, and processes, and building capacity for effective, emergency-ready and responsive research, training, and community engagement.

This paper is part of the Environmental Scan of Adaptive Capacity and Preparedness of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, illuminating challenges, practices, and lessons learned related to CTSA hubs' efforts of engaging community partners to reduce the spread of the virus, address barriers to COVID-19 testing, identify treatments to improve health outcomes, and advance community participation in research. CTSA researchers, staff, and community partners collaborated to develop evidence-based, inclusive, accessible, and culturally appropriate strategies and resources helping community members stay healthy, informed, and connected during the pandemic. CTSA institutions have used various mechanisms to advance co-learning and co-sharing of knowledge, resources, tools, and experiences between academic professionals, patients, community partners, and other stakeholders. Forward-looking and adaptive decision-making structures are those that prioritize sustained relationships, mutual trust and commitment, ongoing communication, proactive identification of community concerns and needs, shared goals and decision making, as well as ample appreciation of community members and their contributions to translational research. There is a strong need for further community-engaged research and workforce training on how to build our collective and individual adaptive capacity to sustain and improve processes and outcomes of engagement with and by communities-in all aspects of translational science.

Abstract As the USA and the rest of the world raced to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, years of investments from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences allowed for informatics services and resources at CTSA hubs to play a significant role in addressing the crisis. CTSA hubs partnered with local and regional partners to collect data on the pandemic, provide access to relevant patient data, and produce data dashboards to support decision-making. Coordinated efforts, like the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), helped to aggregate and harmonize clinical data nationwide. Even with significant informatics investments, some CTSA hubs felt unprepared in their ability to respond to the fast-moving public health crisis. Many hubs were forced to quickly evolve to meet local needs. Informatics teams expanded critical support at their institutions which included an engagement platform for clinical research, COVID-19 awareness and education activities in the community, and COVID-19 data dashboards. Continued investments in informatics resources will aid in ensuring that tools, resources, practices, and policies are aligned to meet local and national public health needs.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: This work will inform the ongoing development of adaptive capacity and preparedness of the CTSA Program and other clinical and translational research organizations in their quest of improving processes that drive outcomes and impacts, shaping effective programs and services, and strengthening their emergency readiness and sustainability. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: -Share the progress and preliminary findings of an ‘Adaptive Capacity and Preparedness of CTSA Hubs’ CTSA Working Group; -Improve our awareness and understanding of the efficient and effective changes helping CTSA hubs build robust capacity to address METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A multi-case study including: - Triangulating multiple sources of information and mixed methods (survey/interviews of research administrators, researchers, evaluators, and other key stakeholders), literature review, document and M&E system information analysis, and expert review; - Describing CTSA hubs’ experiences as related to research implementation, translation, and support during the time of emergency; - Administering a comprehensive survey of the CTSAs addressing their challenges, lessons learned, and practices that work in various program components/areas. Data collection includes aggregate and cross-sectional data, with representation based on CTSA size, maturity, and population density. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The described approach shows sound promise to investigate and share strategies and best practices for building adaptive capacity and preparedness of CTSAs -- across various scientific sectors, translational research spectrum, and the goals outlined by NCATS for the CTSA program. The anticipated results of this research will include the identified/shared innovative solutions and lessons learned for this rapidly emerging, high-priority clinical and translational science issue. ‘High-quality lessons learned’ are those that represent principles extrapolated from multiple sources and triangulated to increase transferability to new contexts and situations. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The project provides useful knowledge and tools to research organizations and stakeholders across multiple disciplines -- for mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 disaster via effective adjusting programs, practices, and processes, and building capacity for future successful, ‘emergency ready and responsive’ research and training.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This presentation will highlight a structured, collaborative approach to implementing and utilizing the RPPR process created at the University of Minnesota CTSI in response to the need to enhance the quality, efficiency, consistency, and utilization of annual program reporting. The approach is in line with the NCATS’s strategic objective that encourages all CTS organizations to “disseminate research results and best practices broadly, and promote a culture of openness, sharing and transparency” (NCATS, 2016, p. 19). Program activities that support translational processes and contribute to clinical outcomes are complex, nonlinear, and multidisciplinary (Smith etal., 2017). In this complex context, the meaningful engagement and reflection of program staff and collaborators is essential for all aspects of program planning, implementation, reporting, and dissemination. The University of Minnesota CTSI’s key objectives, goals, and uses of RPPR are as follows: - Develop, align, and leverage the RPPR to fulfill the accountability requirements, needs, and expectations of multiple stakeholders: NIH/NCATS, Internal Advisory Board and External Advisory Board, campus/hub, program staff and collaborators. - Engage the CTSA staff and collaborators as a team in multiple aspects of program reporting. - Inform strategic management, continuous improvement, monitoring and evaluation, organizational learning and dissemination to program stakeholders. - Translate the reported information into practical, evidence-based issues and strategic questions for the leadership discussions and advisory board consultations, actionable work plans, communication to stakeholders, organizational learning, and translational science knowledge base. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A case study of the programmatic/evaluative and methodological approach/technique development that resulted in a formal, structured, collaborative, transparent process with detailed guidelines, templates, and timelines. The process and content for reporting has been developed via a variety of methods and sources: specific funder (NIH) requirements, Huddle meetings, document/content/database analysis, reflection meetings with component staff, informal conversations, and observations. Preparation for the report began almost one year in advance, including careful analysis of the report requirements, developing user-friendly, detailed guidelines, templates, and examples. The guide templates and worksheets were created as a result of time spent navigating current instructions provided by NIH and NCATS. Timeline/project plan was developed with start and end dates for all of the moving parts along with identified responsible personnel for each of the tasks. A grid of the grant components and responsible personnel was designed to highlight the matrixed organization of the grant and the need to work across components to create single reports. The RPPR key categories have also been considered for incorporating and tracking in a program activity/customer tracking system for ongoing data management and use. As a complex translational science program, UMN CTSI has multiple initiatives, variables, and metrics to report. The program staff has been deeply engaged in the evaluative reflection to identify, prioritize, and incorporate into the RPPR the metrics that most useful to manage and describe CTSI processes, participation, products, and outcomes. Program components responded differently to the collaborative approach implemented. The M&E technical assistance was implemented in 3 different ways: components either did the M&E RPPR template themselves, with minimal M&E team assistance; responded to comments and information provided by the M&E team as a first step; or requested a significant level of assistance from M&E. Participants/partners in developing and using RPPR include CTSI program leadership and staff, administration, communication staff, M&E team, and our collaborators. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The proposed comprehensive approach to the annual program performance reporting shows sound promise to enhance program staff engagement, report utilization, learning, strategic management, self-evaluation capacity, and continuous improvement within a clinical and translational science organization. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This structured approach’s impact is significant in that it fills the current gap in the practice, literature, and methodology and offers a practical example of a “practice that works” for CTR (and other) organizations and programs striving to improve their reporting practices, staff engagement, learning, and program impact. Leveraging and synergizing the RPPR requirements and other complex, data-demanding obligations and needs can help the CTS programs move beyond the once-a-year compilation of project accomplishments and challenges to developing and sharing a thoughtful translational science program success story. References: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. (2016). NCATS Strategic Plan. NIH. Available at: https://ncats.nih.gov/strategicplan Smith, C., Baveja, R., Grieb, T., & Mashour, G. (2017). Toward a science of translational science. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(4), 253-255. doi: 10.1017/cts.2017.14

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This presentation will highlight the framework, domains, and approaches of the “Engaging the Voice of the CTS Customer and Collaborator System” created at the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) in response to the need to improve the stakeholder engagement, quality, efficiency, consistency, and transparency of the clinical and translational work. This system addresses 3 important results-based accountability measures/questions: “What should we do?”, “How well did we do it?”, and “Is anyone better off?”. According to Woolf (2008), “translational research means different things to different people.” Social networks and systems that support translational processes and outcomes are complex, nonlinear, and multidisciplinary (Smith et al., 2017). In this highly uncertain and fluid context, the input of program stakeholders is paramount to move translation forward. NCATS Strategic Plan (2016) directs the grantees to engage patients, community members and nonprofit organizations meaningfully in translational science and all aspects of translational research. Engagement of stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of a translational research project ensures the project processes and outcomes are relevant to and directly address their needs and will be more readily adopted by the community. “Customer” (among other terms are Beneficiary, Collaborator, Client, Community, Consumer, Service User, etc.) is a person, organization, or entity who directly benefits from service delivery or program (Friedman, 2005). Customers can be: direct and indirect, primary and secondary, internal and external. Our analysis of CTS stakeholders (“Who are our customers/collaborators?”) produced the following list of customers and collaborators: researchers, University departments, translational science workforce, patients, community members and entities, nonprofit organizations, industry collaborators, NCATS/NIH, CTSA hub partners, and CTSI staff. The “Voice of the Customer” (VOC) is the term used to describe the stated and unstated needs or requirements of the program’s customer. The “voice of the customer” is a process used to capture the feedback from the customer (internal or external) to provide the customers with the best quality of service, support, and/or product. This process is about being proactive and constantly innovative to capture the changing needs of the customers with time. Related to the VOC is the concept of user innovation that refers to innovations developed by consumers and end users. Experience shows that sometimes the best product or a process concept idea comes from a customer (Yang, 2007: p. 20). Capturing and utilizing such ideas are also relevant to VOC and can be operationalized and implemented as a valuable strategy. The University of Minnesota CTSI’s key objectives, goals, and uses of engaging the VOC and collaborator are as follows: (1) Engage CTSA customers (“relevant stakeholders”) in multiple aspects of translational science and look for opportunities to include their perspective (per NCATS strategic principles). (2) Inform continuous improvement, strategic management, and M&E efforts, the identification of customer needs and wants, comprehensive problem definition and ideation, new concept development and optimization. (3) Synergize NCATS and partner expectations and campus/hub needs. (4) Translate VOC into functional and measurable service requirements. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A case study of the programmatic and methodological approach/technique development. The VOC at the UMN CTSI has been captured in a variety of ways: regular and ad hoc surveys, interviews, focus groups, Engagement Studios, formal call for patient/community ideas and proposals, informal conversations, customer/community membership and participation in the Advisory Boards and Executive Leadership Team meetings, and observations. Our VOC variables and metrics assess customer needs, wants, knowledge, and skills; customer satisfaction with processes and outcomes; and customer ideas for improvement and innovation. The ensuing customer feedback and other data have been used to identify and incorporate the important attributes needed in the CTSI processes, products, and dissemination. UMN CTSI partners in engaging and capturing the VOC include our past, current, and potential customers and collaborators, communities, program staff and service providers, program administration, communication staff, M&E team, internal and external data collectors. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The proposed comprehensive approach shows sound promise to enhance customer and collaborator engagement, critical thinking, learning, strategic management, evaluation capacity and improvement within clinical and translational science organizations. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This structured approach’s impact is significant in that it fills the current gap in the practice, literature, and methodology and offers a practical example of a “practice that works” for CTR (and other) organizations and programs striving to improve their stakeholder engagement and program impact. Leveraging and synergizing the VOC and community engagement approaches can help CTS organizations advance beyond capturing individual project/service experiences to drawing a holistic portrait of an institution-level (and, potentially, a nation-level) translational science program.ReferencesFriedman M. Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough: How to Produce Measurable Improvements for Customers and Communities. Trafford, 2005.National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. NCATS Strategic Plan [Internet], 2016. NIH (https://ncats.nih.gov/strategicplan)Smith C,et al. Toward a science of translational science. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2017; 1: 253–255.Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA 2008; 29: 211–213.Yang, K. Voice of the Customer Capture and Analysis. US: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2007.