Objectives/Goals: Capacity building within the field of implementation science has primarily focused on tangible training and resources. Yet, there has been a gap in recognizing the critical role of professional identity and self-efficacy for implementation scientists. Methods/Study Population: We conducted a qualitative needs assessment of our local implementation science network to inform the renewal grant for our clinical and translational science institute. Implementation science investigators familiar with the topic were contacted to participate in a semi-structured, individual interview via Zoom. Participants were chosen based on their varying levels of engagement with local implementation science resources. The interview guide was informed by the consolidated framework for implementation research domains. Interviews were transcribed both manually and using the Zoom Transcribe feature. Data were coded in Dedoose 10, and an inductive, iterative coding approach was taken. Results/Anticipated Results: A total of seven investigators representing the three major research institutions in the network participated in interviews. The interviews lasted on average 38 minutes. The study aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers to building implementation science capacity within the local network. However, themes related to the investigator’s sense of legitimate participation within the field, along with their perceived self-efficacy and identity, emerged in each interview. Several factors appeared to shape the identity of implementation science, such as barriers imposed by other implementation science leaders, a perceived lack of “legitimate” training, and identifying parameters around who is or isn’t a “card-carrying implementation scientist.” Discussion/Significance of Impact: Concerns about professional identity have been noted by many senior leaders in the field, but have yet to be systematically investigated. Further work is planned to examine the extent of these perceptions and attitudes, and recommendations can be developed to continue to epitomize the “big tent” aspect of implementation science.
Kalman et al. (Wed,) studied this question.