Objectives/Goals: As the field of implementation science (IS) enters its “teenage” years, most published examples describing capacity-building efforts within the field rely on quantitative methods and are retrospective. Very few of these studies engage in prospective, rigorous qualitative research to assess the needs of their local networks in building IS capacity. Methods/Study Population: Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with local investigators who had indicated prior interest in implementation science research and had been engaged with local CTSA resources at varying levels. The interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework in Implementation Research (CFIR) domains, and interviews were conducted via Zoom. Interviews were mostly hand transcribed, while the Zoom Transcribe feature was used for some interviews. Transcribed interviews were uploaded into Dedoose 10, and an inductive, iterative coding approach was taken for analysis. This study received exempt IRB approval from the University of Kansas Medical Center. Results/Anticipated Results: A total of seven faculty members, spanning the early to late career stages, participated in the interviews. They represented three of the major research institutions in the network, and the interviews lasted 24 to 58 minutes. The themes that emerged related to facilitators included mentorship, feedback opportunities, and dedicated funding. Themes related to barriers included a lack of methodological support, limited opportunities for collaboration, and a perceived exclusivity in the field of implementation science. From these, three recommendations were given: provide a dedicated IS funding opportunity locally, facilitate mentorship and collaborations, and promote leadership inclusiveness. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The study findings directly influenced the development of IS activities within the CTSI renewal. By applying IS’s best practices, utilizing qualitative assessments of implementation science networks can help the field address specific gaps in capacity building and respond more effectively to the needs of our investigators.
Kalman et al. (Wed,) studied this question.