Strategic Vision FAQs

How was the Strategic Vision developed and how does it stay current?

The Strategic Vision was developed in 2016 through a dynamic and iterative process, and the same process was followed again beginning in fall 2023, which resulted in the updates that are reflected in this document. The Institute plans to follow the same collaborative process for future updates.

First, the Institute engages NHLBI staff and numerous partners: patients and study participants, patient advocates, scientists, medical professionals and professional societies, advisory groups, policymakers, and interested members of the public. Input is gathered to identify research priorities needed to advance health. The Institute gathers input through workshops and forums, webinars, requests for information (RFI), and significant outreach online and at scientific and professional meetings.

Next, these constituents submit and comment on various strategic research priorities in the form of what are called compelling questions (CQs) and critical challenges (CCs).

• CQs are unanswered questions or poorly understood areas of research that require overall NHLBI support because their complexity exceeds the capacity of any one investigator-initiated program.
• CCs are barriers or impediments to scientific progress that, if overcome, will result in significant advances in biomedical knowledge.

There are 139 CQs and CCs in the Strategic Vision, and they align with the eight objectives.

Next, the NHLBI uses inputs from the various constituents and guidance from several advisory groups to identify research priorities that have the greatest potential to advance science and reduce the burden of heart, lung, and blood diseases and sleep disorders over the next decade. Each of the selected priorities reflects one or more of the NHLBI's mission-driven goals: to understand human biology, reduce human disease, advance translational research, and develop a strong workforce and resources.

What changed in the updated Strategic Vision?

In updating the Strategic Vision, the NHLBI invited input on the current relevance of the strategic objectives and on whether additional CQs and CCs were needed to address topics that may have surfaced over the past years to drive important scientific and health advances. The updated Strategic Vision now includes updated research priorities — i.e., new CQs and CCs — related to the five crosscutting themes:

1. Harness data science and new technologies to drive scientific discovery and precision health.  
2. Use novel approaches for addressing health disparities and tackling their biological underpinnings for heart, lung, and blood diseases and sleep disorders.  
3. Further science on the importance of lifestyle behaviors.
4. Leverage the power of community and patient engagement.  
5. Support women's health through the lifespan.  

Additional research priorities now address HIV as a chronic condition, support sleep and circadian rhythm research, and further implementation science.

There is an increased focus on ensuring that our science meets the needs of all, with deeper attention to eliminating health disparities among various populations and communities across the country that experience a more significant burden from chronic diseases and conditions.

Does the Strategic Vision affect individual investigator-initiated studies?

Although the Strategic Vision might stimulate and inspire individual scientists, it is not intended to replace or restrict investigator-initiated ideas. Study proposals submitted by individual researchers remain the principal way by which the NHLBI supports research.

How can I stay engaged in the Strategic Vision process?

Keeping the Strategic Vision a relevant and "living" document is an ongoing endeavor. The Institute will continue to engage its partners and the communities it serves through workshops, think tank meetings, and other consultative activities as the Institute implements the strategic research priorities. Ongoing engagement will be critical in helping the Institute quickly adapt to changes in public health priorities and the evolving research landscape. Feedback is used to continually assess how resources are allocated to ensure they are targeted to areas of greatest need.