BACKGROUND: Many young investigators are interested in cardiovascular (CV) outcomes research; however, the current training experience of early investigators across the United States is uncertain. METHODS: From April to November 2014, we surveyed mentees and mentors of early-stage CV outcomes investigators across the United States. We contacted successful grantees of government agencies, members of professional organizations, and trainees in CV outcomes training programs. RESULTS: A total of 185 (of 662) mentees and 76 (of 541) mentors completed the survey. Mentees were equally split by sex; most had completed training > 3 years before completing the survey and were clinicians. Mentors were more likely women, mostly > /=20 years posttraining, and at an associate/full professor rank. Mentors reported devoting more time currently to clinical work than when they were early in their career and mentoring 2-4 people simultaneously. More than 80% of mentees started training to become academicians and completed training with the same goal. More than 70% of mentees desired at least 50% research time in future jobs. More than 80% of mentors believed that future investigators would need more than 50% time dedicated to research. Most mentees (80%) were satisfied with their relationship with their mentor and reported having had opportunities to develop independently. Mentors more frequently than mentees reported that funding cutbacks had negatively affected mentees' ability to succeed (84% vs 58%). Across funding mechanisms, mentees were more optimistic than mentors about securing funding. Both mentees and mentors reported greatest preparedness for job/career satisfaction (79% for both) and publications (84% vs 92%) and least preparedness for future financial stability (48% vs 46%) and work-life balance (47% vs 42%). CONCLUSIONS: Survey findings may stimulate future discourse and research on how best to attract, train, and retain young investigators in CV outcomes research. Insights may help improve existing training programs and inform the design of new ones.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes research training programs should prepare trainees to successfully compete for research funding. We examined how early-career investigators' prior and desired training aligns with recently funded cardiovascular (CV) outcomes research. METHODS: We (1) reviewed literature to identify 13 core competency areas in CV outcomes research; (2) surveyed early-career investigators to understand their prior and desired training in each competency area; (3) examined recently funded grants commonly pursued by early-career outcomes researchers to ascertain available funding in competency areas; and (4) analyzed alignment between investigator training and funded research in each competency area. We evaluated 185 survey responses from early-career investigators (response rate 28%) and 521 funded grants from 2010 to 2014. RESULTS: Respondents' prior training aligned with funded grants in the areas of clinical epidemiology, observational research, randomized controlled trials, and implementation/dissemination research. Funding in community-engaged research and health informatics was more common than prior training in these areas. Respondents' prior training in biostatistics and systematic review was more common than funded grants focusing on these specific areas. Respondents' desired training aligned similarly with funded grants, with some exceptions; for example, desired training in health economics/cost-effectiveness research was more common than funded grants in these areas. Restricting to CV grants (n=132) and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded grants (n=170) produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying mismatch between funded grants in outcomes research and early-career investigators' prior/desired training may help efforts to harmonize investigator interests, training, and funding. Our findings suggest a need for further consideration of how to best prepare early-career investigators for funding success.

The Centers for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (CCORs) held a meeting to review how cardiovascular outcomes research had evolved in the decade since the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 2004 working group report and to consider future directions. The conference involved representatives from governmental agencies, outcomes research thought leaders, and public and private healthcare partners. The main purposes of this meeting were to (1) advance collaborative high-yield, high-impact outcomes research; (2) identify priorities and barriers to important cardiovascular outcomes research; and (3) define future needs for the field. This report highlights the key topics covered during the meeting, including an examination of the recent history of outcomes research, an evaluation of the current academic climate, and a vision for the future of cardiovascular outcomes research.