Anticipatory call for proposals for research teams — Adolescents Thrive: African Adolescents Bolstered through Local Evidence (AABLE)
Table of contents
1. About IDRC, program divisions, & focus area
5. Expectations and proposal evaluation
7. Format and requirements for complete proposals
9. Requirements in subsequent stage
10. Post-selection requirements
11. Timeline and communication of results
13. Permission for use and disclosure of information
Annex B: Guiding Questions to Strengthen Gender Equality and Inclusion (GEI)
About IDRC, program divisions, & focus area
The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is a Crown corporation created in 1970 by the Parliament of Canada. IDRC supports and strengthens the capacity of people and institutions in developing countries to undertake the research that they identify as most urgent.
IDRC is a leader in research for development, investing in high-quality research and innovation, sharing knowledge for greater uptake and use, and mobilizing alliances for more sustainable, prosperous and inclusive societies. IDRC works with researchers and research users as they confront contemporary challenges within their own countries and contributes to global advances in their fields. Gender equality and inclusion are central to all our programs. Please refer to IDRC’s Strategy 2030 for more information.
Overview of the call
IDRC’s Global Health division is launching this anticipatory call for select countries in Africa for implementation research[1] projects to reduce knowledge gaps related to adolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH), strengthen capacities in implementation research and generate evidence to inform policymaking and promote innovative solutions tailored to the unique challenges faced by each country.
This anticipatory call is open only to organizations in the following 13 countries: Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe (See Annex A).
Launch date: June 18, 2025
Full proposals (including all supporting documents) must be received no later than August 7, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
See eligibility criteria in Section 4 and detailed timeline in Section 8.
Background and rationale
Adolescents (aged 10-19 years) represent a large and growing demographic across the globe. Among the 1.3 billion adolescents, 90% reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with sub-Saharan Africa as the region with the fastest-growing adolescent population.[i] Adolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH) continues to be a major public health challenge in Africa where child marriage, adolescent childbearing, sexual and gender-based violence, HIV transmission and low coverage of modern contraceptives are widespread in many countries. Moreover, during times of crisis, evidence has shown that ASRH needs are deprioritized. [ii]
These ASRH challenges and the related health, social and economic risks and consequences disproportionately affect adolescent girls. Rates of adolescent childbearing among girls aged 15–19 in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are among the highest in the world, ranging from 18% to 40%. Indeed, while adolescent birth rates have declined worldwide, SSA still recorded more than double the global average in 2021, with over 100 births per 1,000 adolescent girls.[iii] Early pregnancy and childbearing not only expose girls to increased risks of maternal morbidity — including obstetric fistula — and mortality, but also results in their loss of schooling, skills and economic options for a lifetime while having the burden of raising children from a young age. Girls are 5 to 20 times more likely to be married as children than boys, with the highest rates of child marriage evident in Africa. Girls are also up to three times more likely than boys to experience sexual violence during adolescence and, in SSA, nearly six times as many adolescent girls are newly infected with HIV compared to adolescent boys — underscoring the stark gender disparities in sexual violence and HIV vulnerability among adolescents[iv]. Moreover, during times of crisis, evidence has shown that ASRH needs are deprioritized and that the disproportionate risks and consequences suffered by girls multiply.[v]
Recent studies also continue to highlight significant inequalities in ASRH across various sociodemographic factors. A 2021 study examining wealth-related disparities in the demand for family planning found that wealthier adolescents were more likely to have their family planning needs met with modern contraceptives compared to their poorer counterparts, underscoring the impact of household wealth on ASRH outcomes.[vi] Similarly, a 2020 report by UNICEF addressed the sexual and reproductive health needs of adolescents (ages 10-19) in sub-Saharan Africa. The report identified significant gaps in access to comprehensive sexual education, contraceptive use and awareness of sexual and reproductive health services among this age group, highlighting the need for targeted interventions to address these disparities.[vii] Notably, young adolescents aged 10-14 years are particularly affected by these issues, as they often face additional barriers such as limited autonomy, lack of tailored health services and cultural taboos that hinder their access to necessary information and resources. Additionally, there is poor data availability for this age group and their sexual and reproductive health needs are hardly captured in most surveys undertaken by African countries.[viii]
Adolescent girls and boys in Africa are particularly under-served due to poor quality and under-resourced health information and services, leading to the continuation of poor health outcomes. Where health services exist, many of these efforts face significant shortfalls, often due to poor design and implementation that lack the foundation of robust background and baseline data, but also due to limitations in providers, facilities and outreach. Without evidence to guide the development and improvement of these services, health and education systems fall short on addressing the extensive needs of adolescent girls and the more specific needs of adolescent boys, thus failing to achieve the desired health outcomes. Adolescents — girls in particular — also experience a range of sociocultural, financial and other systemic barriers to accessing ASRH-related information and services. Gender norms, cultural constraints and lack of resources prevent girls from learning about their bodies, speaking up about sexual violation, or resisting early marriage or transactional sexual relationships. Conversely, boys may engage in early and risky sexual behaviors or sexual violence to meet ideals of masculinity.[xi]
While there is extensive research on the types of information and services that can improve adolescent health and life outcomes — including adolescent-friendly services and facilities, better access to family planning options, life skills, sexuality education, cash transfers and school subsidies —, the evidence on how these interventions should be designed and delivered at scale through government policies and programs in collaboration with key partners is more elusive. Experts in the ASRH field have particularly highlighted the importance of implementation research for demonstrating effective pathways for executing and scaling up recommended interventions so that significant numbers of adolescents benefit and over the longer-term[x, xi, xii] Implementation research is also essential for course-correcting current ASRH programs and policies that are either failing or sub-optimal in the results they are achieving.
Where policies and programs exist or are being shaped, the availability and adequate use of high-quality evidence in real-world settings constitutes a critical step in filling the key documented gaps in existing research. To achieve this, it is essential to generate robust evidence and ensure its seamless integration into decision-making processes, thus empowering policymakers and practitioners to make informed, effective choices that directly impact outcomes in diverse contexts.
About the initiative
This new initiative, provisionally titled Adolescents Thrive: African Adolescents Bolstered through Local Evidence (AABLE), aims broadly to improve reproductive, maternal, neonatal, child and adolescent health outcomes in Africa, but with a primary focus on adolescent health and gender equality. It will close knowledge gaps related to adolescent sexual and reproductive health, strengthen capacities in related implementation research and generate evidence to inform policymaking and promote innovative solutions tailored to the unique ASRH challenges faced by each country.
AABLE aims to fund research to inform policies, practices and effective strategies to tackle specific challenges faced by adolescent girls and boys in meeting their sexual and reproductive health needs. It will generate quality evidence and identify priorities and strategies for addressing those challenges, including service constraints faced by health systems and the entrenched social and gender cultural norms that govern adolescents' lives. AABLE is anticipated to support a cadre of national researchers, decision-makers and other thought leaders in selected African countries (see Annex A) to enhance their capacities to design and execute relevant, rigorous gender-responsive and gender-transformative implementation research projects that improve ASRH options and outcomes.
Main objective
To support locally led implementation research projects that address country-specific gender-responsive adolescent sexual and reproductive health priorities, and to support research capacity and processes for evidence-informed policymaking.
Specific objectives
Support locally led implementation research projects to address country-specific adolescent sexual and reproductive health priorities by generating high quality, actionable evidence related to implementing effective, gender-responsive adolescent sexual and reproductive health programs and services in selected countries in Africa.
Increase knowledge sharing and collaborative learning exchange within and across countries on successful innovations in implementing ASRH programs and effective, gender-responsive strategies to improve the health and wellbeing of adolescents.
Strengthen in-country capacity for evidence production, translation and timely use to inform gender-responsive decisions by policymakers in the government and civil society sectors responsible for adolescent health program implementation and outcomes.
Integrate a strong gender lens in the generation, translation and use of the evidence base to respond to the special needs of girls and boys and improve adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Africa.
Two calls are planned to achieve AABLE’s objectives.
Call for proposals for an Africa evidence-use expert organization: A separate call for proposals will support one Africa evidence-use expert organization (AEO) to strengthen the capacities of implementation research teams (RTs), including national decision-makers, in knowledge translation (KT) and evidence-informed policymaking (EIP), nurture collaboration and engagement with relevant stakeholders and position evidence for use. The AEO will also be responsible for the design and support of a co-creation process for developing the Implementation Research (IR) workplans and KT strategy, particularly as it relates to gender-responsive research and health equity in ASRH, and will facilitate networking and information sharing between RTs. The AEO could be a single organization or consortium of organizations. This by-invitation call is already closed.
A call for proposals for research teams: The overall goal of this call for proposals will be to support RTs conducting action-oriented research that applies a gender-equality and a health-equity lens to understand the challenges and opportunities for improving sexual and reproductive health (SRH) for adolescents in eligible countries. Each research team will include a lead researcher from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and one lead national decision-maker in ASRH in the country, to facilitate the uptake of research findings into policies and programs. The RTs will be supported by the AEO to co-create the designs of the IR, as well as prioritize gender-responsive ASRH areas and themes based on national priorities and context. Women-led research teams and organizations are strongly encouraged to apply. This will bring together a range of multi-disciplinary technical expertise. This document is for this call.
Methods and Thematic Approach
1. Co-Creation:
Co-creation in designing the workplans, engaging RTs and decision-makers, fosters stronger buy-in and a sense of ownership, as participants are more committed to executing plans they helped shape. By incorporating diverse perspectives and expertise, co-creation leads to more comprehensive, realistic and creative solutions. It also promotes better alignment of goals and expectations, enhances transparency and trust, and encourages open communication.
It is expected that all applicants will need to demonstrate how co-creation approaches were employed to develop their applications. Research teams will employ a co-creation methodology to collaboratively develop research designs at country level. This process will actively engage stakeholders and decision-makers in identifying priority areas and shaping the research agenda. The resulting research designs and workplans will reflect a multidisciplinary and intersectoral approach, ensuring relevance, inclusivity and practical impact.
This initiative will also support an additional and dedicated co-creation process facilitated by the AEO, aimed at collaboratively developing the implementation research projects. The process will include a regional workshop, bringing together key members of the RTs, the lead researcher/principal investigator (PI) and the co-principal investigator for decision-making (co-PI for DM) actively engaging in the joint identification and prioritization of research areas and thematic focuses, aligned with country-specific priorities.
RTs will also co-develop research methodologies and approaches, as well as detailed workplans that include a theory of change and a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework. Following this workshop, the AEO will continue to work closely with the research teams to refine and finalize the workplans.
Research teams will employ a co-creation methodology to collaboratively develop research designs at country level. This process will actively engage stakeholders and decision-makers in identifying priority areas and shaping the research agenda. The resulting research designs and workplans will reflect a multidisciplinary and intersectoral approach, ensuring relevance, inclusivity and practical impact.
Research teams are strongly encouraged to integrate civil society organizations (CSOs) into the research process from the outset of project design. This collaborative approach ensures that the perspectives and expertise of CSOs are embedded throughout the research lifecycle. Potential partners include youth clubs, girls' empowerment organizations, gender-based violence prevention units and other community-based entities.
This initiative aims to strengthen the capacities of researchers, research organizations, CSOs, policymakers and communities to incorporate gender-transformative approaches into implementation research. Such approaches are essential for addressing the root causes of adolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH) challenges, particularly among underserved populations.
2. Thematic Focus:
Applicants are required to design their research proposals based on national priorities in ASRH, and address topics relevant to at least one of the following four themes.
Theme 1: Service Delivery Models
Focus: Models of service delivery and the impact of integration on outcomes related to ASRH
Integrating ASRH education and services into primary health care settings, in school-based programs and through community-based outreach programs is essential for improving adolescents' access to essential care. For example, proposals may consider implementation research to assess the feasibility, acceptability, or effectiveness of addressing supply-side and/or demand-side constraints to the delivery of quality ASRH services at scale through one or more of the three service delivery platforms: health facilities, schools, or communities. Implementation research could examine viable options for integrating ASRH in mainstream health services while catering to the unique biological and social needs and constraints of adolescents. In Kenya, Save the Children assessed the feasibility and potential of adolescent- and gender-responsive health systems at the subnational level[xiii], noting the facilitating role of adolescent-friendly interventions, staff and accessibility, while also identifying several barriers, including negative provider attitudes, financial constraints, transportation challenges, waiting time, intimidating environments and lack of confidentiality. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the World Health Organization (WHO) is assessing how best to deliver a package of interventions to improve health workers’ knowledge, skills and attitudes in providing ASRH services. Another study implemented by the same group examines the feasibility of implementing comprehensive sexuality education to out-of-school adolescents. A neglected area for exploration is the depth, quality, gender responsiveness and sustainability of school-based ASRH services as well as the operational and financial cooperation such services require between the health and education ministries. Applicants are invited to propose implementation research that will examine different methodologies and approaches to improve the delivery of gender-responsive ASRH services and education through the health or education systems, and test or expand strategies and innovative approaches in service delivery and financing modalities to implement such programs at scale.
Theme 2: Social, Economic, or Multisectoral Policy Interventions
Focus: Examining the implementation of pathways for structural policy interventions to improve ASRH
Adolescents in Africa are particularly under-served, and experience socio-cultural, financial, gender and other systemic barriers to access health information and services which result in poor health outcomes. Advocates have encouraged and supported countries to adopt policies aimed at overcoming many of these structural and systemic barriers, ranging from child marriage or female genital mutilation (FGM) prevention laws to cash transfer and social protection programs that support and/or incentivize better health, education, empowerment and wellbeing for the most disadvantaged adolescents, especially girls.[xiv] Additionally, health ministries in many countries have adopted comprehensive adolescent health program strategies, with the aim to provide a full package of services and address intersectional disadvantages in collaboration with education, gender, social protection and/or youth ministries. Applicants are invited to propose research that examines how national policies, laws and strategies are being implemented, the extent to which they improve adolescents' access to health services, the effectiveness of intersectoral collaboration and the strategies to overcome or minimize policy implementation gaps.
Recent studies are focusing on key implementation components and gaps, as for example the 2023 study of Ghana's Adolescent Health Service Policy and Strategy (2016–2020) by Frontiers for Health. This implementation assessment revealed that out of 23 planned strategies, only 17% were fully implemented, with 26% not implemented at all. Contributing factors included inadequate funding, heavy reliance on external donors and fragmented service delivery for SRH and mental health services.[xv] A comparative analysis across Ghana, Niger and Burkina Faso highlighted several common challenges in implementing adolescent health policies, including the lack of effective collaboration between health, education and other sectors, and the fragmentation of services that do not fully address adolescents' needs. There is often a disconnect between policy intentions and actual service delivery, influenced by cultural norms, resource constraints and insufficient stakeholder engagement.[xvi]
Applicants are invited to examine the implementation of ASRH policies and strategies at the national, subnational or institutional level, assessing the facilitating and hindering factors to effective implementation. Potential implementation research questions could consider options for adopting and enforcing quality standards for ASRH services, variations in policy execution across geographies (especially poorer versus richer or rural versus urban regions), the implications of leadership and financial contribution by the health sector versus other sectors, and/or the role of cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms. Studies could also investigate the relevance of different operational pathways through which policies such as cash transfers to girls or their families are implemented in improving ASRH services or mitigating the risk of gender-based violence or harmful practices.
Theme 3: Data and Health Management Information Systems (HMIS)
Focus: Improve the availability, use and interoperability of HMIS to support improved adolescent health outcomes
Improving the health of women, children and adolescents around the world should ideally be based on decisions made using reliable health management information systems (HMIS). However, in many low- and middle-income countries, HMIS are challenged by poor coverage, incomplete records, inferior data quality, untimely reporting, limited analysis and use, and fragmented systems that challenge health systems’ ability to regularly track challenges and progress on the delivery of quality health services. Even as data on adolescents may be recorded at the point of service by age and sex, HMIS frequently lose such disaggregation as data are reported up and compiled at the district or provincial level. Education management information systems (EMIS) capture very limited information on school based ASRH education and services. Thus, there is a particular paucity of routine data on service access, delivery and quality for adolescents through health or education systems. This makes it difficult to track and correct the ongoing implementation challenges of policy and programmatic efforts to improve ASRH services, options and outcomes. Applicants are encouraged to propose implementation research that explores viable options for improving the collection, compilation and use of a wider range of sex-disaggregated and sex-specific data on adolescents through routine health and education management systems. Proposals for research to support the implementation of policies and processes that facilitate interoperability among HMIS across health and other sectors are also encouraged.
Recent studies on adolescent health information systems in Africa have highlighted both challenges and innovative approaches across the continent. For example, in Togo, a study by the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent Health (GAMA) found that while adolescents and young people constitute 31% of the population, only slightly more than half of the 52 priority global adolescent health indicators are currently collected. Data collection is predominantly conducted through national surveys, with the national health information system contributing only a small proportion.[xvii] In many countries, the different modalities and types of SRH services delivered to adolescents through community health services and health facilities make the use of consistent data collection forms, questionnaires or applications a challenge. Adolescent girls getting family planning or maternal health services through mainstream health programs may not be recognized or recorded as adolescents, and data specific to them may not show up in monthly or quarterly dashboards on these services reviewed by decision-makers.
Applicants are invited to examine viable approaches to improve the range and quality of ASRH data in HMIS, EMIS and related routine information systems. Some of the questions implementation research in this area could address include the following: How many and what type of indicators related to progress on ASRH services, processes and/or outcomes can realistically be integrated in routine systems within a 1–2-year time frame? What are the cost implications of such efforts, and do they increase or reduce the work burden and management challenge for the health workers and institutions involved? What strategies can be used for the effective integration of data on ASRH in actionable reports and dashboards for decision-making from local up through to the national level? What human and financial resources and coordination efforts are required to enhance the interoperability of data systems and location specific HMIS that can facilitate regular sectoral and intersectoral progress on ASRH outcomes?
Theme 4: Digital Health Technologies
Focus: How digital tools and technologies can enhance the reach and coverage of services related to ASRH
Digital health interventions including using artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly recognized as vital tools for enhancing adolescent health information and services across Africa. These interventions offer opportunities to improve access, quality of services, engagement and outcomes, and present the potential to convey information and service options to adolescents on sensitive issues related to ASRH without intermediaries. However, their effectiveness hinges on addressing challenges related to data privacy, digital literacy and accessibility. Given the socio-economic and gender digital divide, girls, as well as adolescents in rural and low-income groups are less likely to be able to access information and services digitally, and they may also be more vulnerable to online or related exploitation. Applicants are invited to test the transformative potential of digital health interventions in adolescent health care in Africa while also assessing the related technological, ethical and infrastructural challenges and options for overcoming them to make interventions effective, secure and accessible to the broadest range of adolescents.
Challenges such as limited internet access, especially in rural areas, and concerns about data privacy are documented, yet the need for affordable, context-specific digital solutions that are co-designed with adolescents are sorely needed to enhance engagement and scalability. Implementation research studies in the context of ASRH would investigate how digital health interventions are delivered, adopted and sustained in real-world settings, with the aim of answering the following questions: what works, for whom, under what conditions, and how. Studies would especially consider the gender and equity dimension as well as the acceptability, feasibility, fidelity and sustainability of digital health strategies with the greatest potential for scale. Research questions could focus on the adolescents as recipients of digital health interventions, as well actors in using digital options for self-care or self-reliance. Studies could also consider the role of health and education providers in using digital information to convey information, provide services, or manage data. For example, by equipping community health workers with smartphones loaded with tailored applications, digital referrals and health monitoring may be improved, bridging gaps between health service providers and community members, ensuring timely and coordinated care. The use of locally relevant and accessible digital technologies to provide continued professional development, support learning communities among health workers, enhance reporting systems and strengthen feedback loops could[xviii] be examined as part of this theme.
Cross-cutting considerations
Each project must present a clear implementation research question. At least one of the research questions must explicitly address gender power relations (see definitions here). Submitted proposals must describe how the cross-cutting considerations presented below will all be integrated into the design and implementation of the proposed research. While it may not be possible to address all considerations at the same level of depth, these will be considered in the selection process.
Gender equality: Proposals should have a clear and strong focus on addressing the gender dimensions of ASRH and demonstrate attention to the different and unequal needs, options and consequences for adolescent girls versus boys along with relevance for programs and policies. Definitions and application of gender equality, gender analysis, gender norms, gender power relations/dynamics are included here and guiding questions are included in Annex B.
Inclusion: Proposals should consider how inclusion of marginalized adolescents can be advanced through the implementation research, and their inclusion should also be applied to the evidence synthesis and how the results will inform implementation and communication and influence strategies. Definitions and application of the terms on inclusion are included in Annex B.
Data systems and practices: Attention should be placed on disaggregating data by sex, gender and other sub-categories, such as sexual orientation, age, class, race, caste, ethnicity, citizenship status, migration status, religion and disability, among other identity factors. Where appropriate, the use of locally relevant and accessible digitized information systems and tools can be included in the study design. If the use of AI-enabled systems is included, details should be provided on how these systems are “responsible” (equitable, safe, rights-based, inclusive and sustainable) in their design and deployment.
Knowledge translation: Applicants must demonstrate how their implementation of research proposals responds to an emerging need or knowledge gap and how the research will be positioned for use. Projects are strongly encouraged to actively engage communities in co-creating research design and its implementation. To this end, proposals must include a knowledge translation[2] strategy and budget that describes the approach to engage knowledge users and support efforts to influence behaviours, policies and practice.
Capacity strengthening and exchange: Projects must combine research with capacity strengthening of LMIC-based researchers and community members. Projects are encouraged to have a mix of senior and early-career researchers, with strong representation of female researchers and emerging researchers representing different equity-seeking groups.
Sustainability and scale: Proposals should include plans to sustain outcomes of the project beyond its closure, with specific consideration of the systems, processes and structures that will be put in place throughout the project for both sustained EIP and continued application of IR by ASRH programs for adaptation and improvement. When relevant and applicable to the project’s methodologies, strategies to scale the results should be included.
Private sector engagement: Applicants are encouraged (but not required) to work on or with the private sector in their proposal.[3] Any private sector inclusion should connect to the larger development outcome(s) the applicant seeks to advance in their submission.
Funding scope and duration
As a result of this anticipatory call, up to eight grants of up to CAD692,000 will be issued. The project duration will not exceed 30 months, including all research activities and final reporting, with an anticipated start date by November 1, 2025.
IDRC reserves the right to fund additional proposals from this call if/when more funding becomes available from IDRC or other donors. IDRC is under no obligation to issue any funds prior to the applicant returning a fully executed Grant Agreement to IDRC.
All grants are subject to sufficient funds being made available to IDRC by the Parliament of Canada or under a donor partnership agreement with a particular external funder.
IDRC reserves the right to cancel this call for proposals at any time without prior notice and/or to not issue any grants under this process.
Grant negotiations may also be influenced by operational considerations, e.g., Canadian law; knowledge of research settings; ability to monitor research activities; conditions that may make it difficult, dangerous or onerous for IDRC to carry out its objectives or to exercise proper stewardship of its resources.
Eligibility criteria
Only proposals that meet the eligibility criteria list below will be considered. Applicants can apply alone or as a consortium of up to three organizations (led by one of the organizations).
Applicant organization/s are based in one of the following thirteen eligible countries: Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
The Lead Applicant Organization must have independent legal status (or “legal personality”) and be capable of contracting in their own right and name, receiving and administering funds, and have authority to direct proposed project activities. Applicants must be able to demonstrate legal status through written documentation.
If proposing a consortium, the Lead Applicant Organization must also demonstrate its ability to transfer funds to other countries where other consortium members are located.
Applicant organizations must be eligible to conduct or coordinate independent research in study countries.
Applicant organizations have a corporate policy to allow researchers to publish in the international academic literature without institutional restrictions.
Each funded project must have:
a. A principal applicant/Principal Investigator (PI) who is a sub-Saharan Africa-based researcher (citizen or permanent resident of an African country) with a position in an institution based in an eligible country (see Annex A) where the research will take place. The principal applicant (PI) will be the implementation research team lead and will work in close collaboration with the following mandatory co-applicant for decision-making (DM) and other members of the team:
b. Co-principal applicant(s) for decision making (co-PI for DM) who is/are a relevant national-level decision-maker in ASRH. If the research is planned in only one country, this co-applicant must be based in the same country as the principal applicant’s institution. If the research is planned in multiple countries, there must be one co-applicant eligible decision-maker from each. Decision-makers must have within their responsibility and authority to support the identification of research questions, implementation of research (where appropriate) and uptake of results at the appropriate level. If a co-principal applicant decision-maker is not from a government entity, the implementation research team needs to justify how the chosen decision-maker has the ability to support the research, act to implement the research findings and influence relevant levels of government. Women and other under-represented people in decision-maker positions are strongly encouraged to apply.
Expectations and proposal evaluation
The Full Proposals will be evaluated by an external Scientific Review Committee (SRC) composed of international, multidisciplinary experts. Full Proposals will be judged both on their own merit as well as on how they compare with other applications submitted. The review process relies on well-established principles and policies of fairness, confidentiality, transparency and absence of conflict of interest as described in CIHR's Peer review: Overview page.
All eligible proposals will be evaluated based on criteria outlined in the table below.
Relevance of project | 20% |
|
|
High-quality research | 40% |
|
|
Team composition and strength | 10% |
|
|
Feasibility to achieve project objectives and impact | 20% |
|
|
Budget | 10% |
|
|
Submission process
Applicants should submit an electronic application through IDRC’s SurveyMonkey Apply submission system before the deadline.
Applications must be received no later than August 7, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. EDT. Applications received after the deadline will not be considered.
Applications can be submitted in English or French.
An acknowledgement of receipt of your submission will be sent to all applicants whose application was received before the deadline.
Format and requirements for complete proposals
Full proposal content
Applicants have up to 8,800 words in English and 10,115 words in French to present their proposal (not including annexes) This narrative section must be single-spaced, 12-point Arial font with 2.54 cm margins, and should be submitted in .doc or .docx file format. The project title should be a maximum of 150 characters, including spaces.
The Full Proposal must be organized according to the following sections:
Section | Maximum Word Count in English | Maximum Word Count in French |
Abstract The following structure should be followed: Background, objectives, methodology and potential impact. | 300 | 345 |
Background Problem statement and brief literature review, including the rationale for the selection of thematic entry points and priority populations of the project, as well as the rationale for the selection of the research site(s). | 1,500 | 1,725 |
Objectives Overall objective and specific objectives of the project and clear rationale as to how they relate to the objectives and scope of the call for proposals, including specific references to ASRH. Ensure that at least one objective has an explicit gender equality and inclusion focus. | 300 | 345 |
Methodology Methodology description, including research questions, study design, methods and gender equality, participatory approach and inclusion of CSO and relevant stakeholders and health equity dimensions, among other cross-cutting considerations, are incorporated in the proposal. | 3,000 | 3,450 |
Expected Outcomes and Impacts Description of how expected outcomes (e.g., changes in behaviours or actions) and impacts (e.g., improved policies, practices and/or planning) will be achieved. To this end, IDRC requests that a knowledge-translation4 plan describes the intentional and strategic approach that will be pursued to engage knowledge users and support efforts to move research into action. Ideally, this will describe how the implementation research proposal responds to an emerging need or knowledge gap and how the research will be positioned for use.5 | 2,000 | 2,300 |
Risks Identification of anticipated contextual and project management risks and mitigation strategies. | 350 | 400 |
Team Composition Multidisciplinary team composition and expertise in the relevant themes of the Full Proposal, including an approach to supporting and retaining diverse team members throughout the project including CSO as needed. The team should include a co-principal investigator (co-PI) who is a national-level decision-maker in ASRH in the country where the research is taking place. Describe how partner institutions will work together and their respective roles and expertise. The team will need to demonstrate here that it has the experience and skills necessary to undertake gender-responsive or gender-transformative research and utilize approaches that are well aligned with this intent. | 1,000 | 1,150 |
Ethics Ethical considerations of the research project and submission process to a Research Ethics Committee. | 350
| 400 |
Additional documents (not included in the word count)
As part of the application process, applicants will also be required to submit the following individual/institutional documents:
Budget in local currency
To be prepared and submitted based on the IDRC budget template. As a guide, please consult the - General Terms and Conditions for a Grant Agreement | IDRC - International Development Research Centre.
IDRC does not make grants for basic operating expenses, endowments, or facilities for individual school districts, colleges, universities, or human services organizations. It does not generally make grants to individuals or make program-related investments.
Institutions and personnel
A copy of the legal or corporate registration of the Lead Applicant Organization.
A letter of attestation of the Lead Applicant Organization's capacity to manage a grant of this size and complexity (largest grants managed to date, compliance with other donor reporting and legal requirements, ability to manage third parties, foreign funds, and disbursements).
Names, short biographies (250 words), and CVs of proposed Principal Investigator (PI) and co-PIs for DM.
For each member of the research team, information on their respective expertise and previous work in this area should be also submitted in the form of a short biography (250 words).
For research teams working with Indigenous communities, a separate, brief (maximum 1 page) description of how the research team meets the requirement of including a co-PI who self-identifies as Indigenous or provides evidence of having meaningful and culturally safe involvement with Indigenous Peoples.
Signed letters of support from all organizations named in the implementation research proposal, namely: Lead Applicant Organization, and the organization with which the decision-maker co-applicant(s) is/are affiliated, and any other Third-Party Organizations if applicable.
Signed letters of support from relevant government ministries or other key stakeholders, where appropriate.
Up-to-date organizational charts for the Lead Applicant Organization.
Letters of Acknowledgement/Support
Letters of support from other institutions willing to collaborate or support the study should be included.
If submitting as a consortium, letters of commitment are required from the leading and collaborating institutions interested in participating, and a description on how the different partners, key stakeholders and institutions will collaborate in the initiative.
IDRC reserves the right to rescind its selection of a project if it is deemed that the information provided in the application is false or misleading.
Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use
As part of IDRC’s commitment to transparency and fairness in the evaluation process, we ask all applicants to disclose whether any form of AI — including tools for writing, coding, design, or data analysis — was used in the preparation of their application materials.
This information will not affect the evaluation of applications but will help us better understand current practices and ensure responsible use of emerging technologies. Kindly note the following link from the Tri-Councils: Guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the development and review of research grant proposals.
Conditions of Funding
The applicant must consent to the use and disclosure of full application and nominative information at the time of application, for purposes of relevance review and/or funding decisions by the relevant partners.
Applicants must meet minimum requirements to receive an IDRC grant. Any selected proponents shall be required to sign IDRC’s standard Grant Agreement, as amended by IDRC from time to time. The grant agreement will provide a schedule for submitting interim and final technical and financial reports.
Grant recipients will be required to submit technical and financial reports to IDRC. The frequency and information required in these reports will be described in the grant agreements.
Selection process
Applications will first be screened for eligibility, using the eligibility criteria outlined in Section 4 above.
Research proposals will be assessed by an External Review Committee comprised by external reviewers with expertise in ASRH, health systems and service delivery, health information and data systems, policy and gender studies, equity, diversity and inclusion, and knowledge translation and/or knowledge users. They will assess the applications according to the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 5 above.
The External Review Committee will then make a funding recommendation to IDRC. Recommended proposals may receive specific comments from the reviewers to be addressed, including suggested budgetary adjustments.
Applicants whose proposals are recommended for funding will undergo an institutional assessment (see Annex C). This step assesses the potential risk of material loss of IDRC funds due to weaknesses in the capacity of an applicant’s institution to manage or report on the financial aspects of project activities, or because of economic and political conditions relating to the institution’s operating environment. IDRC needs to review three broad areas in its assessment of what measures should be applied to minimize such risk: the materiality of the investment; the management capacity of the applicant’s institution; and the wider environment within which the organization operates.
IDRC will have no obligation to issue any funds prior to the applicant returning an executed Grant Agreement issued to them by IDRC. By submitting a proposal, the Lead Applicant Organization accepts IDRC’s Standard Terms and Conditions for a Grant Agreement.
The process for finalizing the project proposal, budget and administrative documentation is anticipated to take place between August 15, 2025, and no later than September 30, 2025.
Requirements in subsequent stage
Research ethics and safeguarding
Research must adhere to IDRC’s Corporate Principles on Research Ethics. Projects including human subjects must ensure that their privacy, dignity and integrity are protected. An independent ethical review committee must approve the protocols, and a copy of this approval must be provided either before the grant agreement is issued or the initial payment is released to the grantee, in accordance with the Centre’s procedures. Projects collecting corporate or personal information must detail how informed consent will be obtained and confidentiality maintained. In contexts where there is no official institutional or national research ethics body, the applicants will need to describe an alternative plan for research ethics review.
Successful applicants will be asked to identify significant ethical and safeguarding (preventing sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment) considerations and strategies for risk elimination or mitigation. Describe (1) the avenues for anyone in contact with the project to report safeguarding or misconduct concerns; (2) how everyone in contact with the project will be made aware of how to report a concern; (3) a project-level safeguarding contact (who on the project will be held accountable for safeguarding); and (4) how IDRC will be notified about concerns.
Post-selection requirements
Proposal and budget finalization
Prior to finalizing a Grant Agreement, IDRC reserves the right to request any revisions to the submitted proposal and budget. A revised proposal with the necessary revisions must be returned in a timely manner to IDRC.
Country clearance requirements
In some cases, IDRC has scientific and technical cooperation agreements with the governments of the countries where we support projects. Where such agreements exist, IDRC may require additional or alternative approval processes to be followed to comply with such agreements. Otherwise, grantees must follow the prevailing approval procedure as required by the government authority. This is often administered by a coordinating or nodal agency of the government and varies by jurisdiction. An IDRC grant administration representative will advise the selected applicant if any country procedures need to be followed. A grant agreement will only be issued if and once country clearance(s) is/are obtained.
IDRC reserves the right to not pursue the funding of a selected project if the country approval is required and not secured within six months after the date the notice of decision is sent to the applicant.
After an institutional assessment of an applicant’s organization is performed, IDRC may identify operational or financial weaknesses that could pose some administrative risks to the proposed project. In such cases, IDRC reserves the right to request the applicant’s organization to partner with another institution as a condition of receiving the grant.
Sub-recipients
In cases where the recipient will manage sub-grantees, the country requirements that apply to sub-grantees are also documented in the grant agreement. It becomes the responsibility of the grantee to ensure that sub-grantees meet these requirements.
Country risk
IDRC funds research in locations that respond to the corporate and programmatic plans and objectives approved by IDRC’s Board of Governors. Project proposals and risk-mitigation measures may need to be revised, and additional documentation required, where:
project activities may be affected by legal restrictions on transferring funds or other resources to specific entities;
due to physical remoteness, physical risks to IDRC employees in particular regions, or other inaccessibility factors prevent IDRC from properly monitoring and supporting the project; or
applicable laws and regulations prevent institutions from accessing funds.
Grant Agreement
Any selected proponents must sign IDRC’s standard Grant Agreement to receive funds. Please refer to the Standard Terms and Conditions for a Grant Agreement. The grant agreement will also provide a schedule for submitting interim and final technical and financial reports. IDRC will only negotiate Grant Agreements with the organization of the lead applicant.
Open Access Policy
IDRC embraces the principle of sharing research data and encourages researchers to make their data openly available. We will support researchers seeking to share their research data and we will proactively work with researchers who are generating significant data to make it open and accessible.
IDRC believes that open research data can accelerate collaboration and scientific discovery and supports the fundamental scientific requirement of allowing others to confirm or challenge research results; and as a public research funder we should work to remove barriers to research results (see IDRC’s Open Access Policy) and the underlying data that informs it.
Data Management Plan
IDRC believes that open research data can accelerate collaboration and scientific discovery and supports the fundamental scientific requirement of allowing others to confirm or challenge research results; and as a public research funder we should work to remove barriers to research results and the underlying data that informs it.
IDRC’s Open Data Statement of Principles provides the rationale for encouraging grantees to better manage their research data and, where possible and feasible, make it openly available. To support good research data management, IDRC will require successful applicants to complete and submit a Stage 2 Data Management Plan.
Timeline and communication of results
Call launch: June 18, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. EDT
Deadline for submitting proposals; receipt of proposals acknowledged: August 7, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. EDT
Selection of Implementation Research Teams (IRTs) | Dates |
| A call for proposals is launched for selected countries. | June 18, 2025 |
| Information webinar (click here to join the session). | July 3, 2025 |
| Closing date of the application process. Deadline to submit complete packages of full proposals. | August 7, 2025, by 10:00 a.m. EDT (GMT-5) |
| Notice of Decision. Successful applicants are informed. | September 10, 2025 |
| Successful applicants complete the integration of comments in their final proposals. | September 15-29, 2025 |
| Successful applicants must complete requested Institutional Profile Questionnaire (IPQ) and institutional assessment documentation. | September 29, 2025 |
| If applicable, applicants submit and obtain country clearance | September 30 - October 31, 2025 |
| Grant start date | November 1, 2025 |
Inquiries and FAQs
Following the launch of the call for proposals, IDRC will organize an information session to address any queries from potential applicants. This will take place on July 3, 2025, from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. EDT. Click here to join the session.
Inquiries related to the call and application process should be sent by e-mail to AABLE@idrc.ca.
All inquiries should be received on or before July 31, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. EDT to receive a response prior to the deadline date.
Any inquiries which affect all applicants received on or before the above-mentioned deadline will be added to the FAQs with IDRC’s responses to those inquiries, and without revealing the source of the inquiries.
Permission for use and disclosure of information
As a Canadian Crown corporation, IDRC is subject to Canada’s Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. Consequently, any submissions in response to this call for proposals will be managed by IDRC in a manner consistent with applicable legislation and IDRC’s Privacy Policy, including IDRC's obligations to disclose documents requested by members of the public or requests for personal information. For more information on how IDRC manages information in accordance with this legislation can be accessed here.
As this call is managed through the SurveyMonkey Apply platform, all applicants, as part of the application process through SurveyMonkey Apply, are required to sign IDRC’s Privacy Statement and Terms of Use.
ANNEX A – List of Countries
| Countries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNEX B Guiding Questions to Strengthen Gender Equality and Inclusion (GEI)
The glossary of terms can be found on IDRC’s web site here. Below are some guiding questions to strengthen how GEI considerations are addressed within proposals.
Guiding Questions to Strengthen GEI Considerations in Proposals
The questions below are intended to guide you in reflecting how your research addresses social and gender equality and inclusion, and how you can strengthen these dimensions in your proposal.
Does your proposal intend to understand and address social and gender inequalities and their underlying causes?
In the context of your proposal, what are the power structures and power dynamics that exist between men and women, and other groups which underpin gender inequality? What are some possible avenues to address and change these conditions?
In the context of your research problem, how is this affected by identities or experiences such as race, ethnicity, socio-economic class, income levels and where individuals live (e.g., rural, urban settings)?
Is there a logical theory of change of how your research objectives will promote or lead to greater gender equality and/or inclusion? What impact will your research proposal have on these aspects?
Do you have a stand-alone objective on addressing gender equality and inclusion? How are other objectives framed in relation to addressing gender equality and inclusion?
How will the proposed conceptual framework(s), research design, and related research methods address and analyze the root causes and context-specific factors contributing to intersectional forms of gender inequality? Which individuals and groups should be engaged in co-creating this research design and its implementation – to what extent and how will they be engaged?
Has your project identified clear outcomes and indicators with respect to gender equality and inclusion? Are these integrated into project measurement tools? For example, do you plan to collect and analyze sex-disaggregated data? What about gender-disaggregated data? Have you planned to undertake a pre- and post-project gender analysis?
Does the proposal’s knowledge-translation plan integrate sex and gender considerations (including intersectionality) in how the iterative processes of engagement, analysis, synthesis, product development and knowledge facilitation are designed and operationalized?
Do the members of your research team understand contextual gender equality and inclusion issues? Do you have the right skills and experience in your team? Which of your team members will take the lead in designing, implementing, monitoring and assessing your project’s objectives to address gender inequality and inclusion?
Does your research team have a good balance between male and female scientists or scientists of other identities?
Have you clearly budgeted for gender equality and inclusion activities and staffing? Have you allocated sufficient time and resources to strengthen the capacity of your team, partners and other stakeholders on gender and inclusion issues?
Please note that these are some myths or assumptions that will be important to avoid in your proposal:
Assuming that women, or certain groups, do a task so that they will benefit is not adequate.
Instead, it will be important for your project to identify any gender inequalities and outline steps by which your research will help re-define power dynamics.
Adding “especially women and marginalized groups” after each of your objectives is not adequate.
You must be able to define how gender dynamics are present in your research objectives. Research rigour and quality is critical.
The women in your team will not always qualify as the gender expert. Get real gender expertise and partnerships that bring in the necessary skills.
Equally, addressing gender in the project is not only the responsibility of these gender experts – rather the entire team must understand the gender dynamics at play in your research.
Addressing gender takes resources. Saying gender cannot be integrated because you do not have sufficient resources is not acceptable. Budget resources for gender at the outset.
ANNEX C – Institutional Assessment Documentation
Successful applicants will be required to provide the following documents to allow IDRC to undertake an institutional assessment prior to confirmation of funding:
Policy and procedures manual (if available)
Up-to-date organization chart
Latest annual report
List of active external donors and their current contributions
Finance and administration policies and procedures (most importantly, procurement, travel, accounts payable and financial reporting and monitoring)
Proof of registration to a Social Security Scheme and/or a summary of Human Resources policies (if applicable)
Most recent audited financial statements*, including but not limited to:
Statement of financial position (also known as Balance Sheet);
Statement of comprehensive income (also known as Statement of operations, Statement of income and expenses, or Statement of profit and loss);
Notes to the financial statements.
Auditor's report; and
Auditor's management letter
* If more recent audited financial statements are not available, the institution must provide the latest financial statements duly authorized by a financial officer of the organization.
[1] Implementation research seeks to understand how and why (and which, when, where and for whom) interventions ‘work’ in the real world – and to test approaches to improve them (Peters et al., 2013). Please consult the TDR Implementation Research Toolkit to gain a deeper understanding of implementation research.
[2] There are many definitions for knowledge translation, but we refer broadly to the processes of moving research-generated evidence into action (through, for example, policy change, improved practice, product development, behavioural change, etc.) with a view to having a positive impact on addressing development challenges.
[3] In the context of IDRC’s private sector engagement strategy, private sector actors are defined as organisations that engage in profit-seeking activities and have a majority private ownership (i.e., not owned or operated by a government). This term includes financial institutions and intermediaries, multinational companies, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), social or community enterprises, small and growing businesses (SGBs), co-operatives, individual entrepreneurs, salaried employees and producers who operate in the formal and informal sectors. It excludes actors with a non-profit focus, such as private foundations and civil society organisations.
[i] Sub-Saharan Africa's youth population offers ‘enormous potential’ | Global development | The Guardian
[ii] Adolescent sexual and reproductive health in sub-Saharan Africa: who is left behind? - PubMed
[iii] Maharaj NR. Adolescent pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa - a cause for concern. Front Reprod Health. 2022 Dec 2;4:984303. doi: 10.3389/frph.2022.984303. PMID: 36531444; PMCID: PMC9755883.
[iv] UNICEF. Adolescent HIV prevention. Available at: Advancing Adolescent- and Gender-Responsive Health Systems in Kenya | Save the Children’s Resource Centre
[v] Singh NS, Ataullahjan A, Ndiaye K, Das JK, Wise PH, Altare C, et al. Delivering health interventions to women, children, and adolescents in conflict settings: what have we learned from ten country case studies? The Lancet. 2021;397(10273):533-42.
[vi] Wealth-related inequalities in demand for family planning satisfied among married and unmarried adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa | Reproductive Health | Full Text
[vii] ADOLESCENT ENGAGEMENT ON SEXUAL REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH REPORT FINAL
[viii] Woog V and Kågesten A, The Sexual and Reproductive Health Needs of Very Young Adolescents Aged 10–14 in Developing Countries: What Does the Evidence Show? New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2017, https://www.guttmacher.org/report/srh-needs-very-young-adolescents-in-developing-countries.
[xi] Malhotra A, Amin A, Nanda P. Catalyzing Gender Norm Change for Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health: Investing in Interventions for Structural Change. J Adolesc Health. 2019 Apr;64(4S):S13-S15. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.01.013. Epub 2019 Mar 20. PMID: 30914163; PMCID: PMC6426763.
[x] Chinyere Ojiugo Mbachu, Ifunanya Clara Agu, Obinna Onwujekwe, Collaborating to co-produce strategies for delivering adolescent sexual and reproductive health interventions: processes and experiences from an implementation research project in Nigeria, Health Policy and Planning, Volume 35, Issue Supplement_2, November 2020, Pages ii84–ii97, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa130
[xi] What Does It Take to Make the Needs of Adolescents and Young People Visible Through Collecting Health Information in Togo? - Journal of Adolescent Health
[xii] Advancing Adolescent- and Gender-Responsive Health Systems in Kenya | Save the Children’s Resource Centre
[xiii] Advancing Adolescent- and Gender-Responsive Health Systems in Kenya | Save the Children’s Resource Centre
[xiv] Wealth-related inequalities in demand for family planning satisfied among married and unmarried adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa | Reproductive Health | Full Text
[xv] Frontiers | “We have nice policies but…”: implementation gaps in the Ghana adolescent health service policy and strategy (2016–2020)
[xvi] Multi-sectoral action in non-communicable disease prevention policy development in five African countries | BMC Public Health | Full Text
[xvii] What Does It Take to Make the Needs of Adolescents and Young People Visible Through Collecting Health Information in Togo? - Journal of Adolescent Health
[xviii] Bastien, S., Ferenchick, E., Mbassi, S. M., Plesons, M., & Chandra-Mouli, V. (2022). Improving health worker motivation and performance to deliver adolescent sexual and reproductive health services in the Democratic Republic of Congo: study design of implementation research to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a package of interventions. Global Health Action, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2021.2022280.