Global CFP Project Fit

Transgender generally refers to a diverse group of people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. It may also be used as an umbrella term that includes those whose gender identity does not conform to a male/female binary (i.e., nonbinary). We recognize that the most appropriate and respectful ways to describe the transgender community may change over time and vary among groups, and our intention is to be as inclusive and respectful as possible in recognition of the complex and intimate nature of one’s gender identity and expression. Applicants are encouraged to use the terms that they consider most appropriate, even if they differ from those used in the CFP.

Transgender people face similar health and social concerns as the cisgender population and are at higher risk for additional mental and physical health problems, due to a higher burden of discrimination or violence. The World Health Organization provides more information about health concerns of special relevance to the transgender population.

The focus of this CFP is to identify approaches that improve gender equity by changing norms, expectations, and practices that are harmful due to gender or sexual identity, gender expression, or other gender-related factors. As such, women and girls are primary beneficiaries of approaches to change these conditions, but there are other people who also stand to benefit, such as those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ), which includes men and boys. We are open to approaches that demonstrate benefits to any groups who are disproportionately harmed by gendered social norms and practices.

Yes. Determinants of health and root causes of gender inequities in the U.S. may differ from those in other countries, and interventions that are not relevant in the U.S. context will not be considered. Also, in contrast to many other countries, the U.S. lacks a universal system of health care access and coverage. Therefore, interventions that rely on such a universal platform of care for delivery of services are less relevant, due to limited transferability.

At the same time, the U.S. population is large and diverse and we anticipate that there may be solutions or approaches from various places in the world that could have implications for specific U.S. regions, contexts, or sub-groups, even if the countries differ in other ways. Therefore, we encourage applicants to consider the local conditions, assumptions, and mechanisms that contribute to the effectiveness of an approach in the home setting and to describe how these could feasibly transfer to or be adapted for a certain U.S. region, context, or sub-group.

The types of projects that are a good fit are those that (1) describe an initiative or approach in another country that shows evidence of effectiveness in improving gender equity and health or determinants of health and (2) demonstrate the potential of the approach to be adapted to and/or implemented in the United States. Projects that could accomplish both of these objectives include policy analyses, comparative case studies, scoping studies, feasibility studies, and other types of implementation research that focus on the key attributes and assumptions of a given intervention and the theoretical or empirical basis for its adaptation to a U.S. setting.

Gender is an important determinant of health and without achieving gender equity, we cannot hope to achieve health equity. Gender inequality and restrictive gender norms impact health in many ways, influencing how people access health services and how health systems respond to people's needs. The intersection of gender with race, sexual orientation, economic status, and many other factors further impacts the ability to realize good health.

We feel there is much to learn from the world in terms of how other countries and cultures conceptualize and frame gender equity. This may include how countries define or describe gender equity (e.g., in terms of "gender equality," "women's equality," "women's empowerment,” etc.), how they measure gender equity and determine when it has actually been achieved, and even the very meaning of gender itself, beyond the male/female binary. We are interested in how concepts such as these may be operationalized to foster a culture of inclusion and fairness for everyone.

The initiative or approach itself does not necessarily need to be novel or new in the home country setting, but we are interested in innovative or unique ways in which these approaches may be adapted or implemented in the U.S.

No, the study design should be the one that is most appropriate to answer the research question(s) and correspond to the appropriate stage of adaptation that is being investigated. Studies may use qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approaches.

For an intervention or approach to be considered effective, there should be findings from previous research that was able to attribute health or gender equity outcomes to the intervention. These studies may have been qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods and should have included valid and reliable measures, high quality data, and appropriate analyses. We also highly value findings from natural experiments that have taken advantage of changes in large-scale programs, policies, and practices to establish causal evidence of effects.

Because this CFP is focused on generating knowledge about translation and adaptation of interventions, we will not provide funds for program implementation, operations, or delivery of services. Other projects that are not a good fit for this CFP include research on: interventions with no evidence of effectiveness in the home country context; interventions that cannot be adapted to the U.S.; drug therapy or device research; and animal or plant science. Further, while we are interested in implementation science broadly, projects that focus exclusively on the integration of findings into practices or settings outside the U.S. are not a good fit.

Yes. This CFP was issued with the explicit intent of learning from successful approaches outside the U.S. to help address gender equity issues in the U.S.  

No, the examples provided in the CFP are only to illustrate the types of interventions and projects that may be a good fit. Applicants are in no way limited by these examples. Approaches that are not listed will also be considered, as long as they aim to address root causes of inequities, such as systems or structural barriers, as opposed to focusing on individual behavior modification in the absence of large systems changes.