World Health Organization (WHO) 2025 Global Health Grants — Apply for Fully Funded Research Support

Introduction

Global health research isn’t only for expensive labs or elite institutions. WHO funding—through mechanisms such as TDR (the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases), AHPSR (the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research) and WHO-managed calls—aims to place money where it will change policy and practice. In 2025 WHO has rolled out several targeted calls (implementation research, leadership fellowships, knowledge-translation grants, and regional impact grants) that explicitly encourage applications from low- and middle-income countries and from researchers who plan to return evidence to policy-makers and communities.

This guide translates that reality into a practical plan: where to look, how to prepare, what reviewers want, and how to avoid avoidable errors that undermine otherwise-strong proposals.

Overview of the topic

WHO’s grant ecosystem is distributed across specialized programmes and thematic hubs. Three important pieces to understand:

TDR (Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases) — TDR funds implementation research, fellowships, and institutional capacity building for infectious diseases of poverty and related system challenges. It runs recurring Impact Grants and leadership fellowships geared toward researchers in LMICs.
Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (AHPSR) — AHPSR issues calls targeting real-world policy and systems problems (e.g., strengthening primary care, health financing, knowledge translation). These calls are designed to reach in-country institutions and to inform decision-makers directly.
WHO-managed or WHO-partnered calls — WHO issues thematic research calls (for example, on knowledge translation or implementation research aligned with WHO’s global research agendas). In 2025 there were specific calls such as CA25-0028 (Knowledge Translation implementation call) and CA25-0029 (TDR Clinical Research Leadership fellowship programme). These announcements are time-bound; check call specifics and deadlines.

Collectively these funding routes support a range of activities: short implementation projects, fellowships, capacity-strengthening, and multi-year research that feeds WHO technical guidance.

Why World Health Organization (WHO) 2025 Global Health Grants matter

Policy reach & influence: WHO-backed studies are read by ministries, guideline committees, and donor agencies. An answer to a practical question (which malaria rapid-test algorithm works best in remote clinics?) can lead to national guideline shifts. WHO grants are designed for decisions, not only academic publications.
Designed for LMIC contexts: Many WHO grants target researchers working where the health challenges are greatest: Africa, parts of Asia, and the Middle East. Calls often prioritize capacity building and institutional partnerships that amplify the grant’s long-term effects.
Practical, rapid-cycle research: TDR Impact Grants and similar schemes fund implementation research with clear, short timelines and direct policy uptake plans—perfect for teams that want results in 6–18 months.
Equity and access: WHO funding aims to lower the barriers for applicants who lack large institutional overheads. Many calls explicitly encourage or require proposals led by LMIC institutions.

In short: WHO grants are high-value for applied research that speaks to policy-makers and implementers.

Key Importance — who should care

Early career researchers and graduate students seeking funding to pilot implementation studies or data-driven policy analyses. WHO seed/impact grants are often a good fit.
University lecturers and researchers (educators) aiming to build institutional capacity or translate classroom knowledge to real-world health system solutions. WHO fellowships and small grants can support lab upgrades, training workshops and collaborative pilots.
Parents and families of prospective applicants — WHO project timelines can be short, funding often covers project costs (and sometimes modest fellow stipends), and many programs encourage part-time or in-country work that reduces lengthy separation.
NGOs and local health departments who partner with academic teams—WHO funding frequently expects institutional partnerships and a pathway for research uptake.

Key Insights (what’s new in 2025)

Fresh calls in 2025 emphasized knowledge translation and clinical leadership: 2025 WHO calls show a push toward bridging “evidence-to-policy” gaps and building leadership in clinical research across LMICs, reflected in calls such as CA25-0028 and CA25-0029. If your work links to policy uptake or clinical capacity, these calls are a strong fit.
Implementation research is prioritized: Calls now prefer proposals that embed implementation outcomes (feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, scalability) and present measurable indicators for impact. Short, actionable pilots with strong stakeholder engagement score highly.
Funding windows are time-sensitive: Many 2025 calls included clear closing dates (e.g., July or September 2025 for some calls). Track deadlines closely and don’t assume rolling submissions—these are planned calls with tight windows.
Capacity building is as important as the research idea: WHO frequently funds projects that explicitly strengthen local systems (training, mentorship, SOPs) alongside the research. Grants that build institutional skill — not just answer a research question — tend to do better.

Benefits — what WHO grants commonly provide

WHO funding packages vary by call, but typical components include:

Direct project funding for fieldwork, data collection, analysis and local dissemination (budget lines for personnel, transport, consumables).
Small stipends or fellowships for named investigators when specified (TDR leadership fellowships, clinical research fellowships).
Capacity strengthening: training workshops, mentoring, and sometimes support for institutional systems (e.g., data management, IRB strengthening).
Policy engagement: WHO-supported projects often include structured knowledge-translation deliverables (policy briefs, stakeholder workshops, short technical notes).

What WHO doesn’t usually fund: large capital infrastructure (major building projects), long-term salaries for established faculty (unless part of a fellowship), and high-value commercial product development (unless part of a public-good programm). Always read the call’s “what we fund / what we don’t fund” page.

Quick comparison table — WHO funding routes you’ll meet in 2025

WHO funding route	Typical focus	Typical applicant	Duration / Size (typical)	Key strength
TDR Impact Grants / small grants	Implementation research for infectious & epidemic-prone diseases; capacity building	LMIC researchers / institutions	Short (6–18 months); modest budgets to cover fieldwork & training.	Rapid policy-relevant outputs; strong LMIC focus.
AHPSR calls	Health policy & systems research; evidence-to-policy projects	Institutions in LMICs; policy-focused teams	Variable; projects aim for policy uptake (6–24 months typical).	Direct link to policy-making; emphasizes systems solutions.
WHO thematic calls (e.g., CA25-0028)	Knowledge translation, clinical leadership, program-specific priorities	Multi-country consortia or single institutions aligned with WHO agendas	Time-limited calls; see each solicitation for budgets and deadlines.	Strong linkage to WHO global research agenda and technical units.

(Use this to decide which route matches your timeline and institutional capacity.)

Real-world examples — how this works in practice

Below are three short, realistic case studies to show how students, educators and parents can approach WHO grants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

1. International student (Nigeria) — Rapid implementation pilot on community neonatal referral

Scenario: A Master’s student working with a local NGO wants to test a referral linkage using community health workers (CHWs) and mobile messaging to increase neonatal clinic attendance.

Why WHO funding fits: TDR small/impact grants and AHPSR calls often support small-scale implementation projects with direct policy relevance. The student partners with a university team (supervisor as PI) and proposes a 9-month pilot to measure acceptability, referral completion, and cost-per-referred baby. The student writes the protocol and the NGO provides field logistics; the university provides IRB oversight.

Outcome: A funded pilot produces a brief for the local ministry of health and a preprint of early results. The ministry adopts a scaled version for one district.

Lesson: Students rarely apply alone—partner with a supervisory PI and an implementing NGO, show strong stakeholder buy-in, and focus on short, measurable outcomes.

2. Educator (Egypt) — Strengthening antimicrobial stewardship in district hospitals

Scenario: A lecturer with prior DOH relationships wants to implement a stewardship programme and measure impact on antibiotic prescribing.

Why WHO funding fits: AHPSR or a WHO regional implementation research call can fund system-level work that includes training, audit cycles, and policy engagement.

Approach: The educator leads a multi-hospital intervention (training + audit + local guidelines) and includes a capacity building component: training nurses and pharmacists to run stewardship audits.

Outcome: After the funded project, participating hospitals adopt stewardship protocols; the ministry uses the findings to update regional prescribing guidance.

Lesson: Frame the proposal as systems change + measurable outcomes; include a clear plan for training and institutional uptake.

3. Parent’s perspective (Jordan) — A child-health NGO staffer applying via employer

Scenario: Leila’s daughter works for a community-based NGO and wants to pilot a maternal-education intervention but fears long absences.

Why WHO funding fits: Short WHO grants and fellowships can fund local pilots of 6–12 months that allow staff to remain in-country and continue family responsibilities.

Approach: The NGO endorses the staffer and commits to local supervision; the proposal emphasizes short training sessions, local data collection, and community mobilization.

Outcome: The staffer receives a small impact grant; the NGO scales the intervention, and the staffer’s career gains visibility without a prolonged study leave.

Lesson: WHO grants often fund in-country projects that are family-friendly and action-oriented: highlight practicality and institutional support.

How WHO grant reviewers think (what they look for)

When reviewers read your proposal, they want to see:

Clear problem + policy relevance: What exactly is the decision the evidence will inform? Be explicit: “this study will answer whether X improves uptake of Y among Z population.”
Feasible methods & timeline: For short grants, reviewers check whether your design, sample size and analysis fit the budget and time. Over-ambitious designs fail.
Stakeholder engagement & uptake plan: Who are the decision-makers? How will you share findings—policy brief, stakeholder workshop, or guideline submission? WHO calls often ask for an explicit knowledge-translation plan.
Local leadership & institutional capacity: Grants prioritize LMIC-led proposals and institutions capable of managing funds and research ethics. Letters of support from local ministries or health authorities strengthen applications.
Reasonable budget & value for money: Use clearly itemized budgets; explain cost drivers and justify each expenditure.

Step-by-step application plan (do this — week by week)

Below is a practical plan you can follow in a 10-week preparation window for a typical WHO call.

Weeks 1–2 — Clarify fit & get buy-in

Read the full WHO call text carefully. Note eligibility, themes, and required deliverables. (Calls such as CA25-0028 had explicit guidance documents and submission portals.)
Confirm institutional eligibility and PI capacity. Secure a support letter from your university/NGO and a short endorsement from relevant ministry officials.

Weeks 3–4 — Draft concept & stakeholder plan

Produce a 1-page concept: background, question, methods (brief), sample, timeline, budget outline, and uptake plan.
Share the concept with stakeholders (ministry contact, community partner) and revise per feedback.

Weeks 5–6 — Full proposal development

Write the full proposal following the call template: background, objectives, methods, timeline, team CVs, ethical considerations, and a clear budget. Use the call’s review criteria as your checklist.

Weeks 7–8 — Budgets & approvals

Create a realistic budget with justifications. Get institutional signatures and letter(s) of support (ministry, hospital director, NGO head).
Draft data-management, ethical, and dissemination plans.

Week 9 — Pre-review & edits

Ask a peer to review the application and provide specific edits. Confirm that deliverables align with the call requirements.

Week 10 — Submission

Submit via the official WHO submission portal or the route specified in the call (some WHO calls use dedicated portals with deadlines). Confirm your submission receipt and keep copies of all forms.

Budget tips (make reviewers love your budget)

Be realistic and parsimonious. WHO grants favor projects that can be completed for modest sums with clear justifications.
Itemize everything. List personnel time (number of months * salary fraction), data collection costs, travel, consumables and a small admin/overhead if allowed.
Don’t inflate per diems. Use local reasonable rates.
Include knowledge translation costs (policy brief printing, stakeholder workshops) — reviewers expect them.

Your Statement of Purpose — Short template (for WHO grant applications)

Use this tight, 300–400 word template for the narrative/cover statement many WHO proposals require.

I am [Name], a [role; e.g., research officer / lecturer] at [Institution] in [Country]. Over the past [X] years I have worked on [topic; e.g., maternal health or malaria surveillance], including [concrete outputs or projects, e.g., “a district-level maternal referral evaluation in 2023 that improved referral completion by 18%”].

This proposal addresses the policy question: [exact question, e.g., “Can targeted CHW-led SMS reminders increase neonatal clinic attendance in peri-urban Lagos?”]. We will implement a [design: stepped-wedge / clustered RCT / pre-post] across [number] sites over [months], measuring feasibility, coverage, and cost per recovered referral.

Our team is led by [PI] (CV attached) with implementation support from [NGO/Ministry] (letter attached). The project includes a structured knowledge translation plan (policy brief, 2 stakeholder workshops, and a district-level training package) to ensure uptake within six months of completion. We request [amount] to cover personnel, fieldwork, data analysis, and dissemination. We commit to disseminating results openly and to supporting local scale-up if outcomes are positive.

Thank you for considering this application. We are ready to begin immediately upon grant award.

Common mistakes — and how to avoid them

Vague policy question — Reviewers want a single, sharply defined decision that your project will inform. Fix: rewrite objectives as decision-oriented questions.
Overly ambitious timelines — Don’t propose a national roll-out in a 6-month pilot grant. Fix: scale down to demonstrable outputs (feasibility, pilot metrics).
No stakeholder letters — Lack of local buy-in kills scores. Fix: get at least one official letter (district health officer, hospital director, NGO head).
Weak budget justification — Blanket numbers without line items raise red flags. Fix: itemize and justify every cost.
Poor ethics plan — Ignoring human subjects protections is fatal. Fix: include IRB plans and data protection steps; explain how consent will be obtained.

FAQs (Concise but useful)

Q1 — Who can apply for WHO/TDR grants?
A: Eligibility varies by call, but many 2025 WHO calls specifically encouraged applications led by researchers or institutions from low- and middle-income countries. Check the call for country eligibility.

Q2 — Are WHO grants large?
A: Most WHO small/impact grants are modest (designed for rapid implementation); sizes vary by call. For larger multi-year programmes, WHO or its partners issue separate funding mechanisms. Always check the specific call guidance.

Q3 — How long until I hear back?
A: WHO calls typically indicate review and notification timelines in the call text; expect 6–12 weeks after the submission deadline for many short calls.

Q4 — Will WHO fund equipment or infrastructure?
A: Usually WHO funds fieldwork and capacity building rather than heavy capital infrastructure. If equipment is essential (e.g., portable lab kits), justify it and show institutional maintenance plans.

Q5 — Can a student apply as PI?
A: Students typically apply as co-investigators with an institutional PI (a lecturer or researcher). WHO grants expect institutional accountability and financial management capacity.

Proposal checklist (final before submission)

Align objectives with the specific WHO call text.
One clear decision question and measurable indicators.
Feasible, time-bound methods and sample plan.
Budget with line items and justification.
Letter(s) of support from local implementing partners / ministry.
Ethics plan and data-management plan.
CVs for PI and co-investigators, and institutional sign-off.

After you win: turning a grant into policy impact

Winning is just step one. To ensure impact:

Deliver high-quality data on time — adhere to pre-registered protocols and transparent reporting.
Engage policy champions early and often — involve ministry staff in steering committees and workshops.
Prepare short, actionable outputs — policy briefs, one-page evidence summaries and local context notes. WHO favours outputs that busy policy-makers can use quickly.
Plan for sustainability — show how the activity can be scaled or how the intervention will be integrated into routine practice.

Closing case: quick road-map for a typical 9-month WHO pilot grant

Month 0 (Award) — Finalize contracts; ethical approvals submitted.
Month 1 — Training & baseline data collection.
Months 2–6 — Intervention rollout & monitoring.
Month 7 — Endline data & analysis.
Month 8 — Policy workshop with stakeholders.
Month 9 — Final report, policy brief and dissemination.

This rapid cycle is typical of WHO/TDR short grants and is intentionally designed to produce actionable evidence for immediate policy consideration.

Conclusion — recap of main points

WHO 2025 grants (TDR, AHPSR and targeted WHO calls) are designed for implementation research, leadership fellowships, and policy-relevant studies that can change practice quickly—especially in LMIC settings. TDR+1
The sweet spot for success is: a sharply defined decision question, realistic methods & timeline, clear stakeholder buy-in, and an explicit knowledge-translation plan. TDR+1
Practical next steps: choose the right WHO call, draft a 1-page concept, secure institutional & ministry buy-in, prepare a line-item budget and submit before the deadline.

Clear call to action

Want help turning your idea into a WHO-ready application? I can do either of the following right now:

Draft your 1-page concept + a 400-word Statement of Purpose for a specific WHO call — paste a 3-sentence description of your idea, your institution, and the intended country.
Review and edit your full proposal (budget, timeline and policy engagement plan) and make it WHO-call compliant — paste your draft and I’ll optimize it for reviewers.

Pick option 1 or 2 and paste the core details — I’ll produce the deliverable in this reply.

Thoughtful close: “Funded research is not about the money — it’s about responsibility: the responsibility to translate evidence into lives saved, services improved, and systems strengthened.”