Watch our info session held on 26 February. Another info session will be held. Check back for updates.

1. Proposal

• • Key Elements: Does the executive proposal clearly define how the proposal addresses one of the three aims: scale-up, adapt, or sustain evidence-based HIV interventions for adolescents and young adults (AYA) in community-based settings?
  • Knowledge Gap: Does it identify a specific gap in existing HIV interventions and explain why addressing it is critical for AYA populations?
  • Focus on Community Impact: Are the proposed interventions practical and impactful in community-based settings?
  • Clarity of Aim: Does the summary specify which aim was selected (scale-up, adapt, or sustain) and align the methods with this aim?
  • Impact: Does the proposal articulate how it will improve public health outcomes for AYA, particularly in underserved or high-need areas?

2. Significance 

• • Relevance to AYA: Does the proposal demonstrate the importance of scaling, adapting, or sustaining interventions to address the unique challenges faced by AYA in managing HIV?
  • Potential Reach: Will the proposed intervention benefit a significant population or community?
  • Cultural and Social Relevance: Does the proposal account for cultural, social, and contextual factors in implementing the intervention?

3. Innovation 

• • Originality: Does the proposal introduce novel methods, approaches, or perspectives to scaling, adapting, or sustaining evidence-based HIV interventions?
  • Advancing the Field: Does it propose innovative solutions that push forward the state of HIV intervention science?
  • Integration of Technology or New Ideas: Does the submission incorporate new technologies, tools, or strategies to enhance intervention effectiveness?

4. Feasibility and Rigor 

• • Achievability: Are the proposed methods feasible within the constraints of the $2,000 budget and the designated time frame?
  • Scientific Rigor: Are the methods practical and supported by dissemination and implementation science principles?
  • Scalability and Sustainability: Does the proposal demonstrate potential for scalability or sustainability in community-based settings?
  • Real-World Application: Does it provide a plan for how the intervention could translate into real-world settings, particularly for underserved AYA populations?

5. Team 

• • Expertise and Roles: Does the team provide clear details about their roles, expertise, and relevance to the proposal?
  • Team Goals: Are the team’s professional goals aligned with the Designathon, and do they demonstrate how participating in this initiative will further their development?
  • Capacity: Does the team have the skills and experience needed to complete the proposed intervention?

6. Communication Clarity 

• • Engagement: Does the submission effectively explain why the team chose to participate in the open call?
  • Presentation Quality: Is the proposal well-written, logical, and easy to understand?
  • Alignment: Does the proposal clearly connect the team’s goals, professional development aspirations, and the intervention aims (scale-up, adapt, or sustain)?

7. Budget Justification (up to $2,000)

• • Appropriateness: Is the budget justification clear and reasonable?
  • Alignment: Are the requested funds aligned with the proposed intervention’s objectives?
  • Feasibility: Does the budget reflect a practical plan for achieving the 
  • intervention’s aim?

Total Scoring: Each section will be scored independently, and the total weighted score will determine the proposal’s ranking.

• Anonymous Evaluation: All submissions will be reviewed anonymously.
• AI Content Limit: Submissions must contain less than 10% AI-generated content.
• Usage Rights: By submitting, you grant us permission to use all or parts of your submission and photos for program-related purposes, including publications, promotional materials, social media, and other platforms.