Search

Abstract Background In 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collaborated with implementing partners, African Field Epidemiology Network and Sydani Group, to support COVID-19 vaccination efforts in Nigeria. To characterize the costs of COVID-19 vaccination, this study evaluated financial costs per dose for activities implemented to support the intensification campaign for COVID-19 vaccination. Methods This retrospective evaluation collected secondary data from existing expenditure and programmatic records on resource utilization to roll out COVID-19 vaccination during 2022. The study included incremental financial costs of the activities implemented to support an intensification campaign for COVID-19 vaccination across nine states and six administrative levels in Nigeria from the perspective of the external donor (U.S. Government). Costs for vaccines and injection supplies, transport of vaccines, and any economic costs, including government in-kind contributions, were not included. All costs were converted from Nigerian Naira to 2022 U.S. Dollars (US$). Results The estimated financial delivery cost of the COVID-19 vaccination intensification campaign was US$0.84 per dose (total expenditure of US$6.29 million to administer 7,461,971 doses). Most of the financial resources were used for fieldwork activities (86%), followed by monitoring and supervision activities (8%), coordination activities (5%), and training-related activities (1%). Labor (58%) and travel (37%) were the resource inputs that accounted for the majority of the cost, while shares of other resource inputs were marginal (1% for each). Most labor costs (79%) were spent on payments for mass vaccination campaign teams, including pay-for-performance incentives. By administrative level, the largest share of costs (46%) was for pay-for-performance incentives at the community, health facility, or campus levels combined, followed by local government area level (24%), community level only (15%), state level (9%), national level (3%), campus level only (1%), and health facility level only (

Abstract Background The Malaria Frontline Project (MFP) supported the National Malaria Elimination Program for effective program implementation in the high malaria-burden states of Kano and Zamfara adapting the National Stop Transmission of Polio (NSTOP) program elimination strategies. Project implementation The MFP was implemented in 34 LGAs in the two states (20 out of 44 in Kano and all 14 in Zamfara). MFP developed training materials and job aids tailored to expected service delivery for primary and district health facilities and strengthened supportive supervision. Pre- and post-implementation assessments of intervention impacts were conducted in both states. Results A total of 158 (Kano:83; Zamfara:75) and 180 (Kano:100; Zamfara:80) healthcare workers (HCWs), were interviewed for pre-and post-implementation assessments, respectively. The proportions of HCWs with correct knowledge on diagnostic criteria were Kano: 97.5% to 92.0% and Zamfara: 94.7% to 98.8%; and knowledge of recommended first line treatment of uncomplicated malaria were Kano: 68.7% to 76.0% and Zamfara: 69.3% to 65.0%. The proportion of HCWs who adhered to national guidelines for malaria diagnosis and treatment increased in both states (Kano: 36.1% to 73.0%; Zamfara: 39.2% to 67.5%) and HCW knowledge to confirm malaria diagnosis slightly decreased in Kano State but increased in Zamfara State (Kano: 97.5% to 92.0%; Zamfara: 94.8% to 98.8%). HCWs knowledge of correct IPTp drug increased in both states (Kano: 81.9% to 94.0%; Zamfara: 85.3% to 97.5%). Conclusion MFP was successfully implemented using tailored training materials, job aids, supportive supervision, and data use. The project strategy can likely be adapted to improve the effectiveness of malaria program implementation in other Nigerian states, and other malaria endemic countries.

Nigeria is estimated to have the largest number of children worldwide, living with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, the leading cause of liver cancer. Up to 90% of children infected at birth develop chronic HBV infection. A birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine (HepB-BD) followed by at least two additional vaccine doses is recommended for prevention. This study assessed barriers and facilitators of HepB-BD administration and uptake, using structured interviews with healthcare providers and pregnant women in Adamawa and Enugu States, Nigeria. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Sciences Research (CFIR) guided data collection and analysis. We interviewed 87 key informants (40 healthcare providers and 47 pregnant women) and created a codebook for data analysis. Codes were developed by reviewing the literature and reading a subsample of queries line-by-line. The overarching themes identified as barriers among healthcare providers were: the lack of hepatitis B knowledge, limited availability of HepB-BD to vaccination days only, misconceptions about HepB-BD vaccination, challenges in health facility staffing capacity, costs associated with vaccine transportation, and concerns related to vaccine wastage. Facilitators of timely HepB-BD vaccination included: vaccine availability, storage, and hospital births occurring during immunization days. Overarching themes identified as barriers among pregnant women were lack of hepatitis B knowledge, limited understanding of HepB-BD importance, and limited access to vaccines for births occurring outside of a health facility. Facilitators were high vaccine acceptance and willingness for their infants to receive HepB-BD if recommended by providers. Findings indicate the need for enhanced HepB-BD vaccination training for HCWs, educating pregnant women on HBV and the importance of timely HepB-BD, updating policies to enable HepB-BD administration within 24 hours of birth, expanding HepB-BD availability in public and private hospital maternity wards for all facility births, and outreach activities to reach home births.

Abstract Background In 2013, the Nigeria Federal Ministry of Health established a Master Health Facility List (MHFL) as recommended by WHO. Since then, some health facilities (HFs) have ceased functioning and new facilities were established. We updated the MHFL and assessed service delivery parameters in the Malaria Frontline Project implementing areas in Kano and Zamfara States. Methods We assessed all HFs in each of the 34 project local government areas (LGAs) between July and September 2017. Project staff administered a semi-structured questionnaire developed for this assessment to heads of HFs about the type of facility, category and number of staff working at the facility and to record geo-coordinates of facility. Results In the Kano State project area, 726 HFs were identified and geo-located: 31 were new facilities, 608 (84%), 116 (16%) and two (0.3%) were Primary Health Care (PHC), secondary and tertiary facilities respectively. Using the national definition, there were 710 (98%) functional facilities and 644 (91%) of these reported to the national health information platform, District Health Information System, version 2 (DHIS2). The Zamfara project area had 739 HFs: eight were new, 715 (97%), 22 (3.0%) and two (0.2%) PHCs, secondary and tertiary facilities respectively. There were 695 (94%) functional facilities with 656 (94%) of these reporting to DHIS2. Using national criteria for primary health care designation, only 95 (9%) of all PHCs in the two States met the minimum human resource requirements. Conclusion Most HFs were functional and reported to DHIS2. A comprehensive MHFL having all the important parameters that should be established and updated regularly by authorities to make it more useful for health services administration and management. Most functional facilities are understaffed.